IIRC, one of Morton Smith’s teachers suggested he search for mss of Isidore of Pelusium’s letters. I’m not sure why. But it may be worth a minor note to mention an article not included in Smith’s 1973 Clement book bibliography:
L. Früchtel, Isidoros von Pelusion als Benutzer des Clemens Alexandrinus und anderer Quellen, Philologische Wochenschrift: 58, 1938, 61-64. It lists 18 places where Isidore used text of Clement.
While I’m here, I also mention that Andrew Criddle at hypotyposeis.org (“Letters of Clement of Alexandria?”) proposed that references in Sacra Parallela might have been a mix-up with Clement of Rome. Smith took the attributions as genuine and also associated, via John of Damascus, with Mar Saba. The quotes in any case are brief (Karl Holl, pages 120-1, numbers 311-313.) Andrew, since you know more about this than I do, a lazy question, if you care to comment on the content of the quotations: are they too skimpy to find closer to one or another Clement?
Isidore of Pelusium and Clement of Alexandria
-
StephenGoranson
- Posts: 2489
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am
-
andrewcriddle
- Posts: 2843
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: Isidore of Pelusium and Clement of Alexandria
The quotations are IMVHO too brief for attribution on stylistic grounds. In any case I was not suggesting that the quotes come from a genuine work of Clement of Rome. I was suggesting that as pseudo-Clementine material was produced in the Byzantine period it was liable to be mis-attributed to Clement of Alexandria as well as to Clement of Rome (or to a Clement who combines features of both real Clements).StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:57 am IIRC, one of Morton Smith’s teachers suggested he search for mss of Isidore of Pelusium’s letters. I’m not sure why. But it may be worth a minor note to mention an article not included in Smith’s 1973 Clement book bibliography:
L. Früchtel, Isidoros von Pelusion als Benutzer des Clemens Alexandrinus und anderer Quellen, Philologische Wochenschrift: 58, 1938, 61-64. It lists 18 places where Isidore used text of Clement.
While I’m here, I also mention that Andrew Criddle at hypotyposeis.org (“Letters of Clement of Alexandria?”) proposed that references in Sacra Parallela might have been a mix-up with Clement of Rome. Smith took the attributions as genuine and also associated, via John of Damascus, with Mar Saba. The quotes in any case are brief (Karl Holl, pages 120-1, numbers 311-313.) Andrew, since you know more about this than I do, a lazy question, if you care to comment on the content of the quotations: are they too skimpy to find closer to one or another Clement?
Andrew Criddle
-
StephenGoranson
- Posts: 2489
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am
Re: Isidore of Pelusium and Clement of Alexandria
Thanks for the correction, Andrew. (I meant content moreso than stylistics, but that may be moot, given the skimpiness.)
Morton Smith may have known that attributions of quotes in any given catena patrum were often iffy; yet he presented Clement of Alexandria as assuredly a writer of genuine letters that were for centuries preserved, with a presumed role for Mar Saba in the preservation process, and hence a likely-suspect place for a find at the end of his stay.
Of course, the ms handwriting looks similar to hands that are later than the Voss book of 1646--though with oddities according to A. T.
It may be interesting to see whether the forthcoming book by Geoffrey Smith and B. Landau will propose the text was composed in the context of pseudo-Clementine composition era, or during the Origenist controversy, or something else in such ballpark times. I’ve already given reasons to be provisionally skeptical. G. Smith’s case for post-Eusebius composition, if accepted, is a worthwhile step. How much later?
Could a post Eusebius but pre-modern, pre-1646, maybe even pre-GCS Clement edition Greek have composed such a hyper-“Clement” text in its style but simultaneously non-“Clement” text in its content?
Once again, Morton Smith was *not* a Sabbatean, nor religionist, but attempted an analogy between the “Mar Saba Jesus” and the man, Sevi, Gershom Scholem wrote a great book about.
It might could be that M. Smith looked for gaps in Mark, gaps in “Clement” letters, etc. And brazened it out. I may be mistaken, but it is allowed in scholarship to question an extraordinary claim presented with evidence that is less than extraordinary.
Morton Smith may have known that attributions of quotes in any given catena patrum were often iffy; yet he presented Clement of Alexandria as assuredly a writer of genuine letters that were for centuries preserved, with a presumed role for Mar Saba in the preservation process, and hence a likely-suspect place for a find at the end of his stay.
Of course, the ms handwriting looks similar to hands that are later than the Voss book of 1646--though with oddities according to A. T.
It may be interesting to see whether the forthcoming book by Geoffrey Smith and B. Landau will propose the text was composed in the context of pseudo-Clementine composition era, or during the Origenist controversy, or something else in such ballpark times. I’ve already given reasons to be provisionally skeptical. G. Smith’s case for post-Eusebius composition, if accepted, is a worthwhile step. How much later?
Could a post Eusebius but pre-modern, pre-1646, maybe even pre-GCS Clement edition Greek have composed such a hyper-“Clement” text in its style but simultaneously non-“Clement” text in its content?
Once again, Morton Smith was *not* a Sabbatean, nor religionist, but attempted an analogy between the “Mar Saba Jesus” and the man, Sevi, Gershom Scholem wrote a great book about.
It might could be that M. Smith looked for gaps in Mark, gaps in “Clement” letters, etc. And brazened it out. I may be mistaken, but it is allowed in scholarship to question an extraordinary claim presented with evidence that is less than extraordinary.