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

Re: [textualcriticism] viklund

Expand Messages
  • sarban@supanet.com
    ... Hi Steve IMO Photius comments make clear that the Hypotyposes attributed to Clement was a different work from the Hypotyposes attributed to Theognostus.
    Message 1 of 65 , Jun 20, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > Eusebius doesn't mention a Hypotyposes of Theognostus but only a book of
      > the same title ascribed to Clement. Photius read two Alexandrian texts
      > with the title Hypotyposes and viewed the one which passed under the name
      > of Clement to be spurious while accepting the one ascribed to Theognostus.
      > Then we have the curious detail that Athanasius - that anti-Origenist
      > Church Father - employed a version of Theognostus' Hypotyposes to support
      > his understanding of the relation of the Son and the Father. Athanasius
      > is often identified as putting words into the mouths of individuals and
      > texts to become mouthpieces for his own views (see Brakke's insight on the
      > curious manner in which Antony's 'wishes' for his burial line up with
      > Athanasius' own).
      >
      > The point then is that one can imagine a scenario where Eusebius ascribed
      > the original text of the Hypotyposes to Clement and DELIBERATELY passed
      > over mentioning Theognostus in his Church History in order to save him
      > from the charge of being labeled an Origenist. THEN sometime later a
      > 'purified' version of the same Hypotyposes began to circulate with
      > Athanasius in order to prove that the Orthodox position was current in
      > Alexandria before Nicaea (notice that there seems to have been two
      > versions of Dionysius writings - one in the hands of Arians and another
      > employed by Athanasius). In due course this corrected 'orthodox' text was
      > ascribed to Theognostus (owing to frequent citations of this version of
      > the text by Athanasius). The original 'Origenist' text of the Hypotyposes
      > - the one actually written by Theognostus - was by default ascribed to
      > Clement thanks to Eusebius original misindentification.
      >
      Hi Steve

      IMO Photius' comments make clear that the Hypotyposes attributed to
      Clement was a different work from the Hypotyposes attributed to
      Theognostus. They are not different versions of the same work. One is a
      work of Scriptural Commentary, the other a work of systematic theology.

      IIUC you agree that the Hypotyposes attributed to Clement read by Photius
      is the same as the Hypotyposes attributed to Clement by Eusebius.

      In other posts you mention Photius' doubts as to the authenticity of the
      Hypotyposes attributed to Clement. Photius' doubts appear based on
      doctrinal grounds. Clement (unlike Origen) remained a revered church
      father and Photius was troubled to find what he regarde as serius error in
      Clement's work. There are parallels, such as the claim that the dodgy bits
      in Origen had been interpolated by heretics.

      You question whether the theology in the Hypotyposes is too advanced for
      Clement: see for example <QUOTE>God, then, being not a subject for
      demonstration, cannot be the object of science. But the Son is wisdom, and
      knowledge, and truth, and all else that has affinity thereto. He is also
      susceptible of demonstration and of description. And all the powers of the
      Spirit, becoming collectively one thing, terminate in the same point-that
      is, in the Son. But He is incapable of being declared, in respect of the
      idea of each one of His powers. And the Son is neither simply one thing as
      one thing, nor many things as parts, but one thing as all things; whence
      also He is all things. For He is the circle of all powers rolled and
      united into one unity.</QUOTE> (from Stromateis book 4 chapter 25)
      This passage also attempts a philosophical description of the relation of
      Father and Son. Such attempts go back as far as Justin Martyr.

      Andrew Criddle

      -----------------------------------------
      Planet Ink Club is a great way to save money and help the environment.
      Join today (http://www.planetinkclub.com)

      This message has been scanned by Supanet for viruses and dangerous content using ClamAV and SpamAssassin.
    • schmuel
      Hi Folks, Jay Rogers ... James Snapp ... Steven All of them ? As their first language or second ? James Snapp ... Steven Since a translation from Latin or a
      Message 65 of 65 , Aug 12 7:13 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Folks,

        Jay Rogers
        >Why Greek if it was written to Italians? I realize that the vast
        >consensus is Greek, but this question seems logical. If one were
        >writing to Latin speakers, and if Mark was indeed the "interpreter"
        >of Peter, who was likely speaking in Aramaic or Greek, why not write
        >in the Italians' own language?

        James Snapp
        >The reason why Mark would write for Italians in Greek is that the
        >Italians, then and there, were speaking and reading and writing in
        >Greek.

        Steven
        All of them ? As their first language or second ?

        James Snapp
        >If you would like to see demonstrations of the extensive verbal
        >affinities (in Greek) between Mark, Matthew, and Luke, consult John
        >Hawkins' "Horae Synopticae," which can be downloaded for free from
        >Google Books or Archive.org.

        Steven
        Since a translation from Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect to Greek
        would likely have been done by someone aware of Mark and Matthew,
        such verbal affinities are expected in all scenarios.

        >Jaay Rogers:
        >"Just how would (theoretically) a Latin copy be involved in the loss
        >of the longer ending?"

        James Snapp
        > Theoretically ..- if Mark had written the Gospel of Mark in Latin,
        someone could have translated an early draft of it into Greek,

        Steven
        And this was the theory of Herman Hoskier, accompanied with extensive
        analysis, that Mark was written in either Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect.

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.