Re: [Synoptic-L] Clement & Origen on the order of the Synoptics
- In a message dated 8/2/2000 8:50:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< At 07:33 AM 8/1/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
>Yes, but remember, the real issue here is: who is the subject of the verbnot.
>ELEGEN (ELEGON), and is the verb part of the quoted speech of Clement or
>(If not, the text-critical question is also thereby resolved in favor ofWhat do you make of the imperfect here? If the ELEGEN was part of
Eusebius's own speech in reference to Clement, wouldn't an aorist
or perfect be more appropriate here, as Clement has presumably
written this once? If the implication is that the declarant
repeatedly or customarily said, then would not the imperfect be
a fitting tense for Clement's tradition? >>
I'm not sure how far it can be pressed, but this does sound like a reasonable
argument to me. Can an opposite argument be made, though, on the basis of the
plural TOIJ AUTOIJ...BIBLIOIJ ? Is this a real plural here, referring to more
than one work, or not? If it refers to a single work, then it does seem that
an aorist or perfect verb would have been more appropriate if Eusebius
intended Clement as the subject of the verb ELEGEN. As I read the text today,
and in the light of this observation, I am again inclined to agree with your
reading of the text. By the way, I will be away in Los Angeles, probably
without access to a computer, for the next 5 or 6 days.
- Dr. Carlson,
The biggest snag in this auditory piracy model Im flogging was Clements
statement (and who should know better?) that the genealogy gospels were
written before Mk. If, however, your reading of PROGEGRAFQAI is correct,
the problem dissolves.
This reading also brings you into line, independently of anything else, with
the AP model overall:
> It is interesting to me, at least, that Clement's passage exhibitsIn early days that audience was limited, according to Smiths Clement
> the same kind of concerns as Irenaeus and a desire to explain away
> the limited publication of the gospel of Mark (e.g. Mark is just
> Peter's public teaching, etc.). If Mark indeed was only published
> to a limited extent, this could explain why we see so little of
> Mark in the extant manuscripts.
> This would also require some nuancing of Bauckham's "Gospel for all
> Christians" proposal. Matthew and Luke and perhaps John are still
> gospels for all Christians, but Mark may have had a limited audience.
letter, to the advanced Catechumens to whom it was read annually, these
readings providing the only access to the text.