neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:36 am
Clementine Homilies also on the anti-Marcionite side but not with the "catholics": a different reconciliation, one that relies more heavily on the Gospel of Matthew, and one that has Peter doing his thing, following Paul/Simon everywhere to expose him and undo his damage.
But why wouldn’t this author affirm the premiss of Acts that Peter preceded Paul, had he known of it? And if he didn’t know it, can we draw any conclusions about relative chronology? I have no idea about a historical context for the Clementine author, but as suggested above I don’t think being anti-Marcionite is his primary concern. He evinces a practical concern for upholding the basic Jewish morality of Jesus and James and gMatthew, and seems to eschew debate about theology.
I find it very hard to imagine that the Clementine author had any knowledge of our canonical Acts.
Is not the Clementine author part of a Jewish lineage? If so, then is he not playing catchup with the widespread gentile form of Christianity that he eschews?
Following up this disposition it would be possible to recognize where Simon belongs, who as first and before me went to the gentiles, and where I belong, I who came after him and followed him as the light follow darkness, knowledge ignorance, and healing sickness. Thus then, as the true prophet has said, a false gospel must first come from an impostor and only then, after the destruction of the holy place, can a true gospel be sent forth for the correction of the sects ["heresies"] that are to come. And thereafter in the end Antichrist must first come again and only afterwards must Jesus, our actual Christ, appear and then, with the rising of eternal light, everything that belongs to darkness must disappear.
For a beginner here, where do I find the Clementine literature with its Greek and translation online? Thanks.
Thanks Secret. But you're way ahead of me in this area. Is there another site with the translation into English as well?
That was my source for the Greek (via Ben Smith’s text excavation site) but I don’t know where the English is online. I typed it out from Ehrman’s anthology Lost Scriptures, which I think uses the translation of Schneemelcher.
I’m new to this stuff as well, getting my feet wet. F. Stanley Jones is a respected scholar of the Clementines, but I haven’t read him. Here is a paper by Annette Reed that discusses his work.
1. It fails to address the conundrum of the "first Paul, then Peter" narrative. The problem is even worse if the Clementine author knew Acts, was alluding to an episode it, and was contradicting its most essential storyline (first Peter, then Paul). The Peter of CH2.17 cannot be referring to an episode in Acts, taken either as real history or as narrative, that takes place after, not before, the "true gospel is sent forth" through Peter.
I don't think the Clementine author needed to know Acts if they were a post-70 CE Ebionite with ties to the culture of the proto-Ebionites mentioned in Acts. In other words, the Ebionites didn't need Acts' version of pre-70 CE events because they were there too and had their own version.
Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:38 amThe fact that the fisherman Peter of the Gospels would have been too old to go on tour at this late date seems to go unnoticed.
You are correct, Irish1975. There are other Chronologies, certainly. The one I see has Peter as a child at the Passover of 4 BCE. He saves the Priest from certain death. He should certainly be no older than 12. Appearing at the Conflagration in 70 and beyond ("Arise, Aeneas...!"), Peter would have been in his late 80s and then older.
It is interesting that the story of Acts is either unknown or subverted, while at the same time the author makes a clear allusion to Jesus' prophecy in Mark 13 that false messiahs and false prophets would come before the end times...
Here is where we are let in on the Secret that the fix is in: Mark 13 is a rewrite of Jannaeus against the Greek General Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem (Gerizim) and "What came later."
YMMV, of course. but there are others who derive similar absurdities in Chronologies. You are correct in pointing to these absurdities. We may then focus on something other than Apologetix(TM) and look to how this entire Enterprise was constructed.