Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:30 pm Now the question is. What is the latest source that Hesychius uses?
There is a quite good wiki page Hesychius

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

On the orthodoxy of the statement shared with Valentinus here:

he same scruples made their way into Christianity,
and in Clem. Alex. Strom. 3. 17. 59, Ρ. 538 (193 Sylb.) we have
an excerpt of the letter of Valentinus, πρὸς ᾿Αγαθοπόδα, in which we
read that Jesus ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα. τοσαύτη
ἦν αὐτῷ ἐγκρατείας δύναμις, ὥστε καὶ μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ,
ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν. Nor was this particular scruple
confined to Docetic sects, for the orthodox Armenian Church
participates in the belief. Thus Nerses Claiensis, the great twelfth-
century doctor (Epistola II ad Iacobum Syrum, opera Latine,
Venetiis 1832, vol. 1, pp. 84-90): Quid foedius in nobis est, quid
magis inuitum euacuatione corruptorum?.... sicut ad litus maris
Tiberiadis post resurrectionem manducauit et bibit partem piscis
assi, quem petiit, et fauum mellis, neque audet quis «icere cor-
ruptionis solutionem adfuisse ... . ita credatur de lis quoque
cibis, quos ante resurrectionem manducauit, iuxta superius allatum
exemplum fuisse. The Virgin Mary, after her miraculous concep-
tion, was similarly exempted from the necessities of human nature.
That, says Nerses, was allowed to have been the case even by
externis ethnicis, qui etsi non profiteantur (Christum) Deum nec
filium, attamen ex eo quod illis innotescit natiuitas eius ex Uirgine,
ne passiones quidem ei tribuunt, neque mortem, nedum profecto
contemptibiles euacuationes. See below, note on p. 477. 22.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 2:09 pm On the orthodoxy of the statement shared with Valentinus here:

he same scruples made their way into Christianity,
and in Clem. Alex. Strom. 3. 17. 59, Ρ. 538 (193 Sylb.) we have
an excerpt of the letter of Valentinus, πρὸς ᾿Αγαθοπόδα, in which we
read that Jesus ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα. τοσαύτη
ἦν αὐτῷ ἐγκρατείας δύναμις, ὥστε καὶ μὴ φθαρῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἐν αὐτῷ,
ἐπεὶ τὸ φθείρεσθαι αὐτὸς οὐκ εἶχεν. Nor was this particular scruple
confined to Docetic sects, for the orthodox Armenian Church
participates in the belief. Thus Nerses Claiensis, the great twelfth-
century doctor (Epistola II ad Iacobum Syrum, opera Latine,
Venetiis 1832, vol. 1, pp. 84-90): Quid foedius in nobis est, quid
magis inuitum euacuatione corruptorum?.... sicut ad litus maris
Tiberiadis post resurrectionem manducauit et bibit partem piscis
assi, quem petiit, et fauum mellis, neque audet quis «icere cor-
ruptionis solutionem adfuisse ... . ita credatur de lis quoque
cibis, quos ante resurrectionem manducauit, iuxta superius allatum
exemplum fuisse. The Virgin Mary, after her miraculous concep-
tion, was similarly exempted from the necessities of human nature.
That, says Nerses, was allowed to have been the case even by
externis ethnicis, qui etsi non profiteantur (Christum) Deum nec
filium, attamen ex eo quod illis innotescit natiuitas eius ex Uirgine,
ne passiones quidem ei tribuunt, neque mortem, nedum profecto
contemptibiles euacuationes. See below, note on p. 477. 22.
This is from Conybeare's edition of Philo's On the Contemplative Life


Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

endlich finden sich manche Parallelen auch in dem buche von Gabrielsson, Uber de Quellen des Clemens Alexandrinus, Upsala und Leipzig 1906 verzeichnet. In seiner adnotatio fuhrt St. auch die Schriftsteller an, die Klemens bebutzt haben. Abgesehen von Katenen und den Sacra Parallela findet man meist Manner wie Eusebius und Theodoret zitiert (vgl. die Vorrede zum ersten Band der Ausgabe ... Aber dass die grossen Vater des 4. Jahrh. Klemens gar nicht benutzt haben sollten is nich denkbar. Ich beguuge mich hier, ein drastisches Beispiel spaterer Zeit ausfuhrlicher zu behandeln. Angelo Mai hat in der Bibl. nov. Patr III 450 aus einem Uberschrift tragt . er halt den brief fur echt und bei Migne wird dieser mit Mais Urteil als ep. 366 abgedruckt. Tatsachlich ist der Brief das elende Machwerk eines Falschers, der sich aus Basilius' Sammlung den Adressaten Urbicus herausgesucht hat. Von den Worten des Briefes gehoren nur wenige ihm, die ubrigen sind aus Klemens, besonders p. 197 und 223 St. zusammengestohlen. Der Verfasser will zeigen dass die egkrateia die Loslosung von allem Sterblichen ist, uber die Verganglichkeit erhebt und als Frucht die verleight . gleich zu Anfang stammen die Worte aus p. 197, 3. Weiterhin heisst es , mit Verschmelzung von 197, 4 und 223, 5. Wie Klemens gibt dann der verfasser Beispeile fur diese im weiteren Sinn. Migne druckt dabei obwohl vorher schon von der Enthaltsamkeit im Essen und Trinken die Rede war. Zu lesen ist nach Klemens p. 223, 9 . Zwei Zeilen darauf schreibt der Verfasser p. 197, 8.9 ab und fahrt dan fort: Was dann noch folgt stammt auch grossenteils von Klemens, z. B. aus 224, 10.1, geht uns aber hier weiter nichts an. wichtig ist dagegen die ausgeschriebene Stelle. Hier ubernimmt der Anonymus die Worte abgesehen von einer kleinen Ungenauigkeit wortlich aus p. 223, 13 - 16, unbekummert darum, dass Klemens die Worte selber aus dem Ketzer Valentin anfuhrt. der anfang des Zitats lautet nun bei Klemens: dass hier eine korruptel vorliegt, zeigt der Mangel au Verbindung und die Stellung des Wortes beim zweiten Gliede. Dass Schwartz die Stelle richtig beurteilt hat, wenn er hinter eine Lücke annahm, macht unser Anonymus zweifellos. Denn bei dem ganzen Charakter des Briefes muss man annehmen, bass er auch die Gedanken, die er vor ausspricht, night aus sich hat, sondern Klemens entlehnt. Man wird daher ruhig annehmen durfen, dass schon Valentin ausser dem Fehlen der Digestiones auch das gewichtlose Dahinschweben als Zeichen von Jesu egkrateia angefuhrt hat und wahrschienlich wird auch das Wortspiel auf dass der Anonymus schon im Anfangen des Briefes hinweist dem Kopfe Valentins entsprugngen sein. uber den Wortlaut ist damit naturlich nichts gesagt. Die uberlieferung der Stromateis beruht einzig auf dem Laur. V. 3 einer Hs des 11. Jahrh. die sehr fluchtig geschrieben ist und, wie die Zitate am deutlichsten zeigen, grosse Feheler in Fulle enthalt. dazu kommt dass Klemens die philologische Arbeit die er verdient bisher nicht gefunden hatte. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ph ... frontcover

Stahlin notices word play in the Letter which isn't in Clement which he has a hard time accounting for. The line: θεότητα ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, οὐ θνητότητα. "Jesus wrought not mortality but divinity" with the play on θεότητα - θνητότητα. Stahlin conjectures that the material must have come from Valentinus. But that doesn't make sense if he is merely patching together lines from the Stromateis. It's a good argument for the letter being an original letter of Clement in fact. Schaff takes note of it too https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... clvii.html Also here https://bkv.unifr.ch/de/works/cpg-2900/ ... isions/276 Hard to believe that some nobody stitching together passages came up with an original flourish like this.

The parallel line in the Stromateis is utterly unimaginative θεότητα Ἰησοῦς εἰργάζετο, ἤσθιεν καὶ ἔπινεν ἰδίως οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς τὰ βρώματα. Hard to believe that the supposed 5th or 6th century copyist was more creative and sophisticated than Clement.

Here is what Poblenz says:
Von den Worten des Briefes gehören nur wird auch das Wortspiel θεότητα - θνήτοτα , auf das der Anonymus schon im Anfange des Briefes hinweist dem Kopfe Valentins entsprungen sein .
He is saying that the play on words near the end of the letter is also at the beginning of the letter. Here it is:
ἀποβαίνει τοῦ θνητοῦ παντός, ὥσπερ σῶμα ἔχουσα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα

It withdraws from anything mortal, like a body which has the Spirit of God
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

When I start looking around for who originated this play on words I find it first manifest in Euripides.
Can it be any profit to the gods to heap upon us mortal men (θνητοῖσι θεοὺς ἐπιβάλλειν) beside our other woes this further grief for children lost, a grief surpassing all?
Clement not surprisingly cited Euripides use of θνητός quite a bit. Interestingly it is in Book Three where a lot of letter crosses over.

To proceed with our account of self-control. We were maintaining that the Greeks were highly critical of childbirth, looking askance at its inconveniences, and that Marcion’s followers understand this in a godless sense and show no gratitude to the creator. Tragedy (Euripides) says,

Better for mortals not to be born than to be born.
It is with bitter pains that I bear
children. I bear and those I bear lack sense.
I groan – no use! – at seeing vicious children and losing good ones.
Even if they survive my poor heart melts with fear.
Then what is this goodness? One soul is
Enough anxiety and effort to sustain.
More in the same vein he writes,
I have long thought and still think
that humans ought not to produce children,
seeing to what trials we engender them. 77

(4) But in these lines he clearly attributes the cause of evils to the primal beginnings with the words,

Born to disaster and ill fortune
you were born a human, and took a life
of disaster from the source from which this upper air
first gave to all humans the breezes that nourish life.
You are mortal: do not now begrudge your mortal state. (ὅθεν ἅπασιν ἤρξατο τρέφειν ὅδ' αἰθὴρ ἐνδιδοὺς θνητοῖς πνοάς· μή τοι νυν τὰ θνητὰ θνητὸς ὢν ἀγνωμόνει)

Again he presents similar ideas in the following passage:

No mortal is blessed,
none happy (θνητῶν δὲ ὄλβιος οὐδεὶς οὐδὲ εὐδαίμων).
none was yet born sorrow-free.

The juxtaposition shows up in Book 5:
But the most of men, clothed with what is perishable, like cockles, and rolled all round in a ball in their excesses, like hedgehogs, entertain the same ideas of the blessed and incorruptible God as of themselves.

οἱ δὲ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸ θνητὸν ἐνδυόμενοι καθάπερ οἱ κοχλίαι καὶ περὶ τὰς αὑτῶν ἀκρασίας ὥσπερ οἱ ἐχῖνοι σφαιρηδὸν εἱλούμενοι περὶ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ τοιαῦτα οἷα καὶ περὶ αὑτῶν δοξάζουσιν [Strom 5.11.68.2]
He later cites a similar play on words from a later writer:

Rightly, then, Xenophanes of Colophon, teaching that God is one and incorporeal, adds: "One God there is 'midst gods and men supreme; In form, in mind, unlike to mortal men." (εἷς θεός, ἔν τε θεοῖσι καὶ ἀνθρώποισι μέγιστος, οὔ τι δέμας θνητοῖσιν ὁμοίιος οὐδὲ νόημα)

and again

And Xenocrates the Chalcedonian, who mentions the supreme Zeus and the inferior Zeus, leaves an indication of the Father and the Son. Homer, while representing the gods as subject to human passions, appears to know the Divine Being, whom Epicurus does not so revere. He says accordingly: "Why, son of Peleus, mortal as thou art, With swift feet me pursuest, a god Immortal? Hast thou not yet known That I am a god?" (αὐτὸς θνητὸς ἐών, θεὸν ἄμβροτον;)
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

Another example from Empedocles ἐγὼ δ' ὑμῖν θεὸς ἄμβροτος, οὐκέτι θνητός
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Another Letter of Clement of Alexandria from the Monasteries

Post by Secret Alias »

Well? Can’t you see, good people (I want to speak as if you were here with me), that in fighting against these excellent commandments, you are in conflict 123 with your own salvation?
Clearly a part of a letter brought into the Stromata.
Post Reply