The Redactors of the “Pseudo-Clementines” in the Tripolis DiscoursesSyriaca.org: The Syriac Reference PortalThe National Endowment for the HumanitiesThe International Balzan Prize FoundationDavid A. Michelsoncbsc_adminRecord added to Zotero bycbsc_adminSyriaca.org: The Syriac Reference Portalhttp://syriaca.org/cbss/PKEBMICQ/tei
Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
2024-08-15-04:00
Born digital.
CREATED: This bibl record was autogenerated from a Zotero record.Joe RodneySnowdenThe Redactors of the “Pseudo-Clementines” in the Tripolis Discourseshttp://syriaca.org/cbss/PKEBMICQhttps://www.zotero.org/groups/a_comprehensive_bibliography_on_syriac_studies/items/PKEBMICQhttps://www.zotero.org/groups/4861694/items/PKEBMICQ1990The Tripolis Discourses display the closest relationship of Recognitions and Homilies to be found in the Pseudo-Clementines. There are large blocks of material found in both, and there are sections unique to each version. The parallel blocks are identified as being from the Grundschrift while the sections found only in one or the other are attributed to the respective redactors. The thesis proceeds on the working hypothesis that Recog. and Hom. are based on the Grundschrift independently of one another. The Grundschrift can be reconstructed here in a way that makes it a coherent unit of text.
The Discourses are, therefore, examined in order to establish a profile of the redactors of Recog. (R), Hom. (H), and the Grundschrift (G). It is shown that R and H operated in similar manners shifting blocks of text and inserting interpolations in order to shape their arguments. H made larger changes creating a 4-day structure, but R also shifted the order of blocks of the Grundschrift within the original 3-day arrangement.
The interpolations reveal the issue at hand. H argues that there is evil substance and that idol meat is the main vehicle of demons. R emphasizes that it is incorrect thinking which exposes one to demons and evil. The large parallel blocks have been redacted by both R and H in keeping with their respective interests observed in the interpolations.
The two lines of argument emphasized by R and H are both represented in the Grundschrift. The redactors have taken an issue found in the Grundschrift and expanded it making it the crux of the argument. The opposing position, however, can still be observed in each version.
A nucleus of material can be isolated which was used by G in the creation of the Tripolis Discourses. G's work can be seen to be very much in the mainstream of what we know of the 1st and 2nd century. The Discourses came about because of tension with rivals in the hellenistic mission; and the revisions by R and H were motivated by a similar tension at a more developed stage. They represent schools of thought which had their origin within the group associated with G.
The major motifs of the Tripolis Discourses can be observed in other sections of the Ps.-Cl., and G was careful to splice them into the flow of the Ps.-Cl. as a whole. Based on the observations made about H in the examination of the Tripolis Discourses, it can be seen that Hom. 7 comes from the hand of H and was not part of the Grundschrift. It is also argued that Hom. 4-6, the Appion section, was not part of the Grundschrift as well.
Snowden, Joe Rodney. “The Redactors of the ‘Pseudo-Clementines’ in the Tripolis Discourses.” Th.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1990.
Joe Rodney Snowden, The Redactors of the ‘Pseudo-Clementines’ in the Tripolis Discourses (Th.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1990).NT apocryphaPseudo-Clementines