I am not sure:Ben C. Smith wrote: And you see the difference, right? You "feel" it as you listen to it. Reagan was President 3 decades ago, therefore "it is said" seems disingenuous if the saying originated just today. The referendum is something contemporaneous, right? So "it is said" is also contemporaneous, and can easily have originated just today with no feeling that one has been cheated.
The example with Clement is more like the Reagan example (decades ago) than like the referendum example (currently happening).
“it is said that Ronald Reagan suffered from diabetes during his second term,”
“it is said that leaving the EU will cause the break-up of not only the Euro zone but of the EU itself.”
I don’t see any reason that these things cannot both be said today. One is about a past event and one a future event but both sayings could be said today. There is no reason for anyone to believe either. However both could be made more believable, by the addition of some clarification of when it was said.
Thank you Robert for posting this.robert j wrote:The question seems to be mostly academic at this point, but Clement clearly cited a line from the Gospel of John in his Stromata.Michael BG wrote:I don’t know if there is evidence that Clement knew the gospel of John ...
As he often did, Clement wove passages from the scriptures --- and his other source material --- into his own running commentary. Here, Clement cited Matthew 13:34, John 1:3, and Proverbs 8:9 ----
The apostles accordingly say of the Lord, that "He spake all things in parables, and without a parable spake He nothing unto them;" and if "all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made," consequently also prophecy and the law were by Him, and were spoken by Him in parables. "But all things are right," says the Scripture, "before those who understand," that is, those who receive and observe, according to the ecclesiastical rule … (Stromata, Book 6, chapter 15)
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:3, NIV)
Are you referring to say Tatian’s Diatessaron, which is dated c 160-175. (I expect this is where Giuseppe suggests Marcion’s Evangelikon c 140.) Is not the Syriac name for it – “Gospel of the Mixed”?Secret Alias wrote:But this is so annoying. He is citing lines which appear in our 'Gospel of John' but the evidence suggests that the 'Super Gospel' was used in Alexandria at this time or at least was preferred. The way he weaves the references also supports that conclusion. To argue from the evidence that Clement is citing HERE or THERE from our 'Gospel of John' just because we know the passage from 'the Gospel of John' is about as likely as doing the same thing with the writings of Ephrem or Aphrahat. First came the super gospels and then c. 180 (possibly as late as 190 CE) the fourfold 'bundle' (= the 'separated gospels' as they are called in the East). The 'bundle' spread from Rome and eventually replaced the 'Super Gospel' (or 'super gospels') within the Empire by the middle of the third century. But in the East the effort didn't work until much, much later. That's a fact. Can we at least try to imagine that not only living things in nature but religious texts 'evolve' over time. The Jewish and Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch and Joshua EVOLVED. So too the gospel and the Pauline letters for fuck's sake. Why is this concept so hard for people trying to figure out the origins of Christianity? Oh I forgot, the universe has to bow down to their will. The legacy of atheism - a higher more serious sense of egoism for the world to deal with. The importance of 'me' as the new and only commandment in the universe.
Please can you quote the relevant section of the Diatessaron and provide its references and if possible an online link?
Do any scholars make a case for the Diatessaron being first which also explains the differences between the sections of Matthew and Luke that appear only in both (Q) and those also in Mark?