In a paper on the parallels and relationship between Ps.-Basil of Caesarea’s ep. 366 (aka De Continentia) and a quotation of Valentinus given in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.7.59.3 (ep. 366/De Cont. being excerpted from Valentinus’s lost Letter to Agathopous), Nathan Porter noted that, after having undertaken a painstaking study of Clement’s citation practices, Annewies van den Hoek demonstrated that,
"[Clement] often quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to multiple passages from a text while only citing a source for part of the borrowed material.6 Plato, Paul, and Philo are not infrequently quoted verbatim without being mentioned by name.7 Even when they are explicitly cited, Clement sometimes attributes only part of the borrowing to his source. For instance, his source may be named between two quotations, leaving it unclear where the borrowing begins and where it ends."
6 See Annewies van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis: An Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1988); and idem, “Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria. A View of Ancient Literary Working Methods,” Vigiliae Christianae 50, no. 3 (1996): 223–43. For a summary of the discussion of Clement’s citation practices in the last century, see Clement of Alexandria, 3–4. Van den Hoek’s conclusions are discussed in David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 137–142.
7 This is especially marked in the case of Philo. He is left unnamed in the following passages in which the borrowings are relatively substantial: Strom. 2.5–6 (Post. 1–24); Strom. 2.46–52 (Congr. 83–106 and Post. 22–29); Strom. 5.67–68 (Sacr. 84, 95–100); and Strom. 5.71–74 (Post. 14–20 and Somn. 1.64–66); see van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria, 148–176. See further Eric Osborn, “Philo and Clement,” Prudentia 19 (1987), 35–49; “Philo and Clement: Quiet Conversation and Noetic Exegesis,” The Studia Philonica Annual 10 (1998): 108–124; and Runia, Philo, 132–156. A possible explanation for this phenomenon, without focusing on Philo, is offered in Denise Kimber Buell, “Procreative Language in Clement of Alexandria” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1995), 108–109.
.
Porter later notes,
Coherence Several features of the material shared by De Cont. and the Stromata are difficult to explain in the context of the Stromata but make considerably better sense in the De Cont. This can be plausibly explained by Clement’s habit of placing his quotations in contexts that confuse their original meaning (an important conclusion of Van Den Hoek) ...
Mixing and Matching Some passages in De Cont. are paralleled twice in Clement, with each part containing a very small portion of the paralleled text (usually only one or two words) that the other does not. This can be easily explained on the supposition that Clement copied the passage twice with varying degrees of accuracy, especially when we take into account his usual quotation practices ...
.
Porter also notes that, in Strom. 2.18.81.1, Clement "seems to allude to and rebut the position taken by the letter, although he does not quote it."
Nathan E Porter (2024) 'A Newly Identified Letter of Valentinus on Jesus' Digestive System: PS.-Basil of Caesarea's ep. 366' Vigiliae Christianae 78 (2024): 249-86 https://www.academia.edu/96467954/A_New ... ristianae_
Re
Carl Johan Berglund (2020) Origen’s References to Heracleon: A Quotation-Analytical Study of the Earliest Known Commentary on the Gospel of John, Mohr Siebeck.
"[Clement] often quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to multiple passages from a text while only citing a source for part of the borrowed material.6 Plato, Paul, and Philo are not infrequently quoted verbatim without being mentioned by name.7 Even when they are explicitly cited, Clement sometimes attributes only part of the borrowing to his source. For instance, his source may be named between two quotations, leaving it unclear where the borrowing begins and where it ends."
6 See Annewies van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis: An Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1988); and idem, “Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria. A View of Ancient Literary Working Methods,” Vigiliae Christianae 50, no. 3 (1996): 223–43. For a summary of the discussion of Clement’s citation practices in the last century, see Clement of Alexandria, 3–4. Van den Hoek’s conclusions are discussed in David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 137–142.
7 This is especially marked in the case of Philo. He is left unnamed in the following passages in which the borrowings are relatively substantial: Strom. 2.5–6 (Post. 1–24); Strom. 2.46–52 (Congr. 83–106 and Post. 22–29); Strom. 5.67–68 (Sacr. 84, 95–100); and Strom. 5.71–74 (Post. 14–20 and Somn. 1.64–66); see van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria, 148–176. See further Eric Osborn, “Philo and Clement,” Prudentia 19 (1987), 35–49; “Philo and Clement: Quiet Conversation and Noetic Exegesis,” The Studia Philonica Annual 10 (1998): 108–124; and Runia, Philo, 132–156. A possible explanation for this phenomenon, without focusing on Philo, is offered in Denise Kimber Buell, “Procreative Language in Clement of Alexandria” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1995), 108–109.
.
Porter later notes,
Coherence Several features of the material shared by De Cont. and the Stromata are difficult to explain in the context of the Stromata but make considerably better sense in the De Cont. This can be plausibly explained by Clement’s habit of placing his quotations in contexts that confuse their original meaning (an important conclusion of Van Den Hoek) ...
Mixing and Matching Some passages in De Cont. are paralleled twice in Clement, with each part containing a very small portion of the paralleled text (usually only one or two words) that the other does not. This can be easily explained on the supposition that Clement copied the passage twice with varying degrees of accuracy, especially when we take into account his usual quotation practices ...
.
Porter also notes that, in Strom. 2.18.81.1, Clement "seems to allude to and rebut the position taken by the letter, although he does not quote it."
Nathan E Porter (2024) 'A Newly Identified Letter of Valentinus on Jesus' Digestive System: PS.-Basil of Caesarea's ep. 366' Vigiliae Christianae 78 (2024): 249-86 https://www.academia.edu/96467954/A_New ... ristianae_
Re
Carl Johan Berglund (2020) Origen’s References to Heracleon: A Quotation-Analytical Study of the Earliest Known Commentary on the Gospel of John, Mohr Siebeck.
Also see viewtopic.php?t=12789
In his study, Berglund discerned four general ways in which Origen attributed views and statements to Heracleon, ie. four different 'modes of attribution':
- Verbatim quotations,
- Summaries or non-interpretive rephrasings,
- Explanatory paraphrases, and
- Mere assertions
"This distinction between four modes of attribution is more specific than the commonly used one between fragmenta (attributed statements) and testimonia (assertions) ... It differs from other reference categorization systems in that it measures how well a reference matches its source rather than how clear it is that a certain source has been used." [pp. 7-8]." ... this study identified more than fifty verbatim quotations from Heracleon in Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, a little over seventy summaries of his interpretations, just under sixty explanatory paraphrases, and five mere assertions .... many of the statements he attributes to Heracleon are frustratingly short ... " [p. 312]
"As concluded in two previous studies, Origen’s stance toward Heracleon vacillates from general renunciation and emphatic criticism, via considered disagreement and hypothetical approval, all the way to agreement and praise. His presentation of material from Heracleon’s writing is visibly impacted by this variance. Origen is typically more interested in explaining exactly what is wrong with Heracleon’s interpretation – or, in the case of hypothetical approval, what could be so wrong that it necessitates rejection just in case – than with understanding the point Heracleon is trying to make and evaluating its potential value. In cases where Origen finds heterodox theology in Heracleon’s comments, it is, therefore, far from certain that he gets Heracleon’s original point across.
"Although it may be difficult to determine why, exactly, Origen connected Heracleon’s comments to heterodox ideas that were not expressed in his writing, it is straightforward to suggest two possible reasons: perhaps Origen first encountered Heracleon’s name through the mediation of heresiological descriptions much like Irenaeus’s, and simply kept his initial impression of Heracleon’s theology as his main interpretive key to his writing. Perchance it was mainly “those who bring in the natures” who read and appreciated Heracleon’s exegesis in Origen’s time, which would explain why it never occurred to Origen that Heracleon could have any other opinions than his later readers." [p. 317]
.this study has demonstrated on multiple occasions, Heracleon’s interpretation of the Fourth Gospel does not consider this Gospel in isolation, but makes use of a corpus of early Christian literature, including a Synoptic Gospel tradition that is similar to the Gospel of Matthew, a collection of Pauline letters, the Preaching of Peter, and – with high probability – some Old Testament material. [p.327]
Had Origen not found himself caught in a quarrel with Heracleon due to his presumed heterodoxy, the many similarities between the modi operandi of these two early exegetes would have played out differently ... Origen did not share Heracleon’s acceptance of the Preaching of Peter ...
Regardless of his relation to Valentinus, the exegete we encounter in Origen’s references to Heracleon is a Christian, a believer in the idea that a divine being, the [Logos], has transcended the chasm that separates the creator from his creation to live the life of a human being. Heracleon recognizes a corpus of early Christian literature to which he turns to make sense of what he reads in the Fourth Gospel, a corpus that contributes more to the shaping of his scriptural interpretations than any heterodox dogmatic views he may have learned from teachers such as Valentinus. His concept of a created Maker that was charged with carrying out the work of the creation based on the plan of the Word may not conform to the ideas of later orthodoxy, but is not enough to confine him to a minority sub-group within the second-century Christian movement.
... removing Heracleon from the “Gnostic” or “Valentinian” fold, this study places him in a central position in the second century development of Christianity.
pp. 340-1.
.
Interestingly, it seems that:What Berglund determines to be Quotation 8.5 speaks of the Savior descending from his majesty and taking flesh.
- Heracleon’s usual term for the human Jesus is σωτήρ - Soter - ie., Saviour
- Heracleon identifies this σωτήρ with the divine Logos, and
- he calls this entity the true creator
Statistics: Posted by MrMacSon — Tue Oct 29, 2024 1:10 pm