Is Eusebius the First Church Father For Whom We Have Reliable Witnesses to His Literary Work?

[Secret Alias]

Volker says epistle 366 is a patchwork of Clementine passages. Hard to argue with him. As such these letters did exist.

[andrewcriddle]

But a case for a pseudo-Clementine letter surely.

I'm not quite sure of your point. If the surviving works of Clement do not provide an accurate representation of the historical Clement, then I agree that it would establish the Mar Saba letter as a late imitation of the surviving works attributed to Clement from the middle ages onwards.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

My point was that if it is too Clementine for Clement there are still better explanations than Morton Smith. Letter 366 is what you claim to Theodore to be and yet you say it is by Valentinus. I will post Volker's apparatus. It is Clement. Literally. Its taken from his works. I talked with Porter and asked him this question. Won't repeat his answer.

[Secret Alias]

You don't want to admit that with Epistle 366 I've weaponized your paper as an argument for Morton Smith's innocence, which makes it more likely its an ancient forgery.

[Secret Alias]

You know it's true. I suspect even Goodacre knew it was true. They made these pseudo-Clementine letters in antiquity. It's over Andrew.

[Secret Alias]

Ok I'm getting out of bed to publish Volker's apparatus. My phone automatically prints attachments. It's set that way.

[andrewcriddle]

You don't want to admit that with Epistle 366 I've weaponized your paper as an argument for Morton Smith's innocence, which makes it more likely its an ancient forgery.

I agree that the hyper-Clementine elements of the Mar Saba letter do not in themselves imply a modern forgery.
However, there may be difficulties in a plausible context for an ancient forgery. I have already posted my reservations about the ideas of Landau and Smith. I have privately considered an origin of the letter in the three-way dispute in Egypt c 400 CE between the narrowly orthodox (who reject apocryphal works and intellectual speculation) , the anthropomorphite monks (who take apocryphal works crudely literally), and the Origenists (who are prepared to use apocryphal works but interpret them non-literally). However I doubt if this suggestion works.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

But epistle 366?

[Secret Alias]

You know better than claiming it's not hyper Clementine. Coming into contact with 366 is like another offspring of your paper. It's by definition hyper-Clementine. But you deny it.

[Secret Alias]

Ok I got to get up.