Discursive Competition and the Production of Truth in the Pseudo-Clementine <i>Recognitions</i>Syriaca.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/VXI3NEAB/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.NicoleKelleyDiscursive Competition and the Production of Truth in the Pseudo-Clementine <i>Recognitions</i>http://syriaca.org/cbss/VXI3NEABhttps://www.zotero.org/groups/a_comprehensive_bibliography_on_syriac_studies/items/VXI3NEABhttps://www.zotero.org/groups/4861694/items/VXI3NEAB2003The fourth century Christian text known as the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions traditionally is regarded as a haphazard collection of source materials. Rather than being regarded as an important historical document in its own right, it has been mined for materials that shed light on earlier stages of Christianity. I argue that the source critical divisions established by previous scholarship actually work to obscure the Recognitions' rhetorical aims. My dissertation uses the work of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu to show how philosophical and astrological materials, which have been separated from other parts of the text by source critical considerations, are used to further the Recognitions' agenda about true knowledge.
The Recognitions is a series of debates about knowledge waged by two opposing groups: those who have prophetic knowledge (i.e. Peter, Clement, Niceta, and Aquila), and those who do not (philosophers and astrologers, among others). These debates demonstrate the protagonists' skill in astrology and philosophy: they are masters of every possible form of knowledge. However, the text also suggests that philosophy and astrology do not really lead to true knowledge. Such "knowledge" is mere conjecture and opinion, which is the product of fallible human reason or demonic powers. Prophetic knowledge is the only true knowledge, and it comes only through a direct relationship to Jesus himself. Peter and his followers possess this prophetic knowledge because Peter knew Jesus personally and accurately transmits his message to others.
My reading of the Recognitions suggests that the text's interest in knowledge--and the transmission of that knowledge from Jesus to Peter and then to Clement--is an argument about its own authority. Because Peter reproduces Jesus' words exactly, and because Clement writes a verbatim account of Peter's words, the Recognitions is a complete and reliable collection of the words of the true prophet himself. When seen in this light, the Recognitions is an elaborate defense of its own prophetic knowledge against the other major claimants to knowledge in antiquity.
Kelley, Nicole. “Discursive Competition and the Production of Truth in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2003.
Nicole Kelley, Discursive Competition and the Production of Truth in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 2003).IV CENT apocryphaPseudo-Clementinesastrologypolemic