Robert M Price's review of Eisenman's The New Testament Code

[DCHindley]

Do you happen to know specifically which "Pseudo-Clementine" literature Eisenman is referring to? And what his claims are about this?

Probably the letters of Peter and Clement to James in the Homilies, and the whole hypothesis that Simon Magus is a stand-in for Paul, etc. He may also have detected Greek echoes in the Recognitions/Homilies of that specific kind of language (observing=doing) he sees expressed in the DSS.

DCH

[Clive]

Ellegard?

[Leucius Charinus]

Do you happen to know specifically which "Pseudo-Clementine" literature Eisenman is referring to? And what his claims are about this?

Probably the letters of Peter and Clement to James in the Homilies, and the whole hypothesis that Simon Magus is a stand-in for Paul, etc. He may also have detected Greek echoes in the Recognitions/Homilies of that specific kind of language (observing=doing) he sees expressed in the DSS.

Thanks DCH. Does Eisenman realise that the consensus is now that this Pseudo-Clementine literature (along with Simon Magus's detailed exploits) was authored quite late ... c.330 CE ... by an Arian?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature



LC

[DCHindley]

Do you happen to know specifically which "Pseudo-Clementine" literature Eisenman is referring to? And what his claims are about this?

Probably the letters of Peter and Clement to James in the Homilies, and the whole hypothesis that Simon Magus is a stand-in for Paul, etc. He may also have detected Greek echoes in the Recognitions/Homilies of that specific kind of language (observing=doing) he sees expressed in the DSS.

Thanks DCH. Does Eisenman realise that the consensus is now that this Pseudo-Clementine literature (along with Simon Magus's detailed exploits) was authored quite late ... c.330 CE ... by an Arian? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature

From what I know of him (and I have corresponded with him a few times over the years, but not about this subject, and no, I have never been on his boat), he probably does know of it but doesn't give it any credit. The Wiki article is a bit uneven, and some of the reasoning appears to be circular, so I will admit I do not know what to think of the proposal myself.

Personally, I was never very impressed by the idea that both the R & the H derive from some work called the Preaching of Peter, and that the latter can be virtually reconstructed from statements by Peter in R & H. While I have to assume it has been done, I have never seen a critical reconstruction of the kind that Kloppenborg does with Q. Even if it was written in German or some other language of sophittikation unknown to mere English speakers, I expect it would have been translated into our vulgar tongue if it really had that strong a persuasive punch. Perhaps I speak from iggorance, and I honestly hope someone will point out to me one I have missed.

Yes, in such a case, I give permission to the lucky man or woman to mockingly wag her or his spindly finger towards me.

DCH

[Leucius Charinus]

Thanks DCH. Does Eisenman realise that the consensus is now that this Pseudo-Clementine literature (along with Simon Magus's detailed exploits) was authored quite late ... c.330 CE ... by an Arian? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature

From what I know of him (and I have corresponded with him a few times over the years, but not about this subject, and no, I have never been on his boat), he probably does know of it but doesn't give it any credit. The Wiki article is a bit uneven, and some of the reasoning appears to be circular, so I will admit I do not know what to think of the proposal myself.

AFAIK the proposal follows the analysis of Dr. Armitage Robinson sketched as follows:

• 
  Early references
  
  It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. One of these quotations occurs in the Philokalia of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor. The other citation occurs in the old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew. This translation is full of interpolations and alterations, and the passage of Pseudo-Clement is apparently an interpolation by the translator from the Arian Opus imperfectum in Matt.[3]
  
  Omitting Origen, the earliest witness is Eusebius. In his Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxviii (AD 325) he mentions some short writings and adds:
  
  • "And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients."
  These dialogues need not have been the complete romance, but may have been an earlier draft of part of it. Next we find the Clementines used by Ebionites c. 360.[4] They are quoted as the Periodi by St. Jerome in 387 and 392 (On Galatians 1:18, and Adv. Jovin., 1:26). Two forms of the Recognitions were known to Rufinus, and one of them was translated by him c. 400. In about 408, Paulinus of Nola in a letter to Rufinus mentions having himself translated a part or all, perhaps as an exercise in Greek. The Opus imperfectum above mentioned has five quotations. It is apparently by an Arian of the beginning of the 5th century, possibly by a bishop called Maximus. The Syriac translation was made before 411, the date of one of the Manuscripts. After this time citations occur in many Byzantine writers, and from the commendation given by Nicephorus Callisti (14th century) we may gather that an orthodox version was current. In the West the translation by Rufinus became very popular, and citations are found in Syriac and Arabic writings.

I have made some notes on articles which discuss other aspects of these writings and will try and locate these.

From memory some treatments document the sources used by the author to be a substantial collection of [pagan] literature. The author appears to have been exceedingly literate and incorporates a great deal of material that marks him as a classical literature expert. (I will dig out my notes and the articles from which they have been gathered).

In conclusion DCH the Clementine literature appears to represent a literary reaction by pagan classical scholarship to the appearance of the Constantine Bible. It's early date depended (like all early dates for the non canonical texts) on "mentions" by the "Early Church Fathers", particularly Origen. Dr. Armitage Robinson exposed these so-called "early mentions" as interpolations of Origen by 4th century orthodox Christian identities Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil. Of course these interpolations could also possibly have been fabricated by the church organisation in some later century, since they were exclusively responsible for the preservation of the works of Origen.


EDIT:

Notes on the Clementine Romances
Author(s): Rendel Harris
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 40, No. 3/4 (1921), pp. 125-145
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3259292 .


LC