I think I figured out what bothers me about Goranson. When I read scholarship I generally divide things into positions which are respectable and those which are unworkable. Goranson's tone is basically "things I accept" and "things I don't accept." There is a nuance of difference here. Yes in general "respectable" opinions tend to align with "things I agree with," but it is not identical with that understanding. The idea that Chadwick is inferring that Clement might have read Celsus seems to be acknowledged by others too:
Chadwick's works are sympathetic to the idea that Clement read Celsus. https://books.google.com/books?id=hd8eE ... +he+wrote+(+H.+Chadwick+,+Early+Christian%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw_6W487aKAxX2ETQIHXUcNYgQ6wF6BAgFEAE#v=onepage&q=%22as%20he%20wrote%20(%20H.%20Chadwick%20%2C%20Early%20Christian%22&f=falseClement is not an apolo- gist in the conventional sense and his works do not come under the category of " apology " His writings , however , include much apologetic - polemical material . The many issues raised in apologies are discussed in his works with a breadth and pro- fundity that reflect his extensive knowledge of Greek philosophy and his remark- able erudition . Clement explicitly states that his works are intended for pagans as well ( Stromateis 7,1 ) . He does not mention Celsus and perhaps did not read or even hear of his work . However , several points indicate that he may have had Celsus or another critic in mind as he wrote ( H. Chadwick , Early Christian Thought , p . 49 ) .
Statistics: Posted by Secret Alias — Fri Dec 20, 2024 9:46 am