Did Jesus Baptise people?

[Michael BG]

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).

I am not sure:
“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.

I don’t know if there is evidence that Clement knew the gospel of John ...

The question seems to be mostly academic at this point, but Clement clearly cited a line from the Gospel of John in his Stromata.

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)

Thank you Robert for posting this.

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.

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”?

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?

[Ben C. Smith]

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).

I am not sure:
“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.

The claim in both cases is that it is being said today. The verb "is saying" is in the present tense. That is not in dispute. What seems to be at issue is what it means to the average listener that something "is being said". I am saying that, to me and to a lot of others (though I cannot speak for all), it is an appeal to knowledge that is common in some way, at least in some circles. And common knowledge about past events normally has its roots in the past, not in the present, on a charitable view. (A less charitable view is the one we have both acknowledged is possible: the person is passing his/her own thoughts off as common knowledge; but that is dishonest precisely because of the points made above; if all the hearer is hearing is the present tense, then no deception need be involved; but only a robot would interpret sentences like that.)

[andrewcriddle]

If we regard Cassiodorus as based on Clement then he knew something like our John

III.—COMMENTS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

“That which was from the beginning; which we have seen with our eyes; which we have heard.”
Following the Gospel according to John, and in accordance with it, this Epistle also contains the spiritual principle.
...............................................................................................................................
“The life was manifested.” For in the Gospel he thus speaks: “And what was made, in Him was life, and the life was the light of men.”

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Think of it this way: if I claim to you that "they say Ronald Reagan suffered from diabetes in his second term," and if, in context, I am endorsing this view, appealing to a common fund of knowledge to make it seem likely to you, too, that Reagan had this issue 3 decades ago, then I must want you to believe the statement. If I want you to believe the statement, though, there is pretty much no way that I am hoping that your reasoning will focus relentlessly on that present tense, to the effect that nobody thought Reagan had diabetes until earlier this morning, when two of my coworkers ("they", plural) suddenly dreamed it up out of nowhere and began passing it around ('say", present tense). No, what I want you to believe is that "they say" this precisely because "everybody" knows it, and everybody knows it because it really happened, and the knowledge of the time, 30 years ago, was passed down to the present.

[Secret Alias]

Michael BG

Do you realize how silly what you are saying is? You say this:

Tatian’s Diatessaron, which is dated c 160-175.

Where is the evidence that Tatian 'invented' his super gospel? So Theophilus invented his super gospel? And everyone else invented, invented but only Irenaeus - living in an age of invention and novelty - resisted the temptation. Right. And who was Tatian's teacher? And what gospel form did he use? The fourfold or the super gospel type? Yes certainly it is said that Tatian makes explicit reference to Johannine material and Justin is not so clear. Fine. But how do you get around the fact that both Justin and Tatian formed a tradition and both individuals used 'super gospels'?

[Secret Alias]

And then there is Irenaeus using Justin's treatise Against Marcion (or someone's treatise at least) which was originally written using a 'super gospel' and now adapted (falsely) to be a mouthpiece for Luke. Doesn't this close the book on whether the fourfold SEPARATED form or the 'super gospel' form was first? Where did Lukan material come from if Luke was only invented with Irenaeus? And then there is Irenaeus using Justin's treatise Against Marcion (or someone's treatise at least) which was originally written using a 'super gospel' and now adapted (falsely) to be a mouthpiece for Luke. Doesn't this close the book on whether the fourfold SEPARATED form or the 'super gospel' form was first? Where did Lukan material come from if Luke was only invented with Irenaeus?

[robert j]

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.

Clement cited the Gospel of John many times, including one to several times in each of the first seven books of his eight-book Stromata.

Here’s another example, with a citation of John 1:18 ----

And John the apostle says: "No man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him," calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God. Hence some have called it the Depth, as containing and embosoming all things, inaccessible and boundless. (Stromata, Book 5, chapter 12)

No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known. (John 1:18)

[Secret Alias]

[Secret Alias]

A parallel. Your holding a bottle of water. I'm drinking water from a glass. Does it follow I took my water from your bottle. Is that the only possibility? Is your bottle the only possible source for the water in my glass?

[robert j]

A parallel. Your holding a bottle of water. I'm drinking water from a glass. Does it follow I took my water from your bottle. Is that the only possibility? Is your bottle the only possible source for the water in my glass?

"These pretzels are making me thirsty" ---- Five interpretations ----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMe7mlRv8UE