stephan huller

For those who are interested I have laid out all the ante-Nicene references to the first four chapters of Galatians and have already found two parallels with what most of us think exists in the Marcionite text (i.e. Tertullian's reference to the 'erasure' of references to Abraham and the whole Hagar and Sarah allegory which contradicts what the Marcionite in Dialogues of Adamantius). In any event when I get time I will laid out here but anyone can go to the link below and see how it is progressing:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...ents-text.html

Some notes about the general theory. Clement does make reference to '1 Corinthians' and 'Galatians' side by side so if the proposed Alexandrian text existed, the current texts of Clement's writings had to have been superficially reworked by a subsequent orthodox editor. Something which can be demonstrated, but which bogs down the argument ...

aa5874

There is NO need to assume. It can be SHOWN that the passages from 1 Cor 14 and 1 Cor 15 are virtually IDENTICAL in the "Stromata" and the "Instructor" attributed to Clement and "Against Marcion" and "On the Resurrection" attributed to Tertullian with respect to the Pauline writings.

Stephan's OP is simply fallacious.

andrewcriddle

Apart from P46 (on the traditional dating)

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

I put you on my ignore list because you constantly yell and because your posts are so difficult and annoying to read. Please stop yelling at people if you want them to take you seriously.

As I understand it, at least one of Huller's points, based on the pattern of intertwining of Galatians and 1 Cor in Clement of A, is that at least some of Galatians was once in the copy of 1 Cor that Clement of A had. That means that matching 1 Cor 14/15 in Tertullian and Clement of A does not refute that particular point.

There's a lot going on in this thread. Can we calm down a little?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Hahaha. .....but we already knew that.

tanya

You err here, Vorkosigan.

Stephan Huller explained the basis for our possession of "fake" copies of 1 Corinthians:
SH did not write:
'Clement's version of Corinthians is different from all of our extant versions.'

Instead, SH wrote: all of our extant copies are false, wrong, redacted, misleading, "fake".

He explained why our extant copies are forgeries: they are "fake" documents, because Stephan Huller has determined that Clement of Alexandria "did not know" more than "two maybe three lines" among the fifty eight lines of chapter 15. According to SH, Clement did not know of the existence of these lines of text. According to SH, Clement did not discuss those "missing" lines of Paul's epistle.

The refutation of Stephan Huller's wild, misleading, and incorrect assertion, was ignored, or vilified. I do not understand that behaviour, by several forum members.

I am ashamed to read:

immediately after aa5874 repeated his correct conclusion:

BUT NOTHING, Vorkosigan, (I am shouting at you, can you hear me?) in response to Stephan Huller's shameful, dishonest, and reprehensible slur against aa5874, calling him a "ding dong".

Calm down?

NO.

Absolutely not. I am enraged by this combination of dishonesty, and the accompanying συκοφάντης of several forum members.

That this nonsense from Stephan Huller could pass muster on this forum, as somehow meritorious, investigatory research, is completely wrong headed.

Thank you Andrew, for repeating, calmly, as Vorkosigan desires, a simple one line repudiation of the OP. We need more contributions from you, and from others emulating your learned, elegant, honest, concise, erudite style.

Thank you aa5874, for outstanding research. I laugh at the childish rejections I encounter daily, of your posts, by folks unable to sift the wheat from the chaff. There is far more protein than fiber in your posts, by comparison to most other forum participants.

Vorkosigan

Tanya, it is difficult for me to see what aa says since his posts are needlessly annoying and poorly formatted. But I saw that he and Criddle had rebutted SH's claim, as you note, about Clement of A's use of 1 Cor 14. The part I personally was interested in was his rough glimpse of the 1 Cor that Clement of A might have had. aa did not rebut or even address SH's inherent claim that Clement of A's copy of 1 Cor included parts of Galatians; showing that Clement of A actually does know 1 Cor doesn't address the issue I was interested in.

Nor did your comments to me address what I actually said, which was:

You instead accused me of error while pointing to issues I had not mentioned while lecturing me. The irony of your comment on rudeness is palpable.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

Just to clarify.

I questioned Stephan's claim that we have no substantial evidence for the
existence of our text of 1 Corinthians (including chapter 16) in the early 3rd century CE.

I have not commented one way or the other about the text Clement of A used.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

It is I who have poorly phrased. I meant that your provision of information coupled with aa's posts provided a rebuttal to SH's claims about 1 Cor 14-16. I spent some time reading about p46 on the net today and see no reason to think the experts on the writing are not correct in dating it to the latter half of the second century.

1 Cor 15:35-50 is important to how I see the relationship between Mark and Paul so I was drawn to this discussion because of SH's discussion of it.

Vorkosigan

stephan huller

The usual dating of P46 (P. Chester Beatty II + P. Mich. Inv. 6238) to the late second to third centuries is important but not entirely decisive here. The lack of citation of chapters 15 and 16 of Romans outside Alexandria has led many to conclude that a fourteen chapter Romans was in common use. In the same way the lack of citation of chapter 16 of 1 Corinthians may indicate that most people had a 15 chapter text

The main point of my interest now is that Irenaeus originally argued that the heretics wrongly used Galatians to explain 1 Cor 15:50. Marcion was one of those heretics. So too was Clement. Does this mean that Clement's original text of 1 Corinthians ended with the last four chapters of Galatians