aa5874

Now, you seem NOT to understand your OWN OP.

We are NOT dealing with Galatians right now.

We are dealing with your fallacious claim that 1 Cor. 14, 15, 16 were hardly used in writings attributed to PRE-NICENE authors.

1 Corinthians 14 primarily deals with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15 primarily deals with the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 16 primarily deals with Greetings, Benediction and travel itinerary.

It is has been FOUND that PRE-NICENE writings like "Against Heresies", "Against Marcion", "On the Resurrection of the Flesh" and "Against Celsus" when dealing with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the RESURRECTION did contain MANY passages from either 1 Cor. 14 and/or 1 Cor.15.

Your OP is UTTERLY FLAWED.

stephan huller

aa,

No offense but the fact that you're having difficulties with the OP isn't really surprising. It often seems to many of us you'd have difficulty coming to terms with a peanut butter sandwich. The discussion has developed from the existing end to chapter 15 and 16 aren't the authentic conclusion to the document to my claim to have discovered evidence in the Church Fathers that the heretics had Galatians follow 1 Cor 15:50 (the last verbatim citation of material in Clement from 1 Corinthians)

jakejonesiv

Which is significant.

jakejonesiv

HI AA5874,

Stephan is embarked and an interesting and important study here. He is doing the leg work we all need to do, but never quite get around to.

I admire your spirit and tenacity, but you too often comment on subjects you do not yet understand. You should listen a bit more, and learn some new things to butress your future arguments.

Jake

stephan huller

I know people think it is a radical idea that an original composition might have been 'split up' into two orthodox texts. Maybe I take this for granted because I have a familiarity with the Ignatian corpus but it should be noted that the more original and shorter Syriac 'Third Epistle of Ignatius' not only becomes split into two Orthodox texts - the first half being 'the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans' and the second half the 'the Ignatian Epistle to the Trallians'

The point is that all my research into the Marcionite canon has always had the expansionist patterns in the Ignatian corpus in the back of my mind. There are three original Syriac epistles all suffer from editorial expansion as the texts become translated into Greek (not once but twice and in the former case the additions are incredibly substantial with clear signs of being by the same hand as the forger of the Pastorals). Yet in the case of this Third Epistle we see exactly what I am proposing with respect to the lost Alexandrian epistle especially dear to Clement of Alexandria (= 1 Corinthians but so called to distinguish it from the orthodox epistle of the same name). The first two thirds of the text became the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans and the last third (emboldened in the citation) became the so-called Ignatian to the Trallians. This act likely took place in the early third century along with the transformation of the rest of the New Testament.

This Alexandrian version of 1 Corinthians as I propose was split at what is now 1 Corinthians 15:50 undoubtedly owing to the heretical interest in that passage (Irenaeus devotes a large portion of Book 5 of Against Heresies refuting the heretical tradition on what 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God' means). What followed 1 Corinthians 15:50 has always occupied me. As it stands, chapter 14 and 15 are deliberately developed to allow ANOTHER interpretation of 'flesh and blood' being prohibited from entering the kingdom. Now through an exacting analysis of Clement of Alexandria, I propose Galatians starting at around 2:29 is the original ending.

In this way, when one thinks about it the original idea that the material associated with 'Galatians' appeared 'first' in the Marcionite canon is still upheld. The only difficulty is that only much of the last two thirds is authentic and followed a severely condensed 1 Corinthians (see my blog). The point of the letter is that the early Christian mystic ritual called the agape wedded the initiate to Christ. This act of becoming a 'house' of God (with the Spirit of God living within him) renders the individual superior to the old Law of Moses because he has become divine.

Again the basic point here is that the Alexandrian epistle was divided into two texts (1 Corinthians and Galatians) and each suffered from a massive and deliberately theologically inspired corruption (i.e. to reflect orthodox values or at least allow another opinion other than the heretical variety). The existence of a such a text clearly parallels the discovery of a 'secret gospel' referenced in the Letter to Theodore (also by Clement). Not surprisingly the first half of the letter is focused on the Alexandrian version of 1 Corinthians. This is not insignificant.

aa5874

If you understood the OP you would NOT have such absurd statement. I have ALREADY been praised for EXPOSING the fallacious claims of Stephan Huller as presented in the OP.

The writings of Clement of Alexandria do NOT show that 1 Corinthians chapters 14,15 and 16 are fakes.

The very writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria, "The Stromata" and "The Instructor" do contain passages found in 1 Cor.14 and 15.

You should READ some more writings of antiquity instead of making statements about the OP which you clearly do NOT understand.

By the way, you have been caught in your own trap. You really don't know what I have written because you claim that you have me on "ignore" unless of course you were actually reading my posts all along.

Sheshbazzar

This IS Stephan's thread, and one in which he has obviously invested a lot of labor and research. He has every right to make any statements about the OP he wishes, as the OP is his own words.
As Stephan has as not yet presented his entire case, and even admits that further investigation is required, it is premature to summarily dismiss everything he is presenting before he has even been given opportunity to fully make his case.

Our world or arguments are not going to be seriously affected one way or another, unless, in the end it becomes evident that he has a solid and persuasive case.
If that proves to be the case, we ought then to be found on his side, rather than fighting against the wind.

tanya

???

No offense?

I am offended.

I am not offended that you have ignored my post #7

I am not offended that you have an op claiming evidence that our current, extant copies of 1 Corinthians, are entirely fraudulent, but then go off on a tangent about Galatians....

I am not even offended, about your disrespectful reference to a senior forum member as a ding dong, instead of answering his meritorious questions challenging the veracity of your "evidence".

No, that's not what offends me. I am offended that Shesh and Jake, two very bright guys, whose work on this forum I admire, have been seduced by your plethora of garbage, passing as research.

Since I have never attended any graduate school in theological endeavors, I have no idea what passes there for honest research, but this thread is completely bogus, and the substance of it could not have made it as an undergraduate paper at any conventional university.

To do research in any field, one commences by defining the scope of the problem under investigation.

Stephan has chosen to examine 1 Corinthians, chapters 14, 15, and 16.

FINE.

His first task, then, is to prepare a small chart showing the view held by each of the protagonists, including the basis for their opinions.

Yes, Stephan can include Clement's writings in his analysis, but also, as Neil suggested, Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus, and other patristic authors. For each of those authors, he must, not can, not should, not could, he must furnish a detailed description of the condition of the documents underlying this research.

Absent that definition, Stephan's presentation of this or that scrap from Marcion or some other luminary is just plain nonsense.

I am still waiting for someone, particularly Jake, to explain how the evidence furnished by aa5874 has not utterly refuted Stephan's assertion that Clement's writings illustrate the non-existence of chapters 14, 15, and 16 from 1 Corinthians.

Shesh: it is not necessary to give Stephan more rope. He has been dangling since the first sentence.

Jake, please don't offer advice to aa5874, regarding the proper method to conduct biblical research. You look so utterly foolish. If you wish to contribute to this thread, please offer one, just ONE example, showing how the citations attributed to Clement of Alexandria described by aa5874 misrepresent the text from our extant manuscripts of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

Vorkosigan

Tanya, let's assume that Terullian et al testify to a 1 Cor like the one we have and Clement of A testifies to another 1 Cor/Alex Letter as Stephen claims. What would that tell you?

Vorkosigan

tanya

Thank you for your comment and question. I will try to answer it.

The short answer is "nothing at all", because of the poor condition of the original manuscript.

However, for sake of discussion, let us suppose that all the documents in our possession are equally pristine and useful.

Then, I would suggest a disconnect between the OP and this question:
You and I, Vorkosigan, are discussing some aspect of the topic initially described in the OP, i.e. an assessment of the evidence presented in support of the claim that all of our extant copies of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians have been forged.

Meanwhile, Stephan is writing, now, after aa5874's expose, about Galatians!!! How is Clement's reference to Galatians helpful in identifying three chapters supposedly, according to Stephan, omitted from Clement's description of Corinthians? It is one thing to claim omission of three chapters from a single, ancient manuscript of poor quality, quite another to insist that, in view of this omission, all of our extant copies of 1 Corinthians 14, 15, and 16 are forgeries.

Instead of addressing the points raised against his OP, Stephan is following the age-old custom of diversion. Now you appear, and ask of me, how one should interpret an omission of text, as Stephan has claimed from the outset.

So, there are really two issues, right?

a. What does the ancient text, in our possession, indicate with regard to 1 Corinthians 14, 15, 16, and;

b. What is the proper way to conduct an investigation of this topic?

These are my two points:

a. We cannot properly conduct research of this topic, without first identifying the nature of the different sources employed in this investigation. That's the starting point. For example, Andrew made the excellent observation about the purported age of our oldest copy of Paul's epistles. It is just not proper form to draw conclusions, such as "fraud" or "forgery", based on a single manuscript, of impoverished physical stature. Many hands touched the ancient documents attributed to Clement. Lacunae may well be present as well, so it is unwise to leap to conclusions about massive, widespread forgery, based upon omission of some text from one document.

b. When someone on this forum challenges a prevailing hypothesis, it is fundamentally incorrect to then dismiss that challenge (or ignore it) by issuing demeaning, derogatory statements, belittling the individual offering the criticism, instead of addressing the issues raised.

With that as prologue, then, let me answer your question. What it would tell me, having now encountered aa5874's evidence refuting Stephan's claim, is that the patristic source material is incomplete, corrupt, and contradictory.