Part 1: You are surprised by your findings.
Part 2: You are double-checking references by authors rather than taking them at their word.
Now, for number 3. I usually do not bother reading a lot of blogs but on my twitter feed, I have seen several posts by one Stephan Huller on Clement of Alexandria. To say the least, the posts and the titles of said posts read more like Page 6 of the New York Post.
In my research on Clement, I don’t ever believe I came across one scholar who tried to claim that Clement had a close relationship with St. Mark. Yes, Clement did use the Secret Gospel of Mark, but you know what, he also quote Greek and Roman tragedies? Does that mean he was a playwright as well? The funny part about all of this, Huller’s scholarship on Clement o A is much more like the T.V. show Seinfield, it’s the show about nothing. How many times do you have to go over the same passages in Eusebius without referring to any texts written by Clement himself? You are not “myth-making”; myths in many cases, can guide us into truth. Sounding much more like Christian Reconstructionist historian David Barton, where every historian prior to him is “misguided,” Huller is just using his interpretation of Eusebius to put forth a weird conspiracy theory pertaining to the Gospel of Mark.
The relationship between Clement and Origen of Alexandria are superfluous, and really of no concern to me; as I have argued before, the time frames for Clement and Origen are uncertain, and because their teaching differ, at least in my reading, I choose not to place them in the same category.
Is there anything that proves Clement himself was living in Alexandria?
Let’s see, well, in his writings he refers to the temples of Isis, the Egyptian religions, and he relies on the work of Philo of Alexandria. So, I think it would be a little important for him to be teaching to his audience, wouldn’t that make a little sense? His works do not fall from the sky, and neither did an angel hand him a scroll. No, see, Clement’s Logos Christology comes in the historical context of Roman Egypt, where the folk spoke Greek, and the Jews were persecuted, not being able to become full citizens. In fact, in Clement’s Sermon/Exhortation to the Greeks, he suggests that the Hellenized Egyptian deities are really demons. Why else would he say that unless he had an audience who were located in Egypt?
The lesson we should learn here, how can one tell if you are doing CRITICAL scholarship, as opposed to pushing an agenda or conspiracy theory, is by acknowledging our own limitations. In Huller’s last few post on CoA, it sounded like Huller knows the man personally as if he shook Clement’s hands just the other day. You are free to believe what you want as well as “research” what you want, but freedom outside of any notion of truth or beauty or good is untruth, a lie.
Pingback: Quote of the day – Stephan Huller’s Scholarship | Unsettled Christianity
Thanks for making mention of my blog. The question of how deep Clement’s association with Alexandria go is as old as Epiphanius. Everyone agrees that at some point Clement left Alexandria. One would imagine that as long as Clement had eyes and hands he continued to write. As such I hardly think the question of whether or not some of Clement’s works might not have been written at Alexandria is at controversial. I have written about Philo, Egypt and all things you write about but never from Alexandria. To ask questions is the begin of real scholarship. I just noted how many scholars simply regurgitate the date of Clement’s death as ’215 – 216 CE’ as if this is somehow written in stone. As I note in my most recent post, a hundred years ago the most common date was 220 CE. While one may wonder what is the big deal about 4 or 5 years. The point here is that the argument is that the letter from Alexander of Jerusalem is now claimed to be ‘certainly written in 216 CE’ a view not shared by previous generations.
I don’t think that one is ‘conspiracy theorist’ merely for asking questions. Instead I would argue that there is far too little critical examination of the supposed ‘facts’ associated with the Patristic evidence. Because faith guides at least some (if not most) of the scholarship in this field, authors want to convey to their readership that we can somehow ‘know’ who Clement or Irenaeus was. This is almost impossible given the complete lack of sources available to us.
Almost our entire reconstructed ‘understanding’ of Clement comes from Eusebius and very information about Clement – almost nothing – comes from any other source. Origen, who is supposed to be Clement’s student according to Eusebius, has nothing to say about Clement. This isn’t to say that Origen might have said something about Clement but we lost it. No, even Eusebius who had a library filled with lost books of Origen can’t find any reference to Clement. He has to go to a letter that Alexander of Jerusalem wrote to Origen in order to make the connection between supposed student and master.
This is strange. I know for some history has to be straightforward like an episode of Dora the Explorer. But the reality is that things are not that simple. The question of whether or not Clement wrote the Letter to Theodore pale in comparison to (a) where was Clement born (b) how long did he live in Alexandria (c) when did he leave (d) is the Clement the presbyter who visited Antioch in the letter of Alexander one and the same with Clement of Alexandria (e) what are the dates for Clement’s works (f) did he write any of them in Alexandria and which ones (g) when did he die?
None of these questions can be convincingly argued to have been settled. I don’t why people act as if this was so.
I don’t think you thought through your criticism of my blog very thoroughly. The questions I have been asking about Clement have been asked by other scholars in various books and articles that you haven’t read likely owing to a language deficiency. There are other articles written in German and French and Italian and the scholarship is generally superior to the stuff that gets published over here.
You say that you haven’t read any scholarship which makes reference to Clement having any special relationship to St Mark. Well obviously you haven’t read anything by the Italian scholars Ilaria Ramelli of the Catholic University of Milan (who reads my blog regularly) or Pier Franco Beatrice of the University of Padova. I am not here to defend my right to ask questions, whether scholars should begin with questions or belief and the like. I thought these things were settled in Middle Ages.
The bottom line is that a major of my reader hold a post graduate degree of some kind. I have regular posts by recognized experts in the field of religious study like Markus Vinzent of King’s College London (which you fail to mention).
How is that the people who actually know what they are talking about enjoy reading my blog and people like you and Joel and other ‘bloggers’ have difficulty with someone who enjoys asking questions and finding answers?
You mention ‘the books you’ve read about Clement.’ You could probably put all the historical information about Clement into a coke bottle. Everything is conjecture. Everything is supposition and guess work.
In a recent work Paul Foster has said that the one thing he is sure of is the date Clement died but everything is up for grabs:
It is frequently said that Clement arrived in Alexandria around the year 180 and left there during the persecution of Christians under the emperor Severus in 202, but the only clear evidence we have for the chronology of Clement’s life is contained in two letters of Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, quoted by Eusebius. In the first, written in 211 to the church in Antioch, probably while Alexander was in Cappadocia (central Turkey), he writes: ‘I am sending you these lines, my dear brothers, by Clement the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and whom you have already heard and will now come to know’ (HE 6.11.6). The second, written to Origen in 215, presupposes Clement’s death. Alexander writes of Pantainos together with ‘the holy Clement, who was my master and benefited me, and all others like them. Through these I came to know you, who are the best in all things, and my master and brother’ (HE 6.14.9). Taken together, these letters suggest that Clement left Alexandria no later than the year 211 and died some time between 211 and 215. At the time Alexander writes, the word ‘presbyter’ could mean either priest or bishop. [Paul Foster, Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and Legacies of Twelve Key Figures p. 70]
I go one step further than Paul and am not even convinced that the letter of Alexander really has to be from 216 CE. The letter could have been written any time until the day Alexander died c. 251 CE.
So you want to pretend that my blog is somehow less valuable or less serious or less interesting than other sources of information about Clement of Alexandria. Well not everyone like vanilla ice cream. Some people like chocolate. Some people don’t even like ice cream.
But cut with bullshit about my blog being like a TV show. That’s such crazy nonsense. There are other ways of making friends than putting down a convenient scapegoat.
Keep on reading about Clement and Origen. Who knows, maybe one day you’ll have something original to say about them.
Stephan
“So you want to pretend that my blog is somehow less valuable or less serious or less interesting than other sources of information about Clement of Alexandria.”
Didn’t say anything in the like. That’s your own low self-image. Thanks for playing.
“There are other ways of making friends than putting down a convenient scapegoat.”
Scapegoating is a way to make friends. Who knew?
“The questions I have been asking about Clement have been asked by other scholars in various books and articles that you haven’t read likely owing to a language deficiency. There are other articles written in German and French and Italian and the scholarship is generally superior to the stuff that gets published over here.”
At this point, now I know you are trying to epically fail at winning an academic pissing contest. You dont name any of your sources, so I am going to keep presuming they do not exist. Secondly, you dont know me, otherwise you would have known I am certified in theological German and french.
You have been found wanting, and lost.
When I talk to Clement myself, I will ask him how he is doing for ya, kay?
Pingback: August 2011 Biblical Studies Carnival « Daniel O. McClellan
Pingback: That Time Stephan Huller discovered I was a Fundamentalist Orthodox Christian | Political Jesus
Pingback: November Biblical Studies Carnival: The Undead Edition « The Musings of Thomas Verenna
Pingback: This Week in Patristics July 24-30, 2011 | Catholic Canada