Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Clement Stromata was Re: [GTh](was ...(was

Expand Messages
  • swallison
    Thanks for this informative and interesting post. I m off out of town for a while. see ya later. Steve Allison ... name his ... mentions the ... Matthew, ...
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for this informative and interesting post. I'm off out of town
      for a while.

      see ya later.

      Steve Allison

      --- In gthomas@y..., DaGoi@a... wrote:
      > In a message dated 10/13/2 5:48:51 AM, Steve Allison wrote:
      > <<--- In gthomas@y..., DaGoi@a... wrote:
      > > <<[Bill Foley]:
      > ....
      > > ..... Clement shows us where many of the
      > logions
      > > come from - ... he more or less tells us the state of
      > >> the material in <<
      > gThom at
      > > the time he writes the Stroms. Then 'suddenly' to our evidence (at
      > least)
      > > three manuscripts show up within only a few years. This is a book
      > Clement
      > > should know, being that it is in Egypt - 3 copies we have from just
      > after
      > > this time and comparatively in his neighborhood - the book should be
      > all
      > > around him if it existed in his time (unless, as I say, he did it
      > himself
      > > shortly after the Stroms) - and he is not shy about quoting where he
      > gets his
      > > stuff.
      > > Maybe he missed it somehow and just was not in that loop, but I
      > think
      > > that is unlikely.
      > [Steve]
      > I just did a search in the Stromata, at Peter Kirby's site, on the
      > name "Mark." I did not find any citation of the gospel of Mark in
      > this long work. I did a search on "Luke." One explicit mention of the
      > gospel of Luke and one specific mention of Acts turned up. Regarding
      > Matthew, only two times does he mention Matthew and then quote or
      > allude to something in canonical Matthew. I've not finished reading
      > the Stromata but I'm sure Clement quoted without citation these works
      > often, many times ascribing it to "the Lord." Given that these well
      > known and much longer works are explicitly cited so infrequently, it
      > is not all that surprising that the gospel of Thomas, if it existed,
      > might not be cited too. I realize that Clement does mention the
      > gospel of Mark in other fragmentary writings and in citations of
      > Clement by others.
      > Steve Allison
      > >>
      > [Bill F]
      > He does throw in a gThom allusion or two now and then and does not
      name his
      > source, but other times when he gives us a gThom allusion he distinctly
      > mentions that it is from another source that is not gThom (he
      mentions the
      > apostle Thomas only once in the Stroms and Fragments, and that with
      > Philip, Thomas, Levi (sic) and many others" - poor Matthew also gets
      > conflated with the Lukan Zaccharias in another place) and gives us
      rather a
      > strong negative evidence then that he does not know gThom.
      > I haven't finished the Stroms either, but look at the way the gThom
      > are mentioned. You might say the big fish in 1.1 would definitely
      be, but he
      > does not mention gthom. Discussing 'Know thyself' in 1.14 he
      mentions a
      > bunch of philosophers and even Strabo - here would be a good place
      to mention
      > gThom; but for more compellingly positive negative evidence, Strom
      > after trying to find the right words himself, he quotes the
      Traditions of
      > Matthew (but gThom has a paraphrase of this (#5) that says the same
      > much better) immediately followed by a gHeb attribution of half of
      #2 which
      > he gives whole unattributed later, and none of the gThom scholars
      claim it's
      > from anywhere but gHeb.
      > gHeb, gEgy, he mentions by name only a couple or three times each,
      > with the Traditions of Matthew twice, and especially the Preaching
      of Peter,
      > which he apparantly thinks is actually from Peter, mentioned 4
      times. The
      > general impression though is that he does not want his reader to be
      in the
      > dark about where he gets things, which is why I think it reasonable to
      > believe he does not know gThom although Alexandria is between Syria and
      > Oxyrhynchus, and knowing that he would find gThom interesting and
      worthy of
      > note.
      > This is also roughly why I doubt his actual involvement in Secret
      Mark; I
      > wouldn't put it past him, sounds like it's right up his alley, but I
      think it
      > would be mentioned here, unless he found it later of course.
      > but he is blatantly in possession of other works with a lot of the
      > material right before our evidence of the existence of gThom begins.
      > why I think he wrote it.
      > I'm not qualified to be a linguist, so I can't attack it from that
      angle, and
      > I don't know any Syriac (that's suppossed to be close to Aramaic?) and
      > haven't got the Perrin book on gThom and the Diatessaron yet - I
      have been
      > trying to read a book on the translation of the LXX into Coptic
      > and Textual Criticism by John R Miles, '85 Chico, Cal) though all
      the coptic
      > I've run across is from Grondin's Interlinear, and my Guillaumont et
      al, and
      > of course I don't understand what I'm reading here - like there's no
      end to
      > books, it seems also there's no end to languages. Mike, what's the
      odds of
      > Perrin's Syriac and Diatessaron theories giving my Clem/gthom
      > theory the heave ho?
      > Then there's Strom 4.13, which on my first reading a couple of days
      ago made
      > me jittery that gThom may be writ by maybe a reformed Valentinian
      after all,
      > but I'll have to re-read that again much more closely.
      > In Strom 3.13 he mentions the "four gospels that have come down to us",
      > differentiating them from gEgy which, as you know, has some gThom
      > This is as good as a mention of each of the canonicals since it is
      > which four he means; 1.21 mentions gLk and gMt, frag of Nicetas
      Catena on Mt
      > obviously specifies gMt, the Comm on 1Pt mentions gMk and the Peter
      > Comm on Jude mentions gMk, and comm on 1Jn mentions gJn. Clement
      > knowledge of these books though, so he would probably be less prone
      to name
      > drop them in the first place, and they are quoted unattested, or
      with merely
      > 'the Gospel', very liberally.
      > I did not look in the Instructor, which he mentions also in the later
      > Stromatas, because all his little rules (granted, interspersed with
      some nice
      > stuff) make me laugh (as does the editors Latin half chapter in
      2.10). (like
      > Paul w his women have to wear a hat when they pray but guys can't -
      > would rule out many foxhole conversions I guess -, women must have
      long hair
      > or be shaved, but guys must have short hair; the Clem rules I've read a
      > couple of times but can't remember offhand any of the funnies, as if
      > salvation is a matter of hats, hair, table manners, and bed clothes,
      and not
      > of grace for sinners and a people who are no people walking in the
      > Hearing Jesus come to the last and minor conclusion "but you can
      eat with unw
      > ashed hands" after dissing the food laws makes me think he'd find
      all of
      > these other odd rules funny too.) The Stromatas, this is a long
      work to get
      > through in itself just on a quick read, to say nothing of the thoughful
      > pondering that this calls for.
      > The Loeb collection doesn't have the Stromatas. Does anyone know
      where I can
      > find them in Greek, preferably with an interesting rap on the
      > well, this is certainly a meandering post :0)
      > may God bless the reader who gets through all of it,
      > Bill Foley
      > Woburn
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.