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

Clement of Alexandria and Mark 16:19

Expand Messages
  • voxverax
    In 1881 Hort wrote, regarding Mark 16:9-20, In the extant writings of Clem.al and Origen they are wholly wanting. The essence of this claim has been passed
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 11, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      In 1881 Hort wrote, regarding Mark 16:9-20, "In the extant writings of Clem.al and Origen they are wholly wanting." The essence of this claim has been passed down and has entered various commentaries, including Metzger's Textual Commentary, frequently without Hort's cautious observation that "The evidence from the silence of both these witnesses is of the casual rather than the special kind."

      Now, let's consult P. M. Barnard's 1899 analysis of Clement's quotations of the Gospels and Acts, entitled "Clement of Alexandria's Biblical Text." It can be found online; it is the fifth part of Volume Five of Texts and Studies. (The name of the series' editor, J. Armitage Robinson, might take Barnard's place as the author in some computerized searches.)

      Barnard's essay is prefaced by interesting remarks by F. C. Burkitt; Burkitt begins by making light of a quotation from Burgon's "Revision Revised," apparently unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge, that Burgon's statement that Clement's text was "foul" must stand vindicated by anyone who considers the text of Aleph-B to be pure. Burkitt also profiles P1's text, which had been published only a little while before he wrote this preface (it is "the" Oxyrhynchus papyrus of S. Matthew).

      Clement of Alexandria's quotations from the Gospel of Mark are listed on pp. 30-36. Most of this list consists of cross-references to parallel-passages ("See on Mt ix 2," "See on Lc v 21," "See on Mt ix 6," etc.) rather than actual verifiable quotations of Mark. It is really a wonderful thing to have this resource online, so that anyone can sift through it and see how unsurprising and unsuggestive Clement's non-use of any 12-verse passage outside Mark's tenth chapter must be.

      On p. 36 of Barnard's essay, he provides a reading for Mark 14:62, not in Greek but in Latin. Barnard notes its source as "Adumbr in epist Iudae v. 24." Here it is:

      In euangelio uero secundum Marcum interrogatus dominus a principe sacerdotum, si ipse esset Christus, filius dei benedicti, respondens dixit ; Ego sum, et uidebitis filium hominis a dextris sedentum uirtutis."

      This is paralleled in English in the 1885 ANF series Vol. 2, where statements of Clement preserved in Latin by Cassiodorus are presented. This, too, is available online; the pertinent excerpt is at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html . In the English presentation (which I present here with some slight adjustments) there is more than just the equivalent of the excerpt recorded by Barnard; apparently Barnard did not provide the entire excerpt. In a comment that seems to be intended to shed light on the meaning of the phrase "the presence of his glory" in Jude v. 24, Clement uses Mark 14:62 in an attempt to show that "the presence of his glory" refers to the angels around God's throne:

      "Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if he was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power." But "powers" mean the holy angels. Further, when he says "at the right hand of God," he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand; that is, that he rests in pre-eminent honour."

      When Clement says, "Further, when he says, `at the right hand of God,'" who is the "he"? Does anything in Clement's comment suggest that it is anyone other than Mark? Jesus does not mention the right hand of God at any point after 14:62. Luke 22:69 refers to "the right hand of the power of God," not "at the right hand of God," which are Clement's words.

      If we understand "he" as Mark, then (regardless of whatever slight difficulty may be encountered when we attempt to sort out the pronouns further along in Clement's statement) the phrase "Further, when he says "at the right hand of God,"" looks like a reference to Mark 16:19, where Jesus "sat down at the right hand of God."

      But, without access to Cassiodorus' Latin text, perhaps I'm missing something. Or perhaps I'm unconsciously squinting and there is some obvious reason why this can't be a reference to Mk. 16:19. Can anyone explain why Clement's comment on Jude v. 24 should not be understood as a reference to Mark 16:19?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    • Wieland Willker
      From my reading of the text it should most naturally be understood as he being Jesus. the Lord ... answering, said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of man
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        From my reading of the text it should most naturally be
        understood as "he" being Jesus.

        the Lord ... answering, said, "I am; and ye shall see the
        Son of man sitting at the right hand of power." But
        "powers" mean the holy angels. Further, when he (=Jesus)
        says "at the right hand of God," ...

        But that doesn't answer the question, when Jesus is saying
        it and if the words were in Clements Gospel of Mark.
        I think we all agree that the ending(s) came into existence
        in the 2nd CE already, so there is no big surprise that
        Clement knows it.
        Nevertheless an interesting find!

        Much more interesting (to me) is, how in the world did you
        find this reference???
        Perhaps you could put together the relevant original quotes
        online somewhere?

        Btw., what is your current view on the matter (Mk 16:9-20)?
        In short! :-)


        Best wishes
            Wieland
               <><
        ------------------------------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        mailto:wie@...
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        Textcritical Commentary:
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
      • steve huller
        Wieland: You wrote From my reading of the text it should most naturally be understood as he being Jesus. But the contemporary text of Mark common to
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 11, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Wieland:

          You wrote "From my reading of the text it should most naturally be understood as "he" being Jesus. "  But the contemporary text of Mark common to Irenaeus and Clement must have been ambiguous enough to support an alternative reading:

          also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."  Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein ... (for those) who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. [Irenaeus, AH III.x.5, xi.7]


          Origen in his homilies on Luke identifies that 'Marcion' sat enthroned to the left of Jesus.  Clement's argument (in the citation from James Snapp's text) that 'power' should be read 'powers' or angels seems forced.  The natural understanding is that Jesus is the 'power of God' (Mark 5:30, 9.1, 12:24 etc).


          The Alexandrians themselves have the enthronement of Mark as the beginning of the institution of the Papacy (something that we shall all see gain some prominence when the current Pope Shenouda III passes on in the next few months):


          http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/963/eg7.htm


          Not only is the Papa enthroned in a chair of St. Mark the skull of St. Mark is employed in the enthronement ritual where the new 'shoot of David' (see Ordination rites of the Coptic Church: (text according to Ms. 253 Lit., Coptic Museum) Publications de la Société d'archéologie copte University of Michigan for the ancient rite).


          The Passio Petri Sancti (Latin text) and the existing Coptic liturgy identify St. Mark as the one apostle who was present at the Passion something which only makes sense if Mark included these details in his gospel.  This is also implied in the (fragmentary) testimony of the Muratorian canon 'quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit' and Peter I of Alexandria's testimony that Jesus took 'another form' (i.e. other than his original body) when he showed himself to the disciples after the Resurrection, hence their failure to recognize him in his resurrected state.  (cf Vivian fragments of Peter of Alexandria Appendix)


          Just offering ancient testimonies for an alternative interpretation of the ending of Mark.  


          With love,


          Stephan


          www.stephanhuller.blogspot.com



          From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 9:54:53 AM
          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Clement of Alexandria and Mark 16:19

           

          From my reading of the text it should most naturally be
          understood as "he" being Jesus.

          the Lord ... answering, said, "I am; and ye shall see the
          Son of man sitting at the right hand of power." But
          "powers" mean the holy angels. Further, when he (=Jesus)
          says "at the right hand of God," ...

          But that doesn't answer the question, when Jesus is saying
          it and if the words were in Clements Gospel of Mark.
          I think we all agree that the ending(s) came into existence
          in the 2nd CE already, so there is no big surprise that
          Clement knows it.
          Nevertheless an interesting find!

          Much more interesting (to me) is, how in the world did you
          find this reference???
          Perhaps you could put together the relevant original quotes
          online somewhere?

          Btw., what is your current view on the matter (Mk 16:9-20)?
          In short! :-)

          Best wishes
              Wieland
                 <><
          ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          mailto:wie@uni-bremen. de
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          Textcritical Commentary:
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html


        • Wieland Willker
          ... naturally ... Well, the problem is that in 16:19 it is NOT Jesus, who is saying and sat on the right hand of God . But I still maintain that in the
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 11, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Steve Huller wrote:
            > You wrote "From my reading of the text it should most
            naturally
            > be understood as "he" being Jesus. " But the contemporary

            > text of Mark common to Irenaeus and Clement must have been

            > ambiguous enough to support an alternative reading


            Well, the problem is that in 16:19 it is NOT Jesus, who is
            saying "and sat on the right hand of God".
            But I still maintain that in the Clement text the only
            straightforward reading would be he = Jesus.
            What this means, I don't know. Perhaps the context is
            helpful?


            Best wishes
                Wieland
                   <><
            ------------------------------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            mailto:wie@...
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            Textcritical Commentary:
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
          • voxverax
            Wieland, WW: From my reading of the text it should most naturally be understood as he being Jesus. But how can that be accounted for considering that
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 11, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Wieland,

              WW: "From my reading of the text it should most naturally be understood as "he" being Jesus."

              But how can that be accounted for considering that nowhere in Mark (or Matthew or Luke or John), further on past this trial-scene, does Jesus use the phrase "at the right hand of God"?

              WW: "But that doesn't answer the question, when Jesus is saying it and if the words were in Clements Gospel of Mark. I think we all agree that the ending(s) came into existence in the 2nd CE already, so there is no big surprise that Clement knows it."

              Perhaps it is not altogether astonishing, but since Clement has been consistently used as a witness against Mk. 16:9-20 in many editions of NTG, a reversal of Clement's testimony would be significant. If he was significant enough, when silent, to be listed as a witness for the abrupt ending at 16:8, then he should remain significant if it turns out that he attests to the LE.

              WW: "Much more interesting (to me) is, how in the world did you find this reference???"

              I just checked every use of Mark in the index to Clement in ANF Vol. II, and, later, as I was reading Barnard's essay, I noticed that his quotation of the note on Jude v. 24 in Cassiodorus' fragment was incomplete. Then I reconsulted ANF Vol. II, and it occurred to me that the complete statement of Clement preserved by Cassiodorus about Jude v. 24 might contain a reference to Mk. 16:19.

              WW: "Perhaps you could put together the relevant original quotes
              online somewhere?"

              Besides what was in my previous post, I'll try to dig up the Latin text of Cassiodorus the next time I visit the library. Unless someone else reading this is able to beat me to it. In the meantime, here is another interesting snippet, from p. 573 of ANF Vol. II, where Cassiodorus presents a comment by Clement about First Peter 5:13 --

              "Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar's equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel of Mark. As Luke also may be recognized by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews."

              WW: "What is your current view on the matter (Mk 16:9-20)?"

              Without exploring too many tangents, and without explaining every detail of the evidence, my view can be summed up as follows:

              (a) In the city of Rome in the mid-60's, Mark, using his most recent and fullest collection of Peter's remembrances of Jesus as his main source, began to compose a definitive edition; this was the Gospel of Mark. Reaching EFOBOUNTO GAR in 16:8, Mark intended to write more, but was interrupted (by persecution) and suddenly fled to Alexandria, where he was martyred a short time later in 68.

              (b) Mark's colleagues (or, a colleague) at Rome, into whose hands Mark had entrusted his unfinished Gospel-account, wished to disseminate it, but not in an obviously unfinished form. The colleagues (or colleague), rather than boldly create an ending, attached intact a short text about Jesus' post-resurrection appearances which was already in use at Rome. Probably this, too, had been written by Mark (though this point is not crucial).

              (c) Now containing 1:1-16:20, the Gospel of Mark began to be disseminated for church-use, in the late 60's. This text spread far and wide, and was used by Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, and the author of "Epistula Apostolorum" in the 100's.

              (d) An overly meticulous copyist, aware that 16:9-20 was an attachment, removed it on the grounds that it had not been added by Mark himself. This shortened text was taken to Egypt, where it was multiplied, and it was taken from Egypt to Caesarea. Later, in Egypt, someone composed the "Shorter Ending" to round off the unbearably abrupt ending.

              That's it. I also have a little sub-theory, which is non-essential and tangential but which you may find intriguing: a copy of Mk. 1:1-16:20, with a Roman Christian who was aware that 16:9-20 had been patched on, may have arrived at Ephesus in the 70's. That Roman Christian may have asked John what happened after the frightened women fled silent from the tomb without saying anything to anyone. And John may have responded by composing a text about the foreshadowed rendezvous in Galilee -- a Johannine Ending shaped roughly like John 21:1-19. And for a while, the Ephesians may have preferred the Johannine Ending over 16:9-20. But as copies from Rome continued to be made containing 16:9-20, a decision was made to acquiesce to the Roman text, and to recast the Johannine Ending as part of John 21. The tradition was perpetuated, though, that Jn. 21 embodied, or contained, the proper apostolically approved continuation of Mark's narrative. And in the Egyptian locale where the AE was perpetuated, copyists aware of this tradition did not view the AE as particularly alarming. This tradition or something like it might conceivably be echoed in the "Gospel of Peter." It may also help explain why the Gospel of John ends twice.

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
            • sarban@supanet.com
              ... Stahlin has for the Latin of Cassiodorus In evangelio vero secundum Marcum interrogatus dominus a principe sacerdotum, si ipse esset Christus, filius dei
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 12, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > WW: "Perhaps you could put together the relevant original quotes
                > online somewhere?"
                >
                > Besides what was in my previous post, I'll try to dig up the Latin text of
                > Cassiodorus the next time I visit the library. Unless someone else
                > reading this is able to beat me to it.

                Stahlin has for the Latin of Cassiodorus

                In evangelio vero secundum Marcum interrogatus dominus a principe
                sacerdotum, si ipse esset "Christus, filius dei benedicti", respondens
                dixit ; "Ego sum, et videbitis filium hominis a dextris sedentum
                virtutis." "Virtutes" autem significat sanctos angelos. Proinde enim cum
                dicit "a dextris dei", eosdem ipsos dicit propter aequalitatem et
                similitudinem angelicarum sanctarumque virtutum, quae uno nominantur
                nomine dei. Cum ergo "sedere in dextra" dicit, hoc est: in eminenti honore
                et ibi requiescere.

                The only significan textual issue is that one important manuscript of
                Cassiodorus reads:
                "Ego sum, et videbitis filium hominis a dextris sedentum virtutis dei."
                "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of
                the power of God."

                FWIW Stahlin regards "a dextris dei" as a loose allusion to Luke 22:69.

                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.
              • voxverax
                Andrew, Thanks. It s this sort of thing that makes me wish I was better at Latin. Putting Stahlin s Latin text side-by-side with the ANF English translation:
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 14, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Andrew,

                  Thanks. It's this sort of thing that makes me wish I was better at Latin.

                  Putting Stahlin's Latin text side-by-side with the ANF English translation:

                  In evangelio vero secundum Marcum.....Now, in the Gospel according to Mark
                  interrogatus dominus ..... the Lord being interrogated
                  a principe sacerdotum, ..... by the chief of the priests
                  si ipse esset "Christus, ..... if He was the Christ,
                  filius dei benedicti", ..... the son of the blessed God,
                  respondens dixit ; "Ego sum, ..... answering, said, "I am,
                  et videbitis filium hominis ..... and ye shall see the Son of man
                  a dextris sedentum virtutis." ..... sitting at the right hand of power."
                  "Virtutes" autem significat ..... "But "powers" mean
                  sanctos angelos. ..... the holy angels.
                  Proinde enim cum dicit ..... Further, when He says
                  "a dextris dei", ..... "at the right hand of God,"
                  eosdem ipsos dicit propter ..... He means the self-same [beings], by reason of
                  aequalitatem et similitudinem ..... the equality and likeness
                  angelicarum sanctarumque virtutum, ..... of the angelic and holy powers,
                  quae uno nominantur nomine dei. ..... which are called by the name of God.
                  Cum ergo "sedere in dextra" dicit, ..... He says, therefore, that He sits at the right hand,
                  hoc est: ..... that is,
                  in eminenti honore et ibi requiescere. ..... He rests in pre-eminent honor.

                  AC: "Stahlin regards "a dextris dei" as a loose allusion to Luke 22:69."

                  Hmm. In favor of the idea that Clement is alluding to Mark 16:19 instead of to Luke 22:69, we can see that "a dextris Dei" neatly fits the text of Mk. 16:19. And it seems possible that "Proinde enim cum dicit `a dextris dei'" is capable of referring back to something said by Mark. (Throughout the fragments, Clement routinely cites passages by saying "he says." The "he" is the author of the book upon which he is commenting. No other occasion, as far as I can tell, arose (in the fragments preserved by Cassiodorus) in which Clement could refer to "him" as a speaker in the narrative he was citing.)

                  In addition, the idea that Clement is loosely alluding to Luke 22:69 faces a potential obstacle: after the sentence that ends in "He rests in pre-eminent honour," we see the following:

                  "In the other Gospels, however, he is said not to have replied to the high priest, on his asking if he was the Son of God. But what said he? "You say.""

                  Inasmuch as Jesus says "You say" in Matthew 26:64 and Luke 22:70 (but not in Mark or John), it sort of looks like Clement thought that he was still quoting from Mark when he referred to the phrase "the right hand of God."

                  Yours in Christ,

                  James Snapp, Jr.
                • steve huller
                  Hi everyone, My observation on James discovery of Cassiodorus. Everyone acknowledges that Clement s citation kind of sounds like Mark and Luke. Why not
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 15, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi everyone,

                    My observation on James' 'discovery' of Cassiodorus. Everyone acknowledges that  Clement's citation 'kind of sounds' like Mark and Luke.  Why not consider looking at the Diatessaron?:

                    And the chief priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said that I am he. They all said unto him, Then thou art now the Son of God? Jesus said, Ye have said that I am (he). I say unto you, that henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Then the chief priest rent his tunic, and said, He hath blasphemed. And they all said, Why should we seek now witnesses? we have heard now the blasphemy from his mouth. [Diatessaron LXIX 30f]

                    Clement's successor Origen can be demonstrated as following the order of the Diatessaron throughout his Commentary on Matthew (he will say 'John says this,' 'while Luke goes on to say ...' and it all follows what appears in the parallel sections of the Diatessaron almost word for word.  In Book 15 of the same Commentary (available only in Latin) he makes reference to the Gospel of the Hebrews which Epiphanius identifies as the Diatessaron.

                    The bottom line is that in Aramaic el can be translated 'God' or 'power.'  The different citations of 'right hand of God' and 'right hand of power' would be developments from the same original Aramaic source by Clement to stress different ideas or to go along with arguments he is developing at the time.

                    I can't think of a parallel example right off the top of my head but I know Clement does this.  

                    Just an explanation which doesn't drag in the 'speculation' about Clement referencing a longer ending of Mark.  

                    Stephan


                    From: "sarban@..." <sarban@...>
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 2:34:30 AM
                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Clement of Alexandria and Mark 16:19

                     

                    >
                    > WW: "Perhaps you could put together the relevant original quotes
                    > online somewhere?"
                    >
                    > Besides what was in my previous post, I'll try to dig up the Latin text of
                    > Cassiodorus the next time I visit the library. Unless someone else
                    > reading this is able to beat me to it.

                    Stahlin has for the Latin of Cassiodorus

                    In evangelio vero secundum Marcum interrogatus dominus a principe
                    sacerdotum, si ipse esset "Christus, filius dei benedicti", respondens
                    dixit ; "Ego sum, et videbitis filium hominis a dextris sedentum
                    virtutis." "Virtutes" autem significat sanctos angelos. Proinde enim cum
                    dicit "a dextris dei", eosdem ipsos dicit propter aequalitatem et
                    similitudinem angelicarum sanctarumque virtutum, quae uno nominantur
                    nomine dei. Cum ergo "sedere in dextra" dicit, hoc est: in eminenti honore
                    et ibi requiescere.

                    The only significan textual issue is that one important manuscript of
                    Cassiodorus reads:
                    "Ego sum, et videbitis filium hominis a dextris sedentum virtutis dei."
                    "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of
                    the power of God."

                    FWIW Stahlin regards "a dextris dei" as a loose allusion to Luke 22:69.

                    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.


                  • Wieland Willker
                    ... This is important. If this is the correct reading, there is no need to refer to Mk 16:19. Also I think, it is a bit strange that the writer, discussing the
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 15, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Andrew Criddle wrote:
                      > The only significant textual issue is that one important
                      > manuscript of Cassiodorus reads:
                      > "Ego sum, et videbitis filium hominis a dextris sedentum virtutis
                      > dei."
                      > "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of
                      > the power of God."


                      This is important. If this is the correct reading, there is no need to refer
                      to Mk 16:19.
                      Also I think, it is a bit strange that the writer, discussing the
                      questioning by the high priest, suddenly refers to the end of Mk. This makes
                      not much sense in context.

                      But there remains the possibility that Clement here actually refers to Mk
                      16:19.

                      Another point:
                      So far I haven't seen how this quotation from Cassiodorus is connected with
                      Clement. How sure can we be that this is from Clement? Is everything from
                      Clement? Where does the quotation begins and ends and how is it introduced?

                      Best wishes
                      Wieland
                      <><
                      --------------------------
                      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                      mailto:wie@...
                      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                      Textcritical commentary:
                      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                    • voxverax
                      Wieland, (with a note to Steve Huller) WW: If this [variant] is the correct reading, there is no need to refer to Mk 16:19. It looks like a conformation to
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 16, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Wieland,

                        (with a note to Steve Huller)

                        WW: "If this [variant] is the correct reading, there is no need to refer to Mk 16:19."

                        It looks like a conformation to the Vulgate of Mk. 14:62, with "sedentum" and "a dextris" transposed. But even if that was what Clement cited, how could his next statement -- where he says, "Further, when he says 'at the right hand of God,' he means the self-same [beings]" -- refer to the same verse (i.e., to Mk. 14:62)? Clement wouldn't quote the same passage two different ways in the course of two sentences, right?

                        The sentence that begins, "In the other Gospels, however," indicates that up to that point, Clement is citing the Gospel of Mark. And the only place in the Gospel of Mark where anyone uses the phrase "at the right hand of God" is Mk. 16:19.

                        WW: "it is a bit strange that the writer, discussing the questioning by the high priest, suddenly refers to the end of Mk. This makes not much sense in context."

                        It looks to me like Clement is using a let-Scripture-interpret-Scripture hermeneutic: his initial subject is the phrase "In the presence of His glory." Clement at's that mean? Clement begins his explanation:

                        "'Now to Him,' he says, `who is able to keep you without stumbling, and present you faultless before the presence of His glory in joy." "In the presence of His glory": he means in the presence of the angels, to be presented faultless, having become angels."

                        Then for illustration-purposes, Clement briefly mentions Daniel -- and it is clear that Clement is trying to establish that Jude's phrase "in the presence of His glory" is congruent to the idea of "in the presence of His angels;" unfortunately not much else is clear in this sentence about Daniel.

                        Moving on to Clement's next illustration of the meaning of Jude v. 24's "in the presence of His glory," we come to the paragraph we covered earlier, beginning with "Now, in the Gospel according to Mark. . . ." Clement seems to be making a chain of references to the heavenly presence of God's glory -- the Daniel-reference he was thinking of might be Daniel 7:13-14; he connects that to Mk. 14:62; he connects that to ... Mark 16:19? Such a connection, in such a chain, would not be so strange.

                        WW: "There remains the possibility that Clement here actually refers to Mk 16:19."

                        It looks that way. Especially since Clement proceeds to say, "In the other Gospels," indicating that his frame of reference up to that point is the Gospel of Mark. It would not be a big leap from 14:62 to 16:19. And, re-stating the case, it fits Clement's approach: he explains "in the presence of His glory" to mean, "in the presence of the angels," and he then uses Mk. 14:62 to make the point that the "power" in the phrase "sitting on the right hand of power" is a reference to angelic powers. –- And then, it seems, he uses 16:19 to make a final point that "God" in the phrase "right hand of God" also is a reference to angels. And then he briefly pursues a tangent, and the comment comes to a close.

                        WW: "So far I haven't seen how this quotation from Cassiodorus is connected with Clement. How sure can we be that this is from Clement? Is everything from Clement? Where does the quotation begin and end and how is it introduced?"

                        As far as I can tell, Cassiodorus explicitly states that he is providing statements from Clement, which he has edited. At http://www.logoslibrary.org/clement/fragments/012.html you can read the pertinent part of Cassiodorus' presentation in English. Links near the bottom of that page can take you to what comes before it and after it. There's some more information about it in the "Editions" section at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm ; probably the work by Zahn mentioned there has the details about how Cassiodorus introduces the fragments from Clement. All the fragments' text, in English, is in ANF Vol II on pages 571-587; this excerpt in which he comments on Jude v. 24 is on p. 574. There are also some comments about Cassiodorus' presentation of fragments from Clement in William Patrick's 1906 book "James the Lord's Brother," pp. 355-357.

                        +++++++

                        Steve Huller,

                        SH: "Why not consider looking at the Diatessaron?"

                        Whenever an author makes loose quotations, there's a chance of phantom correspondence. But inasmuch as Clement explicitly states that he is quoting from the Gospel of Mark, I'd say that precludes the idea that he is quoting the Diatessaron. The reason why the Diatessaron-passage corresponds with Clement's quotation is simple: Clement and Tatian both used the Gospel of Mark.

                        Yours in Christ,

                        James Snapp, Jr.
                      • Wieland Willker
                        ... he is ... Edited? That does not sound good. It must be clear what part of the text is from Clement. ... you can read the pertinent part of Cassiodorus
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 16, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim Snapp wrote:
                          > As far as I can tell, Cassiodorus explicitly states that
                          he is
                          > providing statements from Clement, which he has edited.

                          Edited?
                          That does not sound good.
                          It must be clear what part of the text is from Clement.


                          > At http://www.logoslibrary.org/clement/fragments/012.html
                          you > can read the pertinent part of Cassiodorus'
                          presentation in
                          > English.

                          Nowhere does the name Clement appear.


                          > probably the work by Zahn mentioned there has the details
                          > about how Cassiodorus introduces the fragments from
                          Clement.

                          This must then be checked!


                          Did you note how the text is given online?
                          - Further, when *He* says “at the right hand of God,”
                          He = Jesus.
                          Ok, that is interpretation.

                          Again, it IS possible evidence, but it is arguable.


                          Best wishes
                              Wieland
                                 <><
                          ------------------------------------------------
                          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                          mailto:wie@...
                          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                          Textcritical Commentary:
                          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                        • steve huller
                          Hi James Your point would be that Clement is saying after this original reference of right hand of power there is a conclusion where right hand of God
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 16, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Hi James

                            Your point would be that Clement is saying after this original reference of 'right hand of power' there is a conclusion where 'right hand of God' appears.  Right?

                            Then in your response to my post you said "I'd say that precludes the idea that he is quoting the Diatessaron. The reason why the Diatessaron- passage corresponds with Clement's quotation is simple: Clement and Tatian both used the Gospel of Mark."

                            Yes but science is about the simplest explanation to the phenomena at hand.  I already cited the first reference in the Diatessaron while Jesus was alive:

                            I am he. I say unto you, that henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting Arabic, at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. 

                            Then notice the conclusion of the Diatessaron:

                            And our Lord Jesus, after speaking to them, took them out to Bethany: and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And while he blessed them, he was separated from them, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: and at all times they were in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.


                            Now you will say of course Clement is quoting from the gospel of Mark and then says 'further on ...' but he also says 'in the other gospels' also and the Church Fathers - Origen especially (cf. Commentary on Matthew) can switch from gospel to gospel because he thinks there is an underlying narrative - the Diatessaron - which holds all the individual 'separate' gospels together.


                            This would only be natural; it is only our inherited presuppositions about 'the gospels' being 'the gospel' which prevent us from seeing that.  This presupposition would have been shared by Clement and Origen's co-religionists in Palestine and Syria who knew and used only the Diatessaron.  Petersen has already demonstrated Clement's connection with the Diatessaron and Tatian (and Ammonius Sacca) in the writings of the Church Fathers. 


                            Take this as you want this is in my opinion the best and most logical way of explaining that curious reference you found in Cassiodorus.  


                            Thank you for that James.  


                            Stephan 



                            From: voxverax <voxverax@...>
                            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:58:24 AM
                            Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Clement of Alexandria and Mark 16:19

                             

                            Wieland,

                            (with a note to Steve Huller)

                            WW: "If this [variant] is the correct reading, there is no need to refer to Mk 16:19."

                            It looks like a conformation to the Vulgate of Mk. 14:62, with "sedentum" and "a dextris" transposed. But even if that was what Clement cited, how could his next statement -- where he says, "Further, when he says 'at the right hand of God,' he means the self-same [beings]" -- refer to the same verse (i.e., to Mk. 14:62)? Clement wouldn't quote the same passage two different ways in the course of two sentences, right?

                            The sentence that begins, "In the other Gospels, however," indicates that up to that point, Clement is citing the Gospel of Mark. And the only place in the Gospel of Mark where anyone uses the phrase "at the right hand of God" is Mk. 16:19.

                            WW: "it is a bit strange that the writer, discussing the questioning by the high priest, suddenly refers to the end of Mk. This makes not much sense in context."

                            It looks to me like Clement is using a let-Scripture- interpret- Scripture hermeneutic: his initial subject is the phrase "In the presence of His glory." Clement at's that mean? Clement begins his explanation:

                            "'Now to Him,' he says, `who is able to keep you without stumbling, and present you faultless before the presence of His glory in joy." "In the presence of His glory": he means in the presence of the angels, to be presented faultless, having become angels."

                            Then for illustration- purposes, Clement briefly mentions Daniel -- and it is clear that Clement is trying to establish that Jude's phrase "in the presence of His glory" is congruent to the idea of "in the presence of His angels;" unfortunately not much else is clear in this sentence about Daniel.

                            Moving on to Clement's next illustration of the meaning of Jude v. 24's "in the presence of His glory," we come to the paragraph we covered earlier, beginning with "Now, in the Gospel according to Mark. . . ." Clement seems to be making a chain of references to the heavenly presence of God's glory -- the Daniel-reference he was thinking of might be Daniel 7:13-14; he connects that to Mk. 14:62; he connects that to ... Mark 16:19? Such a connection, in such a chain, would not be so strange.

                            WW: "There remains the possibility that Clement here actually refers to Mk 16:19."

                            It looks that way. Especially since Clement proceeds to say, "In the other Gospels," indicating that his frame of reference up to that point is the Gospel of Mark. It would not be a big leap from 14:62 to 16:19. And, re-stating the case, it fits Clement's approach: he explains "in the presence of His glory" to mean, "in the presence of the angels," and he then uses Mk. 14:62 to make the point that the "power" in the phrase "sitting on the right hand of power" is a reference to angelic powers. –- And then, it seems, he uses 16:19 to make a final point that "God" in the phrase "right hand of God" also is a reference to angels. And then he briefly pursues a tangent, and the comment comes to a close.

                            WW: "So far I haven't seen how this quotation from Cassiodorus is connected with Clement. How sure can we be that this is from Clement? Is everything from Clement? Where does the quotation begin and end and how is it introduced?"

                            As far as I can tell, Cassiodorus explicitly states that he is providing statements from Clement, which he has edited. At http://www.logoslibrary.org/clement/fragments/012.html you can read the pertinent part of Cassiodorus' presentation in English. Links near the bottom of that page can take you to what comes before it and after it. There's some more information about it in the "Editions" section at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm ; probably the work by Zahn mentioned there has the details about how Cassiodorus introduces the fragments from Clement. All the fragments' text, in English, is in ANF Vol II on pages 571-587; this excerpt in which he comments on Jude v. 24 is on p. 574. There are also some comments about Cassiodorus' presentation of fragments from Clement in William Patrick's 1906 book "James the Lord's Brother," pp. 355-357.

                            +++++++

                            Steve Huller,

                            SH: "Why not consider looking at the Diatessaron? "

                            Whenever an author makes loose quotations, there's a chance of phantom correspondence. But inasmuch as Clement explicitly states that he is quoting from the Gospel of Mark, I'd say that precludes the idea that he is quoting the Diatessaron. The reason why the Diatessaron- passage corresponds with Clement's quotation is simple: Clement and Tatian both used the Gospel of Mark.

                            Yours in Christ,

                            James Snapp, Jr.



                          • Larry Swain
                            Wieland wrote:   ... he is ... That does not sound good. It must be clear what part of the text is from Clement. 
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 16, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Wieland wrote:

                               



                              Jim Snapp wrote:
                              > As far as I can tell, Cassiodorus explicitly states that
                              he is
                              > providing statements from Clement, which he has edited.

                              >>Edited?
                              That does not sound good.
                              It must be clear what part of the text is from Clement. <<

                              Edited is perhaps not the best choice of words, but rather translated: Clement after all wrote in Greek, Cassiodorus in Latin.   As with most "fragements" and quotations whether one is dealing with a Christian writer or no, it is apparent  for the most part when seen in situ what is quoted and what is not. 






                              > At http://www.logoslibrary.org/clement/fragments/012.html
                              you > can read the pertinent part of Cassiodorus'
                              presentation in
                              > English.

                              >>Nowhere does the name Clement appear. <<

                              Not in the Logos library, but Cassiodorus does refer explicitly to Clement on several occasions.




                              > probably the work by Zahn mentioned there has the details
                              > about how Cassiodorus introduces the fragments from
                              Clement.

                              >>This must then be checked! <<

                              Always of course, but is there reason to reject this?  It's not hard to look up some of Cassiodorus' works and do a word search.  You might be interested in this: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/cassbook/chap5.html



                              >>Did you note how the text is given online?
                              - Further, when *He* says “at the right hand of God,”
                              He = Jesus. Ok, that is interpretation. <<

                              Is it?  Look at the text again.  In the line immediately preceding the text quotes Christ saying that "you will see me sitting at the right hand of power."  The next line then says "When he says "sitting at the right hand".....So you're going to claim that in line A quoting Christ saying X and in line B the same partial quote from the previous line must refer to a different "he"?  Seems a stretch to me, in English, Latin, or Greek grammar, much less the context.


                              Larry Swain
                              Independent Scholar

                              --
                              _______________________________________________
                              Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
                              Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

                              Powered by Outblaze
                            • Wieland Willker
                              ... It wasn t me suggesting something different, but Jim. Jim said that He = Mark. Best wishes     Wieland       
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 16, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >> Did you note how the text is given online?
                                >> - Further, when *He* says “at the right hand of God,”
                                >> He = Jesus. Ok, that is interpretation.
                                >
                                > Is it? Look at the text again.


                                It wasn't me suggesting something different, but Jim.
                                Jim said that He = Mark.


                                Best wishes
                                    Wieland
                                       <><
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                                mailto:wie@...
                                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                                Textcritical Commentary:
                                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                                /info/terms/
                              • tvanlopik
                                Is it not time to consult commentaries? For example: Lohmeyer s on Mark (Meyer s Komm., 17. Aufl., 1967 = 10. Aufl., 1937) ad loc. 14,62, p. 328. Dunamis,
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 16, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Is it not time to consult commentaries?
                                  For example: Lohmeyer's on Mark (Meyer's Komm., 17. Aufl., 1967 = 10. Aufl., 1937) ad loc. 14,62, p. 328. Dunamis, power, Kraft, is a definition of the name of God, common in Jewish and earliest Christian environment: the circle of Galilean disciples. In a later phase the Jewish manner to apply an attribute of God as a name (Deckname) for God is replaced by direct use of "God". Luke's gospel is a witness for this development: ... of the power of God. Also the later longer ending, Mark 16,19: ... the right of God.
                                  The term Deckname is used by O. Michel in his Commentary on Hebr. (Meyer's Komm., 13/7. Aufl., 1975) ad loc. 1,3, p. 102. Dunamis in Mark and megaloosune are translations of the same Hebrew Deckname: ... ein feststehendes Sprachgebrauch des urchristlichen Bekenntnisses. In Cassiodorus' text is a translation "a dextris Dei" of the old-fashioned used dunamis with allusions to Hebrews (the angels in 1,4)?

                                  Teunis van Lopik,
                                  Leidschendam, the Netherlands
                                • Larry Swain
                                  ... Jim said that He = Mark.
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 16, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Wieland wrote:

                                    >> Did you note how the text is given online?
                                    >> - Further, when *He* says “at the right hand of God,”
                                    >> He = Jesus. Ok, that is interpretation.
                                    >
                                    > Is it? Look at the text again.

                                    >>It wasn't me suggesting something different, but Jim.
                                    Jim said that He = Mark.<<

                                    Thanks much for the correction. The point however I think worth reiterating.

                                    Larry Swain
                                    Independent Scholar

                                    --
                                    _______________________________________________
                                    Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
                                    Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

                                    Powered by Outblaze
                                  • sarban
                                    ... From: Wieland Willker To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:31 PM Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Clement of
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 16, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                       
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:31 PM
                                      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Clement of Alexandria and Mark 16:19

                                       

                                      Jim Snapp wrote:
                                      > As far as I can tell, Cassiodorus explicitly states that
                                      he is
                                      > providing statements from Clement, which he has edited.

                                      Edited?
                                      That does not sound good.
                                      It must be clear what part of the text is from Clement.

                                       

                                      Hi Wieland
                                       
                                      There is a special problem about this particular passage from Clement's Commentary on Jude.
                                      It has so little relevance to Jude that its authenticity has been questioned. See

                                      Or http://tinyurl.com/lct3pl

                                       

                                      > At http://www.logoslib rary.org/ clement/fragment s/012.html
                                      you > can read the pertinent part of Cassiodorus'
                                      presentation in
                                      > English.

                                      Nowhere does the name Clement appear.

                                      > probably the work by Zahn mentioned there has the details
                                      > about how Cassiodorus introduces the fragments from
                                      Clement.

                                      This must then be checked!

                                       

                                      Cassiodorus's comments about Clement are online here

                                      http://www.archive.org/stream/clemensalexandri17clemuoft#page/n44/mode/1up 

                                      Andrew Criddle


                                       
                                       
                                      .

                                    • Vox Verax
                                      Wieland, Larry, Stephan, Teunis, A certain quotation from Westcott might help clear things up. Westcott mentioned on p. 360-361 of his book on the NT Canon
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 17, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Wieland, Larry, Stephan, Teunis,

                                        A certain quotation from Westcott might help clear things up.

                                        Westcott mentioned on p. 360-361 of his book on the NT Canon (page-#'s may vary; I'm using an 1896 edition), that Eusebius had stated, in Ecclesiastical History 6:14, the following:

                                        "Clement, in his Outlines, to speak generally, has given concise explanations of all the Canonical Scriptures (PASHS THS ENDIAQHKOU GRAFHS) without omitting the disputed books: I mean the Epistle of Jude and the remaining Catholic Epistles, as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Revelation of Peter. And moreover he says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul's, but that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew dialect, and that Luke having carefully (FILOTIMWS) translated it published it for the use of the Greeks. And that it is owing to the fact that he translated it that the complexion (CRWTA) of this Epistle and that of the Acts is found to be the same."

                                        Westcott continues on p. 362, providing some of the details we seek:

                                        "Cassiodorus, the chief minister of Theodoric, in his 'Introduction to the reading of Holy Scripture,' says: 'Clement of Alexandria a presbyter, who is also called Stromateus, has made some comments on the Canonical Epostles, that is to say on the first Epistle of St. Peter, the first and second of St. John, and the Epistle of St. /James/, in pure and elegant language. Many things which he has said in them shew refinement, but some a want of caution: and we have caused his comments to be rendered into Latin, so that by the omission of some trifling details which might cause offence his teaching may be imbibed with greater security.'"

                                        Here in a footnote he mentions, "The passages are printed at length by Bunsen, ib. pp. 323 sqq.; and in the editions of Clement. Klotz, IV, pp. 52ff. Zahn, Forschungen III. Supllem. Clementinum, pp. 64 ff., 1884."

                                        After that quotation, Westcott proceeds: "There can be little doubt that the Latin /Adumbrationes/ which are given in the editions of Clement are the notes of which Cassiodorus speaks. There is however one discrepancy between the description and the /Adumbrationes/. These are written on the first Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. /Jude/ (not St. /James/), and the first two Epistles of St. John; but in general character they answer to the idea which might be formed of the work, and Cassiodorus himself is by no means so accurate a writer that his testimony should be decisive."

                                        Here in a footnote he observes, "It may be added that Cassiodorus omits Jude in his list of books of the New Testament. See App. D."

                                        Continuing: "The /Adumbrationes/ contain numerous references to Scripture, and expressly assign the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul. The scattered testimonies which are gathered from the text of Clement's extant works recognize the same books. He makes several quotations from the Epistle of St. Jude, and one among many others from the first epistle of St. John which implies the existence of a second; while he uses the Apocalypse frequently, assigning it to the Apostle St. John; but he nowhere makes any reference to the Epistle of St. James. There can then be little doubt that the reading in Cassiodorus is false, and that 'Jude' should be substituted for 'James;' and thus the different lines of evidence are found to coincide exactly."

                                        With this assistance from Westcott it should be clear that
                                        (a) Cassiodorus is claiming to present material composed by Clement of Alexandria, and
                                        (b) Cassiodorus acknowledged that he omitted some trifling details which seemed to display a lack of caution on the part of Clement – that is, where the text seemed controversial, it was slightly edited in the course of being translated into Latin.

                                        The acceptance of the identification of Cassiodorus' fragments as excerpts from Clement seems to be longstanding piece of conventional wisdom; in Hort's 1881 Notes, when his apparatus refers to "Clem.Hyp.lat." (in his note on Jude v. 5, for example) it is to this text that he refers.

                                        LS: (responding to WW: "Did you note how the text is given online? Further, when *He* says "at the right hand of God," He = Jesus. Ok, that is interpretation.") "Is it? Look at the text again."

                                        Yes; it's interpretation because this can refer back to the Gospel of Mark ("he"), rather than to Jesus ("He").

                                        LS: "In the line immediately preceding the text quotes Christ saying that "you will see me sitting at the right hand of power." The next line then says "When he says "sitting at the right hand".....So you're going to claim that in line A quoting Christ saying X and in line B the same partial quote from the previous line must refer to a different "he"?"

                                        The question benefits from an incomplete presentation of the quotation; there is no "same partial quote from the previous line" in the picture. Let's look at the main part of the quotation again, again:

                                        "Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if he was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power." But "powers" mean the holy angels. Further, when he says "at the right hand of God," he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand; that is, that he rests in pre-eminent honour."

                                        First Clement asserts that "powers" = the holy angels, using Mk. 14:61-62 to illustrate the point: "sitting at the right hand of power" means, to Clement, "sitting at the right hand of the holy angels." Then Clement says, "Further, when he says `at the right hand of God,' he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God."

                                        Clearly Clement is citing two passages, not one: the first one is Mark 14:62, and the second one consists of the phrase "at the right hand of God." It is because the second quotation refers to the right hand of *God* that Clement proceeds to state that the term "God" is applied here to the angelic and holy powers.

                                        How can this conclusion be avoided? Are you going to claim that when Clement makes Citation A, "sitting at the right hand of power," and interprets "powers" to refer to the holy angels, and that when Clement makes Citation B, "at the right hand of God," and interprets "God" to refer to the holy angels, he is citing Mark 14:62 both times?

                                        Once it is acknowledged that Clement is citing two passages, we should notice that Clement does not turn to the other Gospels until after the sentence, "He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand: that is, that He rests in pre-eminent honour." If Clement is citing from Mark up to that point – using the phrase "at the right hand of power" from one Marcan passage, and supplementing the point by citing the phrase "at the right hand of God" from another Marcan passage, then the question arises, "From where is he getting this phrase, 'at the right hand of God'?" The only place where it is found in the Gospel of Mark is 16:19.

                                        Teunis: "In Cassiodorus' text is a translation "a dextris Dei" of the old-fashioned used dunamis with allusions to Hebrews (the angels in 1,4)?"

                                        I don't think so, because Clement is focused on Mark (inasmuch as he follows up his citations by the phrase, "In the other Gospels, however"), and because the wording in Hebrews 1:3, where Christ "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis) differs from what we see in Cassiodorus' text.

                                        Jovial: "So why does Clement have to be quoting one verse or another [as opposed to] simply describing?"

                                        Clement is not composing freely, but conveys that he is presenting a citation, by using the introductory phrase, "Further, when he says." This and similar formulas are used throughout the fragments when citations are introduced.

                                        I would add one more observation: Clement's comments are relevant to the interpretation of Jude v. 24 up to the end of the sentence the ends, "He rests in pre-eminent honour." After that point he pursues a tangent.

                                        Yours in Christ,

                                        James Snapp, Jr.
                                      • bucksburg
                                        ... Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if he was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering,
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 17, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, James Snapp Jr. wrote:
                                          > Let's look at the main part of the quotation again, again:

                                          "Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if he was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power." But "powers" mean the holy angels. Further, when he says "at the right hand of God," he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand; that is, that he rests in pre-eminent honour." <<

                                          Not having use of the original language(s) here, I can still see a question raised by the use of English tenses.

                                          "the Lord. . . answering, said"
                                          "Further, when he says"

                                          It would appear that a shift in tense indicates a shift from the past (words Jesus spoke to the high priest) to the present (words being read from a copy of Mark's gospel).

                                          Daniel Buck
                                        • sarban
                                          ... From: sarban To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Clement of Alexandria and
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Sep 17, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                             

                                             
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: sarban
                                            Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:46 PM
                                            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Clement of Alexandria and Mark 16:19

                                             
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: sarban
                                            Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:44 PM
                                            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Clement of Alexandria and Mark 16:19

                                             

                                             
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:31 PM
                                            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Clement of Alexandria and Mark 16:19

                                             




                                            > probably the work by Zahn mentioned there has the details
                                            > about how Cassiodorus introduces the fragments from
                                            Clement.

                                            This must then be checked!

                                             

                                            Cassiodorus' s comments about Clement are online here

                                            http://www.archive. org/stream/ clemensalexandri 17clemuoft# page/n44/ mode/1up 

                                            Andrew Criddle


                                            If you have problems with this URL (which gives the Latin of the passage from Cassiodorus about Clement cited by James Snapp from Westcott's English version) then use http://tinyurl.com/pamw8e
                                            .

                                          • George F Somsel
                                            It is difficult to discern when Cassiodorus is quoting Clement and when he is speaking for himself in this snippet.  I don t think it shows a thing with any
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 17, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              It is difficult to discern when Cassiodorus is quoting Clement and when he is speaking for himself in this snippet.  I don't think it shows a thing with any conviction.
                                               
                                              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: sarban <sarban@...>
                                              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                              Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:44:18 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Clement of Alexandria and Mark 16:19

                                               

                                               
                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:31 PM
                                              Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Clement of Alexandria and Mark 16:19

                                               

                                              Jim Snapp wrote:
                                              > As far as I can tell, Cassiodorus explicitly states that
                                              he is
                                              > providing statements from Clement, which he has edited.

                                              Edited?
                                              That does not sound good.
                                              It must be clear what part of the text is from Clement.

                                               

                                              Hi Wieland
                                               
                                              There is a special problem about this particular passage from Clement's Commentary on Jude.
                                              It has so little relevance to Jude that its authenticity has been questioned. See

                                              Or http://tinyurl. com/lct3pl

                                               

                                              > At http://www.logoslibrary.org/clement/fragments/012.html
                                              you > can read the pertinent part of Cassiodorus'
                                              presentation in
                                              > English.

                                              Nowhere does the name Clement appear.

                                              > probably the work by Zahn mentioned there has the details
                                              > about how Cassiodorus introduces the fragments from
                                              Clement.

                                              This must then be checked!

                                               

                                              Cassiodorus' s comments about Clement are online here

                                              http://www.archive. org/stream/ clemensalexandri 17clemuoft# page/n44/ mode/1up 

                                              Andrew Criddle


                                               
                                               
                                              .


                                            • TeunisV
                                              I am surprised to read in C. Bigg s Commentary to Peter/Jude, ICC, 2nd edition, 1910, p. 306, in the Introduction to the epistle of St.Jude: Dr. Westcott with
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 18, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I am surprised to read in C. Bigg's Commentary to Peter/Jude, ICC, 2nd edition, 1910, p. 306, in the Introduction to the epistle of St.Jude:

                                                Dr. Westcott with justice regards the latter part of this <Adumbration>, from <immaculatos autem>, as an interpolation due to Cassiodorus, and in the former part the words "sic etiam peccato Adae subiacemus secundum peccati similitudinem" can hardly be genuine, but the rest is not open to suspicion.

                                                http://www.archive.org/stream/clemensalexandri17clemuoft#page/209/mode/1up

                                                Teunis van Lopik



                                                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Vox Verax" <voxverax@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Wieland, Larry, Stephan, Teunis,
                                                >
                                                > A certain quotation from Westcott might help clear things up.
                                                >
                                                > Westcott mentioned on p. 360-361 of his book on the NT Canon (page-#'s may vary; I'm using an 1896 edition), that Eusebius had stated, in Ecclesiastical History 6:14, the following:
                                                >
                                                > "Clement, in his Outlines, to speak generally, has given concise explanations of all the Canonical Scriptures (PASHS THS ENDIAQHKOU GRAFHS) without omitting the disputed books: I mean the Epistle of Jude and the remaining Catholic Epistles, as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Revelation of Peter. And moreover he says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul's, but that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew dialect, and that Luke having carefully (FILOTIMWS) translated it published it for the use of the Greeks. And that it is owing to the fact that he translated it that the complexion (CRWTA) of this Epistle and that of the Acts is found to be the same."
                                                >
                                                > Westcott continues on p. 362, providing some of the details we seek:
                                                >
                                                > "Cassiodorus, the chief minister of Theodoric, in his 'Introduction to the reading of Holy Scripture,' says: 'Clement of Alexandria a presbyter, who is also called Stromateus, has made some comments on the Canonical Epostles, that is to say on the first Epistle of St. Peter, the first and second of St. John, and the Epistle of St. /James/, in pure and elegant language. Many things which he has said in them shew refinement, but some a want of caution: and we have caused his comments to be rendered into Latin, so that by the omission of some trifling details which might cause offence his teaching may be imbibed with greater security.'"
                                                >
                                                > Here in a footnote he mentions, "The passages are printed at length by Bunsen, ib. pp. 323 sqq.; and in the editions of Clement. Klotz, IV, pp. 52ff. Zahn, Forschungen III. Supllem. Clementinum, pp. 64 ff., 1884."
                                                >
                                                > After that quotation, Westcott proceeds: "There can be little doubt that the Latin /Adumbrationes/ which are given in the editions of Clement are the notes of which Cassiodorus speaks. There is however one discrepancy between the description and the /Adumbrationes/. These are written on the first Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. /Jude/ (not St. /James/), and the first two Epistles of St. John; but in general character they answer to the idea which might be formed of the work, and Cassiodorus himself is by no means so accurate a writer that his testimony should be decisive."
                                                >
                                                > Here in a footnote he observes, "It may be added that Cassiodorus omits Jude in his list of books of the New Testament. See App. D."
                                                >
                                                > Continuing: "The /Adumbrationes/ contain numerous references to Scripture, and expressly assign the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul. The scattered testimonies which are gathered from the text of Clement's extant works recognize the same books. He makes several quotations from the Epistle of St. Jude, and one among many others from the first epistle of St. John which implies the existence of a second; while he uses the Apocalypse frequently, assigning it to the Apostle St. John; but he nowhere makes any reference to the Epistle of St. James. There can then be little doubt that the reading in Cassiodorus is false, and that 'Jude' should be substituted for 'James;' and thus the different lines of evidence are found to coincide exactly."
                                                >
                                                > With this assistance from Westcott it should be clear that
                                                > (a) Cassiodorus is claiming to present material composed by Clement of Alexandria, and
                                                > (b) Cassiodorus acknowledged that he omitted some trifling details which seemed to display a lack of caution on the part of Clement – that is, where the text seemed controversial, it was slightly edited in the course of being translated into Latin.
                                                >
                                                > The acceptance of the identification of Cassiodorus' fragments as excerpts from Clement seems to be longstanding piece of conventional wisdom; in Hort's 1881 Notes, when his apparatus refers to "Clem.Hyp.lat." (in his note on Jude v. 5, for example) it is to this text that he refers.
                                                >
                                                > LS: (responding to WW: "Did you note how the text is given online? Further, when *He* says "at the right hand of God," He = Jesus. Ok, that is interpretation.") "Is it? Look at the text again."
                                                >
                                                > Yes; it's interpretation because this can refer back to the Gospel of Mark ("he"), rather than to Jesus ("He").
                                                >
                                                > LS: "In the line immediately preceding the text quotes Christ saying that "you will see me sitting at the right hand of power." The next line then says "When he says "sitting at the right hand".....So you're going to claim that in line A quoting Christ saying X and in line B the same partial quote from the previous line must refer to a different "he"?"
                                                >
                                                > The question benefits from an incomplete presentation of the quotation; there is no "same partial quote from the previous line" in the picture. Let's look at the main part of the quotation again, again:
                                                >
                                                > "Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if he was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power." But "powers" mean the holy angels. Further, when he says "at the right hand of God," he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand; that is, that he rests in pre-eminent honour."
                                                >
                                                > First Clement asserts that "powers" = the holy angels, using Mk. 14:61-62 to illustrate the point: "sitting at the right hand of power" means, to Clement, "sitting at the right hand of the holy angels." Then Clement says, "Further, when he says `at the right hand of God,' he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God."
                                                >
                                                > Clearly Clement is citing two passages, not one: the first one is Mark 14:62, and the second one consists of the phrase "at the right hand of God." It is because the second quotation refers to the right hand of *God* that Clement proceeds to state that the term "God" is applied here to the angelic and holy powers.
                                                >
                                                > How can this conclusion be avoided? Are you going to claim that when Clement makes Citation A, "sitting at the right hand of power," and interprets "powers" to refer to the holy angels, and that when Clement makes Citation B, "at the right hand of God," and interprets "God" to refer to the holy angels, he is citing Mark 14:62 both times?
                                                >
                                                > Once it is acknowledged that Clement is citing two passages, we should notice that Clement does not turn to the other Gospels until after the sentence, "He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand: that is, that He rests in pre-eminent honour." If Clement is citing from Mark up to that point – using the phrase "at the right hand of power" from one Marcan passage, and supplementing the point by citing the phrase "at the right hand of God" from another Marcan passage, then the question arises, "From where is he getting this phrase, 'at the right hand of God'?" The only place where it is found in the Gospel of Mark is 16:19.
                                                >
                                                > Teunis: "In Cassiodorus' text is a translation "a dextris Dei" of the old-fashioned used dunamis with allusions to Hebrews (the angels in 1,4)?"
                                                >
                                                > I don't think so, because Clement is focused on Mark (inasmuch as he follows up his citations by the phrase, "In the other Gospels, however"), and because the wording in Hebrews 1:3, where Christ "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis) differs from what we see in Cassiodorus' text.
                                                >
                                                > Jovial: "So why does Clement have to be quoting one verse or another [as opposed to] simply describing?"
                                                >
                                                > Clement is not composing freely, but conveys that he is presenting a citation, by using the introductory phrase, "Further, when he says." This and similar formulas are used throughout the fragments when citations are introduced.
                                                >
                                                > I would add one more observation: Clement's comments are relevant to the interpretation of Jude v. 24 up to the end of the sentence the ends, "He rests in pre-eminent honour." After that point he pursues a tangent.
                                                >
                                                > Yours in Christ,
                                                >
                                                > James Snapp, Jr.
                                                >
                                              • schmuel
                                                Hi Folks, ... I am surprised to read in C. Bigg s Commentary to Peter/Jude, ICC, 2nd edition, 1910, p. 306, in the Introduction to the epistle of St.Jude: Dr.
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 18, 2009
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hi Folks,
                                                  :
                                                  I am surprised to read in C. Bigg's Commentary to Peter/Jude, ICC, 2nd edition, 1910, p. 306, in the Introduction to the epistle of St.Jude: Dr. Westcott with justice regards the latter part of this <Adumbration>, from <immaculatos autem>, as an interpolation due to Cassiodorus, and in the former part the words "sic etiam peccato Adae subiacemus secundum peccati similitudinem" can hardly be genuine, but the rest is not open to suspicion.
                                                  http://www.archive.org/stream/clemensalexandri17clemuoft#page/209/mode/1up
                                                  Teunis van Lopik

                                                  This is not uncommon.  When an evidence is discomfiting to your position, simply find a way to
                                                  brand it a redaction, an interpolation or a forgery. It can be done on many levels, verses, sections,
                                                  books, Bible or early church writings.  James has a 'debate' where that was quickly done by
                                                  his opponent on two verses on the interior of Mark.

                                                  My fav example is the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of the Vulgate. Even after the original
                                                  theories of late forged origin had to be discarded the actual vaporware accusation remained as
                                                  the necessary house of cards.  (Think Lucian recension in another realm.)

                                                  Never let facts get in the way of a good theory.

                                                  Shalom,
                                                  Steven Avery
                                                  Queens, NY
                                                • cweb255
                                                  Never let facts get in the way of a good theory. Sounds very similar to the stunts you pull, Steven. Interpolations in the New Testament are a fact, marking
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Sep 19, 2009
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    "Never let facts get in the way of a good theory."

                                                    Sounds very similar to the stunts you pull, Steven. Interpolations in the New Testament are a fact, marking a passage as one is not always a sign of prejudice or discomfort with the material, although from what I've seen all your apologies in the past for any interpolation is suspect from your ultra-orthodox (with a little 'o') stances on the Bible.

                                                    Chris Weimer
                                                  • TeunisV
                                                    James, In hurry, so short: I was surprised by the opinion that Cassiodorus may be interpolated Clemens text, because (to the contrary) we know that
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Sep 19, 2009
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      James,
                                                      In hurry, so short:
                                                      I was surprised by the opinion that Cassiodorus may be interpolated Clemens' text, because (to the contrary) we know that Cassiodorus said he excluded parts from the Hypotyposes to avoid unpurity of doctrine. Reading again the notes on Jude, I think that the linking with the epistle to Hebrews (powers/angels/superiority of Christ) is typical for Clemens' way of thinking. I will work out some further thoughts on the exegesis of this text and make clear that there is no reference to Mark 16.
                                                      Later more.
                                                      Teunis van Lopik

                                                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > I am surprised to read in C. Bigg's Commentary to Peter/Jude, ICC, 2nd edition, 1910, p. 306, in the Introduction to the epistle of St.Jude:
                                                      >
                                                      > Dr. Westcott with justice regards the latter part of this <Adumbration>, from <immaculatos autem>, as an interpolation due to Cassiodorus, and in the former part the words "sic etiam peccato Adae subiacemus secundum peccati similitudinem" can hardly be genuine, but the rest is not open to suspicion.
                                                      >
                                                      > http://www.archive.org/stream/clemensalexandri17clemuoft#page/209/mode/1up
                                                      >
                                                      > Teunis van Lopik
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Vox Verax" <voxverax@> wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Wieland, Larry, Stephan, Teunis,
                                                      > >
                                                      > > A certain quotation from Westcott might help clear things up.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Westcott mentioned on p. 360-361 of his book on the NT Canon (page-#'s may vary; I'm using an 1896 edition), that Eusebius had stated, in Ecclesiastical History 6:14, the following:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > "Clement, in his Outlines, to speak generally, has given concise explanations of all the Canonical Scriptures (PASHS THS ENDIAQHKOU GRAFHS) without omitting the disputed books: I mean the Epistle of Jude and the remaining Catholic Epistles, as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Revelation of Peter. And moreover he says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul's, but that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew dialect, and that Luke having carefully (FILOTIMWS) translated it published it for the use of the Greeks. And that it is owing to the fact that he translated it that the complexion (CRWTA) of this Epistle and that of the Acts is found to be the same."
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Westcott continues on p. 362, providing some of the details we seek:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > "Cassiodorus, the chief minister of Theodoric, in his 'Introduction to the reading of Holy Scripture,' says: 'Clement of Alexandria a presbyter, who is also called Stromateus, has made some comments on the Canonical Epostles, that is to say on the first Epistle of St. Peter, the first and second of St. John, and the Epistle of St. /James/, in pure and elegant language. Many things which he has said in them shew refinement, but some a want of caution: and we have caused his comments to be rendered into Latin, so that by the omission of some trifling details which might cause offence his teaching may be imbibed with greater security.'"
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Here in a footnote he mentions, "The passages are printed at length by Bunsen, ib. pp. 323 sqq.; and in the editions of Clement. Klotz, IV, pp. 52ff. Zahn, Forschungen III. Supllem. Clementinum, pp. 64 ff., 1884."
                                                      > >
                                                      > > After that quotation, Westcott proceeds: "There can be little doubt that the Latin /Adumbrationes/ which are given in the editions of Clement are the notes of which Cassiodorus speaks. There is however one discrepancy between the description and the /Adumbrationes/. These are written on the first Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. /Jude/ (not St. /James/), and the first two Epistles of St. John; but in general character they answer to the idea which might be formed of the work, and Cassiodorus himself is by no means so accurate a writer that his testimony should be decisive."
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Here in a footnote he observes, "It may be added that Cassiodorus omits Jude in his list of books of the New Testament. See App. D."
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Continuing: "The /Adumbrationes/ contain numerous references to Scripture, and expressly assign the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul. The scattered testimonies which are gathered from the text of Clement's extant works recognize the same books. He makes several quotations from the Epistle of St. Jude, and one among many others from the first epistle of St. John which implies the existence of a second; while he uses the Apocalypse frequently, assigning it to the Apostle St. John; but he nowhere makes any reference to the Epistle of St. James. There can then be little doubt that the reading in Cassiodorus is false, and that 'Jude' should be substituted for 'James;' and thus the different lines of evidence are found to coincide exactly."
                                                      > >
                                                      > > With this assistance from Westcott it should be clear that
                                                      > > (a) Cassiodorus is claiming to present material composed by Clement of Alexandria, and
                                                      > > (b) Cassiodorus acknowledged that he omitted some trifling details which seemed to display a lack of caution on the part of Clement – that is, where the text seemed controversial, it was slightly edited in the course of being translated into Latin.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > The acceptance of the identification of Cassiodorus' fragments as excerpts from Clement seems to be longstanding piece of conventional wisdom; in Hort's 1881 Notes, when his apparatus refers to "Clem.Hyp.lat." (in his note on Jude v. 5, for example) it is to this text that he refers.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > LS: (responding to WW: "Did you note how the text is given online? Further, when *He* says "at the right hand of God," He = Jesus. Ok, that is interpretation.") "Is it? Look at the text again."
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Yes; it's interpretation because this can refer back to the Gospel of Mark ("he"), rather than to Jesus ("He").
                                                      > >
                                                      > > LS: "In the line immediately preceding the text quotes Christ saying that "you will see me sitting at the right hand of power." The next line then says "When he says "sitting at the right hand".....So you're going to claim that in line A quoting Christ saying X and in line B the same partial quote from the previous line must refer to a different "he"?"
                                                      > >
                                                      > > The question benefits from an incomplete presentation of the quotation; there is no "same partial quote from the previous line" in the picture. Let's look at the main part of the quotation again, again:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > "Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if he was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power." But "powers" mean the holy angels. Further, when he says "at the right hand of God," he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand; that is, that he rests in pre-eminent honour."
                                                      > >
                                                      > > First Clement asserts that "powers" = the holy angels, using Mk. 14:61-62 to illustrate the point: "sitting at the right hand of power" means, to Clement, "sitting at the right hand of the holy angels." Then Clement says, "Further, when he says `at the right hand of God,' he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God."
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Clearly Clement is citing two passages, not one: the first one is Mark 14:62, and the second one consists of the phrase "at the right hand of God." It is because the second quotation refers to the right hand of *God* that Clement proceeds to state that the term "God" is applied here to the angelic and holy powers.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > How can this conclusion be avoided? Are you going to claim that when Clement makes Citation A, "sitting at the right hand of power," and interprets "powers" to refer to the holy angels, and that when Clement makes Citation B, "at the right hand of God," and interprets "God" to refer to the holy angels, he is citing Mark 14:62 both times?
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Once it is acknowledged that Clement is citing two passages, we should notice that Clement does not turn to the other Gospels until after the sentence, "He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand: that is, that He rests in pre-eminent honour." If Clement is citing from Mark up to that point – using the phrase "at the right hand of power" from one Marcan passage, and supplementing the point by citing the phrase "at the right hand of God" from another Marcan passage, then the question arises, "From where is he getting this phrase, 'at the right hand of God'?" The only place where it is found in the Gospel of Mark is 16:19.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Teunis: "In Cassiodorus' text is a translation "a dextris Dei" of the old-fashioned used dunamis with allusions to Hebrews (the angels in 1,4)?"
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I don't think so, because Clement is focused on Mark (inasmuch as he follows up his citations by the phrase, "In the other Gospels, however"), and because the wording in Hebrews 1:3, where Christ "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis) differs from what we see in Cassiodorus' text.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Jovial: "So why does Clement have to be quoting one verse or another [as opposed to] simply describing?"
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Clement is not composing freely, but conveys that he is presenting a citation, by using the introductory phrase, "Further, when he says." This and similar formulas are used throughout the fragments when citations are introduced.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I would add one more observation: Clement's comments are relevant to the interpretation of Jude v. 24 up to the end of the sentence the ends, "He rests in pre-eminent honour." After that point he pursues a tangent.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Yours in Christ,
                                                      > >
                                                      > > James Snapp, Jr.
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                    • james_snapp_jr
                                                      Teunis, I conclude, then, that you disagree with the assessment that Bigg attributed to Westcott. TvL: . . . I will work out some further thoughts on the
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Sep 19, 2009
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Teunis,

                                                        I conclude, then, that you disagree with the assessment that Bigg attributed to Westcott.

                                                        TvL: . . ."I will work out some further thoughts on the exegesis of this text and make clear that there is no reference to Mark 16."

                                                        Considering that
                                                        (a) Clement says that he is quoting Mark,
                                                        (b) Clement quotes the phrase "Ego sum, et videbitis filium hominis a dextris dedentum virtutis" from Mk. 14:62,
                                                        (c) Clement then supplements his point by quoting "a dextris dei," which is found in the Gospel of Mark only in 16:19,
                                                        (d) Clement then explicitly refers to what is found "in the other Gospels" (In aliis evangeliis), referring to Mt. and Lk, in their accounts of Jesus' response to the question about whether or not He is the Christ, and
                                                        (e) While the motif of angelic glory is in Clement's head, the epistle of Hebrews, as a text, seems far from his mind here,

                                                        it looks like you have your work cut out for you. As for me, I presently see no serious barrier to the identification of the second referenced passage as Mark 16:19.

                                                        Yours in Christ,

                                                        James Snapp, Jr.
                                                      • TeunisV
                                                        Dr. Westcott with justice regards the latter part of this , from , as an interpolation due to Cassiodorus , wrote Bigg in his
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Sep 21, 2009
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          "Dr. Westcott with justice regards the latter part of this <Adumbration>, from <immaculatos autem>, as an interpolation due to Cassiodorus", wrote Bigg in his Commentary to Peter/Jude (ICC), p. 306. In my opinion elements in this part of the Adumbrationes are typical for Clemens of Alexandria's way of thinking. But, before rejecting Westcott's view on this matter we need to know Westcott's underlying arguments. For this moment they are not available to me. Maybe they are strong and coherent.

                                                          Let's have a look to the Cassiodorus notes on Jude 24 again: Staehlin, Clem. Alex., III, p. 208-209, http://www.archive.org/stream/clemensalexandri17clemuoft#page/209/mode/1up .

                                                          Subject is Jude's description of the neighbourhood of God, in the presence of his glory, where Christians will be: in conspectu gloriae suae. Angles are introduced. Referred is to Daniel. The editor Staehlin did not suppose a place of citation or allusion. I refer to: Daniel 7, 13.: One Like a Man, coming with the clouds of heaven, approached the Ancient in Years, "in conspectu".
                                                          God is not visible, but the manifestations are, is further argued.
                                                          Then follows a mental leap in the Cassiodorus text to Mark 14, 62, an attempt to indicate the heavenly household, with the Son of God in an eminent place.

                                                          On the question of the high priest:
                                                          1. In the gospel according to Mark the Lord said: ego sum … a dextris sedentem virtutis (the powers, the holy angels)
                                                          2. Just so indeed when he says: a dextris dei (the powers, named by the name of God)
                                                          3. So when he says: sedere in dextra (the eminent place)
                                                          [But now there is still another issue to explain: ego sum (in Mark) is contrary to Jesus words in other gospels:]
                                                          4. In other gospels the Lord says: … non e contra … but what did he say?: vos dicitis.

                                                          So, there are two lines in this exegesis:
                                                          A: sitting at the right of the power (as Jesus said in Mark) is like the sitting at the right of God (as Jesus said too, elsewhere). Here is important the self-testimony of Jesus. (Quotes/dicere 1, 2, 3)
                                                          B: Jesus answer to the high priest in Mark (I am) versus the answer in other gospels (You say). (Quotes/dicere 1, 4)

                                                          In 1 and 4 the Lord is quoted and is referred to the differences in the gospels. The supposed contrast Mark <-> other gospels is in the items ego sum <-> vos dicitis. So "a dextris dei" (quote 2) is not necessarily from Mark and dicit can be interpreted as: dominus dicit.

                                                          It is plausible to suppose Hebrews was in Clemens' mind. In Clemens' concept of revelation of the true religion Hebrews is important. See the Adumbrationes on 1 Petr. 4,10, where "… multiformis gratiae dei" is already reason for referring to Hebr. 1,1 "Multifarie et multimodis deus olim locutus est patribus nostris". (Lower) angels brought knowledge to (Greek) philosophers and Jews. Jesus (higher in power and nearer to God) revealed even more to the Christians.

                                                          Teunis van Lopik


                                                          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "james_snapp_jr" <voxverax@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > Teunis,
                                                          >
                                                          > I conclude, then, that you disagree with the assessment that Bigg attributed to Westcott.
                                                          >
                                                          > TvL: . . ."I will work out some further thoughts on the exegesis of this text and make clear that there is no reference to Mark 16."
                                                          >
                                                          > Considering that
                                                          > (a) Clement says that he is quoting Mark,
                                                          > (b) Clement quotes the phrase "Ego sum, et videbitis filium hominis a dextris dedentum virtutis" from Mk. 14:62,
                                                          > (c) Clement then supplements his point by quoting "a dextris dei," which is found in the Gospel of Mark only in 16:19,
                                                          > (d) Clement then explicitly refers to what is found "in the other Gospels" (In aliis evangeliis), referring to Mt. and Lk, in their accounts of Jesus' response to the question about whether or not He is the Christ, and
                                                          > (e) While the motif of angelic glory is in Clement's head, the epistle of Hebrews, as a text, seems far from his mind here,
                                                          >
                                                          > it looks like you have your work cut out for you. As for me, I presently see no serious barrier to the identification of the second referenced passage as Mark 16:19.
                                                          >
                                                          > Yours in Christ,
                                                          >
                                                          > James Snapp, Jr.
                                                          >
                                                        • james_snapp_jr
                                                          Teunis, TvL: Before rejecting Westcott s view on this matter we need to know Westcott s underlying arguments. For this moment they are not available to me.
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Sep 22, 2009
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Teunis,

                                                            TvL: "Before rejecting Westcott's view on this matter we need to know Westcott's underlying arguments. For this moment they are not available to me. Maybe they are strong and coherent."

                                                            Maybe. Or maybe Bigg misread or misremembered something and the arguments don't exist. In the 1896 edition of Westcott's Canon of the NT, Westcott describes the Adumbrationes fragments preserved by Cassiodorus and, as far as I can tell, his only caution to the reader is that a textual adjustment is needed in order to replace Cassiodorus' reference to the book of James into a reference to the book of Jude, as I described earlier.

                                                            TvL: . . . "The editor Staehlin did not suppose a place of citation or allusion. I refer to: Daniel 7, 13.: One Like a Man, coming with the clouds of heaven, approached the Ancient in Years, "in conspectu". God is not visible, but the manifestations are, is further argued."

                                                            The part about Daniel is rather opaque and barely resembles a sentence in English. But as far as its basic meaning is concerned, I too regard it as a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, as I mentioned earlier.

                                                            TvL: "Then follows a mental leap in the Cassiodorus text to Mark 14, 62, an attempt to indicate the heavenly household, with the Son of God in an eminent place."

                                                            Yes; Clement uses Daniel 7:13-14's reference to "One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven" as a stepping-stone to Mk. 14:62. Clement's intent seems to be to thus provide a reason to interpret "the presence of His glory" as "the presence of the glorious angels."

                                                            TvL: "On the question of the high priest:
                                                            1. In the gospel according to Mark the Lord said: ego sum … a dextris sedentem virtutis (the powers, the holy angels)
                                                            2. Just so indeed when he says: a dextris dei (the powers, named by the name of God)
                                                            3. So when he says: sedere in dextra (the eminent place)"

                                                            Here is where the question resides: does "Proinde enim cum dicit" mean "Further, when Jesus says," or does it mean "Further, when Mark says"? Inasmuch as Clement's immediate frame of reference is the Gospel of Mark, and the phrase "the right hand of God" is found only in Mark 16:19, and is not used by Jesus anywhere in the Gospels, what reason is there not to understand this as a reference to Mark 16:19?

                                                            TvL: "But now there is still another issue to explain: ego sum (in Mark) is contrary to Jesus' words in other gospels."

                                                            Yes; Clement turns to this tangent as he wraps up his comment. But this is merely a loose end, not an interpretation of anything in Jude.

                                                            TvL: "So, there are two lines in this exegesis:
                                                            A: sitting at the right of the power (as Jesus said in Mark) is like the sitting at the right of God (as Jesus said too, elsewhere). Here is important the self-testimony of Jesus. (Quotes/dicere 1, 2, 3)
                                                            B: Jesus answer to the high priest in Mark (I am) versus the answer in other gospels (You say). (Quotes/dicere 1, 4)"

                                                            Line B is merely a tangential point; only Line A shines any light on the phrase in Jude v. 24.

                                                            Now, it looks like we agree that Clement equates "sitting at the right hand of Power" with sitting "at the right hand of God." But after you mentioned the phrase "sitting at the right of God," you stated, "as Jesus said too, elsewhere." Where is this "elsewhere"? Where does Jesus use the phrase "at the right hand of God"?

                                                            TvL: "So "a dextris dei" (quote 2) is not necessarily from Mark and dicit can be interpreted as: dominus dicit."

                                                            Granted, it's /conceivable/. But inasmuch as the Lord does not use the phrase "at the right hand of God," is it not more natural and reasonable to figure that Clement referred to an existent statement by Mark instead of a non-existent statement by the Lord?

                                                            TvL: "It is plausible to suppose Hebrews was in Clemens' mind."

                                                            But it is more plausible and simpler to deduce that Clement was simply quoting Mark 16:19. If you first assert that we should say that Clement intended for his reader to understand that /the Lord/ says "at the right hand of God," then how is it that the Lord thus becomes the author of Hebrews? Clement prefaces his reference to Hebrews 1:1 (in the comment on First Peter 4:10) by saying that he is quoting Paul, but he does not do that in the passage at hand.

                                                            Also – keeping in mind that we are reading a Latin translation of a Greek text – the text of Cassiodorus uses "a dextris dei." That is exactly what we see in Mark 16:19: "et sedet a dextris dei." But where is it found in Hebrews?

                                                            I suspect that if this reference had, from its discovery, been reckoned as a reference to Mark 16:19, no one would imagine that it was anything else.

                                                            Yours in Christ,

                                                            James Snapp, Jr.
                                                          • TeunisV
                                                            Thank you, James. It s a difficult matter. For now I see in a mirror dimly ... (1Cor. 13, 12, RSV). I take a time out to think it over. Be sure, I appreciate
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Sep 22, 2009
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              Thank you, James.
                                                              It's a difficult matter. "For now I see in a mirror dimly ..." (1Cor. 13, 12, RSV). I take a time out to think it over.
                                                              Be sure, I appreciate this kind of discussion highly.
                                                              Best.
                                                              Teunis

                                                              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "james_snapp_jr" <voxverax@...> wrote:
                                                              >
                                                              > Teunis,
                                                              >
                                                              > TvL: "Before rejecting Westcott's view on this matter we need to know Westcott's underlying arguments. For this moment they are not available to me. Maybe they are strong and coherent."
                                                              >
                                                              > Maybe. Or maybe Bigg misread or misremembered something and the arguments don't exist. In the 1896 edition of Westcott's Canon of the NT, Westcott describes the Adumbrationes fragments preserved by Cassiodorus and, as far as I can tell, his only caution to the reader is that a textual adjustment is needed in order to replace Cassiodorus' reference to the book of James into a reference to the book of Jude, as I described earlier.
                                                              >
                                                              > TvL: . . . "The editor Staehlin did not suppose a place of citation or allusion. I refer to: Daniel 7, 13.: One Like a Man, coming with the clouds of heaven, approached the Ancient in Years, "in conspectu". God is not visible, but the manifestations are, is further argued."
                                                              >
                                                              > The part about Daniel is rather opaque and barely resembles a sentence in English. But as far as its basic meaning is concerned, I too regard it as a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, as I mentioned earlier.
                                                              >
                                                              > TvL: "Then follows a mental leap in the Cassiodorus text to Mark 14, 62, an attempt to indicate the heavenly household, with the Son of God in an eminent place."
                                                              >
                                                              > Yes; Clement uses Daniel 7:13-14's reference to "One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven" as a stepping-stone to Mk. 14:62. Clement's intent seems to be to thus provide a reason to interpret "the presence of His glory" as "the presence of the glorious angels."
                                                              >
                                                              > TvL: "On the question of the high priest:
                                                              > 1. In the gospel according to Mark the Lord said: ego sum … a dextris sedentem virtutis (the powers, the holy angels)
                                                              > 2. Just so indeed when he says: a dextris dei (the powers, named by the name of God)
                                                              > 3. So when he says: sedere in dextra (the eminent place)"
                                                              >
                                                              > Here is where the question resides: does "Proinde enim cum dicit" mean "Further, when Jesus says," or does it mean "Further, when Mark says"? Inasmuch as Clement's immediate frame of reference is the Gospel of Mark, and the phrase "the right hand of God" is found only in Mark 16:19, and is not used by Jesus anywhere in the Gospels, what reason is there not to understand this as a reference to Mark 16:19?
                                                              >
                                                              > TvL: "But now there is still another issue to explain: ego sum (in Mark) is contrary to Jesus' words in other gospels."
                                                              >
                                                              > Yes; Clement turns to this tangent as he wraps up his comment. But this is merely a loose end, not an interpretation of anything in Jude.
                                                              >
                                                              > TvL: "So, there are two lines in this exegesis:
                                                              > A: sitting at the right of the power (as Jesus said in Mark) is like the sitting at the right of God (as Jesus said too, elsewhere). Here is important the self-testimony of Jesus. (Quotes/dicere 1, 2, 3)
                                                              > B: Jesus answer to the high priest in Mark (I am) versus the answer in other gospels (You say). (Quotes/dicere 1, 4)"
                                                              >
                                                              > Line B is merely a tangential point; only Line A shines any light on the phrase in Jude v. 24.
                                                              >
                                                              > Now, it looks like we agree that Clement equates "sitting at the right hand of Power" with sitting "at the right hand of God." But after you mentioned the phrase "sitting at the right of God," you stated, "as Jesus said too, elsewhere." Where is this "elsewhere"? Where does Jesus use the phrase "at the right hand of God"?
                                                              >
                                                              > TvL: "So "a dextris dei" (quote 2) is not necessarily from Mark and dicit can be interpreted as: dominus dicit."
                                                              >
                                                              > Granted, it's /conceivable/. But inasmuch as the Lord does not use the phrase "at the right hand of God," is it not more natural and reasonable to figure that Clement referred to an existent statement by Mark instead of a non-existent statement by the Lord?
                                                              >
                                                              > TvL: "It is plausible to suppose Hebrews was in Clemens' mind."
                                                              >
                                                              > But it is more plausible and simpler to deduce that Clement was simply quoting Mark 16:19. If you first assert that we should say that Clement intended for his reader to understand that /the Lord/ says "at the right hand of God," then how is it that the Lord thus becomes the author of Hebrews? Clement prefaces his reference to Hebrews 1:1 (in the comment on First Peter 4:10) by saying that he is quoting Paul, but he does not do that in the passage at hand.
                                                              >
                                                              > Also – keeping in mind that we are reading a Latin translation of a Greek text – the text of Cassiodorus uses "a dextris dei." That is exactly what we see in Mark 16:19: "et sedet a dextris dei." But where is it found in Hebrews?
                                                              >
                                                              > I suspect that if this reference had, from its discovery, been reckoned as a reference to Mark 16:19, no one would imagine that it was anything else.
                                                              >
                                                              > Yours in Christ,
                                                              >
                                                              > James Snapp, Jr.
                                                              >
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.