Its properly defined as Clementine not Valentinian. To argue for the latter is a gross abuse of good faith. It doesn't just cross the line on dishonesty. It is dishonest. How is it possible that every line comes from Clement and nothing excludes Clement save for that pre-Socratic saying.
Is Eusebius the First Church Father For Whom We Have Reliable Witnesses to His Literary Work?
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Is Eusebius the First Church Father For Whom We Have Reliable Witnesses to His Literary Work?
My mother in law who was born in Caracas and moved to Trinidad when the dictator her family supported died at like 1 years old had this story about her father being visited by all the "colored" babies that he would produce asking for some money. She said it was like this in Caracas. They would even keep the name of their mother's paramour. Epistle 366 is the unwanted lovechild of your article.
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Is Eusebius the First Church Father For Whom We Have Reliable Witnesses to His Literary Work?
And in case anyone was wondering what the connection was between South American illicit sex and the pseudo-Clementine letters. My mother-in-law said that "if they were lucky" the children born from illicit affairs would be "given" the name of her father. This would be the exception. I hope the analogy makes sense now.