Stuart wrote:
... multiple sects are suggested, not simply a Jewish Christian and a heretical Christian division, although those are the larger battle lines. This says there is diversity within the heretical camp -- just as it is easily detected in the porto-Orthodox by the differences in the Catholic text on several theological points. It is verses like 1 Corinthians 11:19 which convince me that Marcion was not alone, not the originator. Rather his role is as the catalyst for the production of the New Testament to support evangelism.
I agree, although I'd say orthodoxy & heresy are revisionist constructs. I'm not sure there is anything that was really 'orthodox' in the 2nd C.
Stuart wrote:
Side note: this is strictly opinion, but based on the addresses of the Pauline letters and Revelation, but I think the initial geography of the Christian movement was likely restricted to three provinces, Macedonia, Achaea, and Asia. If Corinthians is simply a disguise for Cerinthius (Cephas as stand-in?) then the geography is even more restricted. To me this makes more sense, the movement starts in a smaller Aegean geography along the coast and up the Meander river(s). Again this is just personal speculation, only based on title addresses.
How do we know Clement is early? I accept no Church fathers prior to Severus' reign. In fact to turn it on it's head, Clement quoting or paraphrasing teh Didache would suggest that specific writing element at least is later.
One of the problems with early dating of the Church fathers, is accepting the references to various rulers and such, when they are extraneous to the arguments at hand. I accept Tertullian in AM making reference to Severus, because it is part of an argument about the time span between Marcion and the Tiberius, and placed in that context. Thus it fits the writing style, so a 208-211 date fits. I have more difficulty accepting Irenaeus dating to Versus and Marcus as co-emperors, because the account is separate from any argument, meant more to highlight martyrdom in a sense that was likely unknown prior to the Decian persecution. I chalk it up as an interpolation, or a repackaging of the original work by a later editor. This si in fact a general problem with the Patristic works, the versions we have are from the late middle ages, repackaged, sometimes multiple times, to fit the needs of the church fighting later heresies. Detering recently wrote a book on how the writings of Augustine are from a later era and not his.
That is a bit off point. The Didache is a multi-layered document, put together over a long period of time. It is dependent upon many different documents, or shows affinity with many from a wide range of dates. Also the quote you give is not in the Latin version, so presumably is even later. This very much aclls into question the authorship of the section of Clement you cite.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
