Re: [textualcriticism] viklund
> 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.
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.
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.
- Hi Folks,
>Why Greek if it was written to Italians? I realize that the vastJames Snapp
>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?
>The reason why Mark would write for Italians in Greek is that theSteven
>Italians, then and there, were speaking and reading and writing in
All of them ? As their first language or second ?
>If you would like to see demonstrations of the extensive verbalSteven
>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.
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:James Snapp
>"Just how would (theoretically) a Latin copy be involved in the loss
>of the longer ending?"
> Theoretically ..- if Mark had written the Gospel of Mark in Latin,someone could have translated an early draft of it into Greek,
And this was the theory of Herman Hoskier, accompanied with extensive
analysis, that Mark was written in either Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect.