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

Re: [textualcriticism] (unknown)

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    Please learn to read.  You DID NOT SAY that Photius denied the Clementine authorship in the passage you quoted.  What you did state was that the quotation (I
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 20, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Please learn to read.  You DID NOT SAY that Photius denied the Clementine authorship in the passage you quoted.  What you did state was that the quotation (I will say) "attributed" to Clement presented an Alexandrine interpretation of the incarnation when there is nothing in the passage regarding the incarnation.  Perhaps you quoted the wrong passage? 
       
      george
      gfsomsel


      … search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.


      - Jan Hus
      _________



      From: "steve_huller@..." <steve_huller@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:09:24 AM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] (unknown)

      George

      I just demonstrated that Photius denied the Clemenine authorship of the material. That leaves open the question of who wrote the material (unless of course you simply WANT TO BELIEVE that Clement wrote the material in spite of Photius' objections).

      The point was that Theognostus is the most likely candidate if Photius' testimony is ignored.

      Assuming of course we want to find answers instead of simply upholding beliefs that are useful to the current apologists for the existing NT canon ...

      Stephan

      Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


      From: George F Somsel
      Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
      To: <textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com>
      Subject: [textualcriticism] (unknown)


      I'm concerned about your method of "scholarship" (If I may use the term so loosely).  Two works have the same title and are approximately the same length, ergo, they must be the same?  What kind of nonsense is this?  There are many commentaries on various books of the bible which happen to have the same title and happen to be of approximately the same length -- does that mean that they are really the same? Why should the length of a work be the sole decisive factor? 

      You state:
       

      >"Now Clement, writing in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, makes this statement. For he says that Peter and James and John, after the Saviour's ascension, though pre-eminently ?>honoured by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem. [Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Book VI. II. X]
      >
      >
      >Here a very Alexandrian interpretation of the Incarnation is being
      presented - i.e. how the Christ soul chose a new body to house itself after the ascension.  Similarly the Hypotyposes cited >by Eusebius speaks of the mystery of baptism and Peter receiving the some kind of  'enlightenment' or 'spirit' direct from Jesus:"
       
       
      Surely you jest!  What incarnation?  Where do you find it in these words of Clement?  I suggest a remedial reading program.

       george
      gfsomsel

      … search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus
      _________

      .


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.