Talk:Clementine literature

cleanup-confusing: July 2007

Marked by me, Rursus. The marked section doesn't make a clear enought distinction between the Tübingen School of New Testament criticism, and their image of what they refer to as "the original Jewish, Petrine, legal Church" on one hand, and the facts on what the Tübingen School rested. It sometimes appears like the Tübingen School was a church proponing an anti-Pauline view. What may be done to improve the section:

1. make it clear that the Tübingen School tried to provide and support an image of Paulus and followers as apostates from the "Petrine Church", that Tübingen School is a 19th century research direction (of what? theology? history?);
2. add, "according to" a little here and there, ...
3. if possible, provide some (cited) counterarguments against some Tübingen School interpretations.

Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of date accusation

Edit of April 15th by User:Francois de blois"This article is plagiarized from an encyclopaedia published in 1913 and is totally out of date. The study of the Clementine literature has been put on a completely new basis by the critical editions of the "Homilies" and "Recognitions" by Rehm (1953, 1965)."--The One True Fred (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've so tagged it; there is way too much reliance on century-old CE analysis. It needs to be brought up to date with more contemporary sources. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction for third paragraph of Narrative section

Wasn't it the Syrophenician's daughter whom Jesus healed, not the woman herself? (Mark 7:25-29) 76.221.212.206 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Original Research

This article makes claims about Pseudo-clement's ostensible intent to refute early fourth century Neoplatonists (Porphyry and Iamblichus) without citing outside research to support these claims. This is especially odd since other alternative theories about the intended purpose of Pseudo-clementine literature are discussed in a manner that cites sources. It reads like a rough draft of someone's Master thesis and this ought to be corrected. --CRATYLUS22

The Preaching of Peter

The inclusion within the first line of reference "The Preaching of Peter" (Kerygma Petri, or KP) is confused with Kerygmata Petrou (i.e. "The Preachings of Peter"), a wholly different text. Kerygmata Petrou is the source work of the Pseudo-Clementines and partly exists in reconstruction, but Kerygma Petri is a very early, lost pseudepigraphic work known only from quotes in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. It deserves its own article, and perhaps doesn't have one because it is mentioned here, in the wrong context. I am removing it from the line. Also, I'm a little curious as to why this article is considered relevant to Gnosticism. The Pseudo-Clementines are of Jewish-Christian origin and are not Gnostic, as far as I know, unless I'm missing something.Pinikadia 02:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clementine literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040821005145/http://compassionatespirit.com:80/Recognitions/Introductory-Notice.htm to http://www.compassionatespirit.com/Recognitions/Introductory-Notice.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Gaddis/Faust

Surely Gaddis’s Recognitions should at least be mentioned. Also potential relations to the Faust legend. 2600:1017:A410:C89:D005:A9F4:DB95:D66F (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)