stephan huller

Hi guys

Yes there are other people who have examined this before but it takes a real demented genius to connect the Marcionite recension with Clement's lack of reference to these sections. You see, I - like everyone else - was basically going around blindly following the Tertullian/Epiphanius negative attribution map to 'know' what the shorter Marcionite canon looked like. As I have noted many times - this is stupid.

The first part of the difficulty is that the parallels between Tertullian and Epiphanius are impossible to coincidental. Sure people argue - they are parallels because the Marcionite subtractions are minimal. Yet how do explain the other references to the Marcionite recension in other sources? How do explain the concentration of interest in Luke in ONLY Tertullian and Epiphanius and allusions to other 'subtractions' and 'retention' from Matthew, Mark and John in other sources?

The obvious solution is that Tertullian and Epiphanius come from a common source perhaps Epiphanius's source is older (compare Epiphanius's citation from the Acts of Archelaus of material we no longer possess). Another example is Lawlor's arguments that Epiphanius has in his possession Hegesippus's Hypomnemata (which is also imperfectly cited in Irenaeus, Clement, Eusebius and elsewhere). This original source is Syriac (note the Galatians first canon of Ephrem the Syrian) like the Acts of Archelaus and this two volume works Book 1 = Diatessarion vs. the Marcionite gospel (hence the periodic allusions to the omission of things not found in Luke) superficially adapted to a Luke vs. Marcionite gospel probably by a third century Catholic writer. Book 2 was a Galatians first Apostolikon vs. a Marcionite canon with 1 Corinthians first (see internal evidence).

Epiphanius being the blundering idiot that he is mistook the Galatians first ordering as a sign that the Marcionite canon placed it first. Perhaps the understanding was fostered by the orthodox correction made in the third century. The point is that all we can know for certain about the Marcionite NT is that it was shorter and that presumably it was the ancestor of other shorter recensions of the Gospel and Apostolikon.

Now enter Clement of Alexandria ...

jakejonesiv

Hi DCH,

Stephan was discussing 1 Corinthians not Romans. But if you want to review the evidence for a 14 chapter epistle to the Romans, click here.

And if you want to see an astounding suggestion taht the last two chapters of Romans originated with Clement of Alexandria, click here. Who would'a thunk ?[/I]

Jake

aa5874

Again, Stephan Huller's claims that 1 Corinthians 14-16 are FAKES are UTTERLY Flawed based on the writings of Clement of Alexander.

Examine "The Stromata"2.20 attributed to Clement of Alexandria Examine KJV 1 Corinthians 15.50 Writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria do NOT show that 1 Corinthians 14-16 are fakes.

stephan huller

Clement of Alexandria has a curious NT to begin with. Yes he uses a number of works but very few are accredited as fully divine Scripture. Acts is not for instance. He uses it of course but as many have noted it is not classified among the truly Holy Writ. So too John's Apocalypse etc. Clement has a strange attachment to Ecclesiastes too. It is most frequently cited as divine Scripture. In any event, I accept the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore and so the idea of a 'secret' gospel holier than the canonical four (Clement probably only knew of these texts only later in life) isn't so crazy.

Now let's look at Clement's interest in the Apostolikon. There can be no doubt that the existing writings of Clement make reference to ALL of the canonical gospels by name (i.e. 'Mark,' 'Luke' and 'John' - I actually know where these references are made but I can't think of where 'Matthew' occurs but I think it does). He also frequently uses the Catholic names for the letters of Paul (i.e. 'the letter to the Corinthians' etc - although I can't think off hand if he references 'first' and 'second' letters to the churches of Corinth and Thessalonians). I am not sure whether 'Ephesians' is mentioned by name (because it is clearly unnamed in the earliest Catholic manuscripts and 'to the Laodiceans' among the Marcionites).

There is a legitimate question which exists however is whether the references to the names of gospels at least are original. I think there is only reference to the gospel called 'Luke' (Stromata 5), 'John' (I forget where but it only happens I think in a reference to John 1.18 from memory) and since I don't remember the allusion to 'Matthew' it must only occur once. There are clear signs in the existing manuscripts of Clement of later editorial reworking of original material.

On a completely different track I flew to Toronto over the weekend and read Bakewell's excellent study of Michel de Montaigne entitled How to Live. I highly recommend it. But what is of particular interest to NT scholars is the manner in which two different versions of Montaigne's essays have emerged near the end of his life. There is a so-called 'Bordeaux text' and a text which was developed by a devoted female student which was the original edition followed by all previous translations before the discovery of the Bordeaux text. The differences are quite great and Montaigne was always editing and re-editing his work.

Yet some of the additions that were made by his devoted female student Marie de Gournay are often regarded as 'fakes' such as the following allusion to herself as Bakewell writes:

In any event I draw this to people's attention not only to underscore how natural an author adding things to his own work are (i.e. Montaigne) but also that of editors of this work even in fairly recent times (i.e. Gournay). In the case of Clement there are a number of later additions that are quite easy to spot and many of them involve the insertion of scriptural material in places which add nothing to the original argument. I suspect that many of them represent scribal additions rather than Clement's own distortion of his original work.

stephan huller

Now getting back to the discussion of Clement and his copy of 1 Corinthians. What strikes me as particularly interesting about Clement is that he is early enough to sensibly be counted as being prior to any editorial manipulation of the canon in the third century. The clear differences between himself and his 'student' Origen show that a 'new text' of the New Testament was introduced in the third century.

Now whether or not Clement's shorter text was related to the Marcionite text cannot be proved of course. But at the very least it diffuses the stupid idea that BECAUSE the Marcionite text was shorter IT HAD TO BE a result of Marcion removing passages. The idea that many texts from the second century had material 'missing' makes it unlikely that they were all a result of 'bad heretics' incapable of controlling themselves with a scalpel.

stephan huller

Now I have to go back to work but in order that people get up to speed with where my research is at, here are almost all of the references to 1 Corinthians in writers that I consider interesting. I omitted mention Origen here (unless he was the only witness) mostly because I have assumed that Origen's witness represents the start of the new text (i.e. something closer to what we are used to). I couldn't include all of the references however to chapter 15 because they were just to numerous. But even this is bizarre because just at the point references to chapter 15 explode in writers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Adamantius etc they actually dry up in Clement. This is utterly incredible and is worth investigating further. In any event here are the chapter by chapter analysis:

chapter 1 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...s-chapter.html
chapter 2 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...so-it-was.html
chapter 3 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-of-first.html
chapter 4 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...hapter-of.html
chapter 5 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...lement-of.html
chapter 6 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...hapter-of.html
chapter 7 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...hapter-of.html
chapter 8 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...hapter-of.html
chapter 9 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...hapter-of.html
chapter 10 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...hapter-of.html
chapter 11 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...hapter-of.html
chapter 12 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...lement-of.html
chapter 13 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...hirteenth.html
chapter 14 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...urteen-of.html
chapter 15 http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...lement-of.html
chapter 16 - no references

I should also say that my understanding that chapter 14 is also a fake is not merely as a result of a lack of references in Clement (I think there are three but I will discuss each of them individually later) but rather like chapter 16 - there is a complete drop in the number of references in other ante-Nicene Fathers as well.

Also to Michael's point, even though Origen is referenced as alluding to chapter 16 if you look carefully (and I haven't - only superficially) I think you'll see that the works of Origen cited represent late Latin translations so the references are only questionably attributed to Origen. They might have been the result of Jerome or Rufinus. Indeed I don't even think there are three references in the writings of Origen here in this 23 line chapter. Normally Origen appears to know 90% of the material and in texts still preserved in their original Greek.

UPDATE I look at the Origen references. Only 1 Cor 16.9 and 1 Cor 16.13 - a single attestation to the former in the Latin copy of the Commentary on Matthew (which is generally regarded as questionably attributed to Origen) and the latter:

CPG1411 - CPL184
239 (1 pole(s))
Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
Origenes (2 work(s))
Origenes In Exodum homiliae XIII (latine Rufino interprete) 2nd � (2)
Date: ca.239 - ca.242
Genre: Homily
Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
Clavis: 1414
Biblio:
BAEHRENS W.A., GCS 29 (1920), 145-279. 3 3 (p.170, l.14 - <) BP3
4 9 (p.182, l.24 - >) BP3

In Genesim homiliae XVI (latine Rufino interprete) (1)
Date: ca.239 - ca.242
Genre: -
Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
Clavis: 1411
Biblio:
BAEHRENS W.A., GCS 29 (1920), 1-144. 8 10 (p.85, l.16) BP3

I see no evidence for any ante-Nicene Father knowing this stupid material which amounts to only being a deliberate subversive effort to connect 1 Corinthians to Acts.

stephan huller

Needless to say, I think the current edition of the Pauline letters developed naturally as fakes. From an original 'Marcionite text' to a second century 'fake heretical' text (probably used by the Valentinians/Encratites) - perhaps there were a number of expansions going around. Then in the third century the Catholics tried to develop an 'ecumenical' edition (likely with countless new additions of their own). Then in the fourth century a further expansion was developed which including things like 1 Corinthians 16.

The obvious parallel expansion to keep in mind is found in the Ignatian corpus. The original texts are lost. The Syriac is the first expansion followed by the long Greek text (which idiotically is taken to be 'authentic' by moronic scholars) and then what I like to call 'the longest text' (the standard interpretation assumes the Syriac is a 'mutilation' of the long text). There are spurious new letters of Ignatius created at the very time of the 'longest' edition. There is a reason the followers of Polycarp were called 'fruitful.'

There has to be a connection between the sudden explosion in the 'spiritual' production of new additional material and Montanism. I just haven't figured it out yet.

aa5874

Once again, Stephan Huller's claims are UTTERLY erroneous. The writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria do NOT show that 1 Corinthians 14-16 are fakes.

Examine the "Stromata" 7.10.7 attributed to Clement of Alexandria Examine KJV 1 Corinthians 14.6 It is clear that the writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria do NOT show that 1 Corinthians 14-16 were fakes.

stephan huller

aa, just go through the citations I have developed OF THE WHOLE WORK in Clement. You'll see for yourself how remarkable the drop off is in chapter 14 (3 allusions), 15 (3 allusions) and 16 (= none). Usually Clement has almost 10 allusions per chapter and these chapters (14 and 15) are the longest chapters in 1 Corinthians and most theologically important. The other Church Fathers as noted actually MASSIVELY INCREASE the frequency of citation in chapter 15.

I will show that even these 3 citations in chapters 14 and 15 should be lowered to 1 (and possibly none) and 2 respectively. Interestingly the explicit citations of 15 stop at the heretical favorite - 1 Corinthians 15:50 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.' Think that is coincidence? I would give up something precious to know what followed ...

I have to go back to work.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

Do you accept a date for P46 of before 250 CE ?

If so this shows that our present text of the Apostolikon (including 1 Corinthians 16) goes back to the very early 3rd century at the latest.

Andrew Criddle