ancient ad fontes! as displayed in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies

Carlson notes an early battle between allegoricalists and those who would rather a more honest source in critiquing the Torah.

For are set out like many diverse typecasts. Each person, then, having his own predisposition , then examines the Scriptures, and, once he finds everything in them, he impresses upon them his own predisposition — which (as I said) is like wax — and he forges whatever sort of God he so desires. (as quoted from the Homilies, pg 23.)

The Pseudo-Clementine homilist takes to task those who force external meanings on Scripture, surrendering Scripture to allegory rather than any  meaningful sense. Generally, the author speaks against the legendary Simon Magus (i.e., gnostic?) who treats the Torah as a text to be twisted and interpreted to mean the God of the Old Testament is somehow inferior to the God of the New.

There is more to this, however, as our Homilist believes there are segments of the Torah redacted with foul material.

It is interesting this early textual criticism as well as a need to discover what the Text meant and now what it can be read as.

Lots of good stuff in Carlson’s book as well as, it looks like, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies.

 

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.