FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-21-2011, 02:31 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default Clement's 1 Corinthians is Marcion's 1 Corinthians

I am telling you, when Nietzsche went crazy he was sobbing with his arms wrapped around a half-dead horse. With me it will be while developing this article for a respected journal on the Alexandrian Church being the real Marcionite tradition of history. Everything that has been written about Marcion is so stupid and near sighted. Just one example of my many discoveries demonstrating that Clement's Apostolikon was related (or identical) with the Marcionite recension:

Clement cites 1 Cor 3.17 as:

Quote:
and he that destroys the temple of God shall be destroyed

ὁ δὲ φθείρων τὸν ναὸν θεοῦ φθαρήσεται [Clement QDS 18 § 2 (p.171, l.13) BP1]
Tertullian similarly in Against Marcion:

Quote:
But if anyone destroy the temple of God, he shall be destroyed

Quodsi templum dei quis vitiaverit, vitiabitur [Tertullian Against Marcion 5.6]
There so many of these. The question now is whether I can turn this around to prove that Secret Mark is the Marcionite gospel. Of course I think I can, but I'm crazy. That's par for the course.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-21-2011, 05:48 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

But,

If Alexandrian Christianity was essentially Marcionite, why are there no fragments of clearly Marcionite mss of the letters of Paul in the garbage dumps of Egypt?

DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
I am telling you, when Nietzsche went crazy he was sobbing with his arms wrapped around a half-dead horse. With me it will be while developing this article for a respected journal on the Alexandrian Church being the real Marcionite tradition of history. Everything that has been written about Marcion is so stupid and near sighted. Just one example of my many discoveries demonstrating that Clement's Apostolikon was related (or identical) with the Marcionite recension:

Clement cites 1 Cor 3.17 as:

Quote:
and he that destroys the temple of God shall be destroyed

ὁ δὲ φθείρων τὸν ναὸν θεοῦ φθαρήσεται [Clement QDS 18 § 2 (p.171, l.13) BP1]
Tertullian similarly in Against Marcion:

Quote:
But if anyone destroy the temple of God, he shall be destroyed

Quodsi templum dei quis vitiaverit, vitiabitur [Tertullian Against Marcion 5.6]
There so many of these. The question now is whether I can turn this around to prove that Secret Mark is the Marcionite gospel. Of course I think I can, but I'm crazy. That's par for the course.
DCHindley is offline  
Old 10-21-2011, 06:00 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

By the same logic the lack of Marcionite fragments could be used to prove the sect never existed anywhere
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-21-2011, 07:09 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

Reductio ad absurdum ... Egg-pit is the only place where early fragments are being found in any abundance, due to dry climate. The lack of Marcion recension fragments there is more likely evidence that his movement did NOT have a presence there.

DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
By the same logic the lack of Marcionite fragments could be used to prove the sect never existed anywhere
DCHindley is offline  
Old 10-21-2011, 07:47 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Clement of Alexandria's works have only survived from an original examplar in Caesarea of Cappadocia. http://books.google.com/books?id=27U...andria&f=false

Very few people think that Clement wrote any of the works that survive from this city. Shit happens. In the same way that Clement of Alexandria's works do not survive in Alexandria, it should not completely surprising that Marcionite manuscripts have not been recovered from Alexandria. In the same way as Clement was originally from Alexandria most scholars acknowledge that Marcionites were in great numbers in Egypt. If you can read French, the best source on this is Dorival, Les débuts du christianisme à Alexandrie in Leclant J. (ed.), Alexandrie: Une mégapole cosmopolite, Paris, p. 157-174. According to Dorival the Marcionites were a significant part of the Christian fabric of the city, one of five sects that had a presence there since 117 CE.

I don't understand your point. There were Marcionites in Egypt and Alexandria in particular. Jerome says that Origen's patron Ambrose was both a Marcionite and tells us that he was deacon of the Alexandrian Church. Do the math. Marcionitism seems to have reconstituted itself in Osrhoene in the late second and third centuries. There seems to be some indication that the tradition became the official orthodoxy there and as such it is reasonable to assume that Marcionites who did not embrace the Great Church of the Roman Empire moved there and took their manuscripts with them. Manichaean documents survive because they ultimately established themselves in a later period and likely never reconciled with the Great Church.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-23-2011, 12:21 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Clement of Alexandria's works have only survived from an original examplar in Caesarea of Cappadocia. http://books.google.com/books?id=27U...andria&f=false

Very few people think that Clement wrote any of the works that survive from this city. Shit happens. In the same way that Clement of Alexandria's works do not survive in Alexandria, it should not completely surprising that Marcionite manuscripts have not been recovered from Alexandria. In the same way as Clement was originally from Alexandria most scholars acknowledge that Marcionites were in great numbers in Egypt. If you can read French, the best source on this is Dorival, Les débuts du christianisme à Alexandrie in Leclant J. (ed.), Alexandrie: Une mégapole cosmopolite, Paris, p. 157-174. According to Dorival the Marcionites were a significant part of the Christian fabric of the city, one of five sects that had a presence there since 117 CE.
On what authority do you say this? Based on this book, I can only find evidence for their presence in the 4th century (via the Life of Pachomius and Epiphanius). Yes, Clement mentions Marcion in Stromata 7.17, but that ambiguous statement doesn't prove he was in Alexandria, only that he was an "old man" when the heretics Theudas and Simon were young men.

Quote:
I don't understand your point. There were Marcionites in Egypt and Alexandria in particular. Jerome says that Origen's patron Ambrose was both a Marcionite and tells us that he was deacon of the Alexandrian Church. Do the math.
Well, I happen to be an auditor by profession, so I "do the math" all the time. Twenty two years of ferreting out inconsistencies between accounting records has taught me how to also do it between texts.

What Eusebius says is "... Ambrose ... held the heresy of Valentinus" before being converted by Origen (Church History vi.18.1).

Jerome says against this that "Ambrosius, at first a Marcionite [was] afterwards set right by Origen, [and] was deacon in the church" (De Viris Illustribus 56, 61).

Doesn't that seem a little .. um ... thin? Jerome is not known for getting all his facts straight. Look how he screws up the details of Eusebius' account of the books written by Clement of Alexandria when he lists them in de Vir. Ill. 38 (even Photius follows these errors, relying on a Greek translation of Jerome's original Latin).

Quote:
Marcionitism seems to have reconstituted itself in Osrhoene in the late second and third centuries. There seems to be some indication that the tradition became the official orthodoxy there and as such it is reasonable to assume that Marcionites who did not embrace the Great Church of the Roman Empire moved there and took their manuscripts with them. Manichaean documents survive because they ultimately established themselves in a later period and likely never reconciled with the Great Church.
It is one thing not to find a secret gospel of Mark, but no copies of a clearly Marcionite version of a letter of Paul? Yet we have plenty of proto-orthodox copies.

DCH

Stromata 7.17
Likewise they [i.e., the heretics] allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he [i.e., Theudas] was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.
Jerome, De Viris Illustribus
56 Ambrosius, at first a Marcionite but afterwards set right by Origen, was deacon in the church, and gloriously distinguished as confessor of the Lord. To him, together with Protoctetus the presbyter, the book of Origen, On martyrdom was written. Aided by his industry, funds, and perseverance, Origen dictated a great number of volumes. He himself, as befits a man of noble nature, was of no mean literary talent, as his letters to Origen indicate. He died moreover, before the death of Origen, and is condemned by many, in that being a man of wealth, he did not at death, remember in his will, his old and needy friend.

61 … Ambrosius, who we have said was converted by Origen from the heresy of Marcion, to the true faith, urged Origen to write, in emulation of Hyppolytus, commentaries on the Scriptures, offering him seven, and even more secretaries, and their expenses, and an equal number of copyists, and what is still more, with incredible zeal, daily exacting work from him, on which account Origen, in one of his epistles, calls him his “Taskmaster.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

Eusebius, Church History vi.18.
1. About this time Ambrose, who held the heresy of Valentinus, was convinced by Origen's presentation of the truth, and, as if his mind were illumined by light, he accepted the orthodox doctrine of the Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm
DCHindley is offline  
Old 10-23-2011, 08:41 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Yes, we can go at this all day. Origen clearly had a copy of the Marcionite version of Romans while writing his own Commentary on Romans. Unlike other Church Fathers his knowledge comes from direct contact with the MS (see comments on the ending of the letter). I am sorry but I am having problems with my dlvr.it feed for my blog. My mind is preoccupied. But there are examples of Origen attacking unnamed heretics (commonly taken to be Marcionites) especially during his discussion of Romans chapter 1 which also apply with respect to Clement.

The argument is very similar to what is demonstrated above (i.e. Origen says the heretics reject the idea that God caused humanity to be depraved). Clement's citation of the same section shows his Romans erased the offending material. Above he 'changes' God will destroy the offenders with the Marcionites. In other parts of the Stromata he disagrees with Origen again saying the same thing.

Just read Clement and Origen's statements about Romans 1:24 side by side and try to come to another solution than I am proposing. Notice what is missing from this 'block citation' of Romans chapter 1 here in Clement:

Quote:
the holy apostle of the Lord, reprehending the Greeks, will show thee: “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and changed the glory of God into the likeness of corruptible man, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” [Rom 1.21,23,25] (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation 8)
and how Origen repeatedly insinuates that the Marcionites 'had difficulties' with this passage but never goes so far as to say they specifically 'excised' it:

Quote:
Rom 1.24 - Nevertheless, let us ask those who deny that the good God is also a just judge what shall they say in response to these things which the Apostle says, namely that God "handed them over to the desires of their heart to impurity to the degrading of their bodies." For in this not only will their system, once completely excluded, be forced out, but even our own explanation. For how shall it be just that whoever is handed over — granted that it is on account of their own sins that they are handed over — nonetheless are handed over to lusts and handed over to this, to the devotion of their own bodies to impurities and lusts? For example, anyone who is handed over to the dungeon for punishment cannot be charged with the accusation that he is in darkness. Or, anyone handed over to fire cannot, for this very reason, be blamed for why he is burnt. Likewise in the case of those who are handed over to sinful desires and impurities so that they degrade their bodies, it will not seem fitting for them to be charged when, situated amongst lusts and impurities, they defile their bodies with degradations. Well then, Marcion and all who spring forth from his school like a brood of vipers shall not dare to touch the solution of these matters, not even with their fingertips, since they have thrown away the Old Testament on account of these sorts of problems, wheresoever they happened to have read such things in it. But what good did it do them? For they are no less strangled by similar problems in the New Testament. (Origen, Commentary on Romans 1.18)
Quote:
Rom 1:24 - Surely, all this must be taken into consideration by those who cut the Godhead into two; and those who suppose that the good Father of our Lord is someone other than the God of the Law must be told this - Suppose the good God leads into temptation the one who does not gain his prayer. And suppose the Father of the Lord gives up those who had previously committed any sin "in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves." (Rom 1.24) He gives them up "to the dishonorable" passions and "to an unfit mind and to improper conduct" (Rom 1.26, 28) Assuming all this, would those so condemned not have been "in the lusts of their hearts" even if they had not been given up to them by God? Would they not have fallen into "dishonorable passions" even if they had not been given up to them by God? Would they not have fallen into an "unfit mind" quite apart from being given up to it by God? Now I know very well that these problems are extremely troubling to the people I am talking about, and that is why they fabricate a God other than the Creator of heaven and earth, since they find many such statements in the Law and the prophets and take offense at a God who they think could not be good if He utters such words.(Origen De Oratione 29)
Hagit Amirav, Rhetoric and tradition: John Chrysostom on Noah and the flood takes Origen as citing a Marcionite objection to the passage "Origen comments that the paradox which is entailed by this type of exegesis did not escape the notice of the 'heretics' or more precisely, the Marcionites [who see this] presents a major paradox, since it implies that irrational people become even more irrational — which is difficult to perceive as a corrective divine punishment." p 99. Why then doesn't Origen tell us that the Marcionites cut the material? Why doesn't he identify Clement as a Marcionite? I wonder whether the turbulent age Origen was living in plus his patron's status as a 'lapsed Marcionite' (or heretic at least) didn't have something to do with it.

My feeling has always been that Origen was making up his 'tradition' as he was going along. Yet there must have been an existing Alexandrian tradition, something older than him which didn't use the 'latest edition' of the scriptures coming out of Rome (Pope Fabian is the first non-Alexandrian to cite from chapters 15 or 16 of Romans; I take Zahn's literal reading on Rufinus's statement with respect to Marcion's 'cutting up' this chapter).
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-23-2011, 08:48 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

And then on the other side of the equation, I have been going through line by line Clement's text of Romans and 1 Corinthians. I have already completed the work with Romans and noticed that uncanny similarities exist between a shadowy Church Father named Methodius whom we know very little. I think they are related figures.

This is a very special section because it goes to the heart of the apparent differences between the Marcionites and the Orthodox. I have noticed that most of the references to this chapter in Clement's writings appear in the 'problematic' Book Three of the Stromata which was deliberately not translated into English in Philip Schaff's Ante-Nicene Fathers. The original material must not only have problematic for modern editors of the writings of the Church Fathers but in fact the ancient scribes who have preserved the Stromata down to the modern age. There is very compelling evidence in this chapter that a later editor 'corrected' not only Clement's original reference to the beginning of Chapter Seven of 1 Corinthians but in fact that the same process occurred in the writings of Methodius of Olympius. The reason for this revision of the original testimony is simple - the original text of 1 Corinthians known to both Clement and Methodius preserved the apostle as preserving a much stronger rejection of marriage, more in keeping with Marcionitism, the original Pauline tradition.

I cannot account for the reason why Clement and Methodius should share a common reading of the opening of Chapter Seven with Basilides. The only commonality I can find between the two men is a hostile or at least ambivalent attitude towards Origen. Origen's complete silence with respect to Clement being his teacher is perhaps one of the most puzzling things in all of Patristic literature. Nevertheless careful examination of Origen's writings actually reveals at least a couple hostile references to Clement's interpretation of the New Testament (which we will examine later).

For the moment it is enough to note that both Clement and Methodius's surviving manuscripts make witness to the opening line of 1 Clement 7 as:

Quote:
It is good for a man not to have contact with a woman, but to avoid πορνείας let each have his own wife to prevent Satan from tempting you because of your lack of self-control. [1 Cor 7.1;5]
There can be absolutely no doubt that Clement knew this reading and that it is was the reading which appeared in the contemporary Alexandrian collection of the Pauline writings. For more than once Clement makes reference to it as we see for instance in Stromata 3.51.4 it plainly stated that:

Quote:
Again he [i.e. the Apostle] says, "Every man should have his own wife to protect him from temptation by Satan."
Indeed a little later we hear again Clement make reference to:

Quote:
when Paul says, "It is good for a man not to have contact with a woman, but to avoid immorality let each have his own wife," he offers a kind of exegesis by saying further, "to prevent Satan from tempting you." In the words "by using your lack of self-control" he is addressing not those who practice marriage through self-control solely for the production of children, but those with a passionate desire to go beyond the production of children. [Stromata 3.96.1]
In each case, Clement makes it plain by implication that he thought what is now 1 Cor 7.5 - i.e. 'to prevent Satan from tempting you' immediately followed what is now 1 Cor.7.1 i.e. 'every man should have his own wife.'

The very same construction appears quite interestingly in Chapter 11 Book Three of Methodius's Conuiuium:

Quote:
For consider, O virgins, how he, desiring with all his might that believers in Christ should be chaste, endeavours by many arguments to show them the dignity of chastity, as when he says, Now, concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” thence showing already very clearly that it is good not to touch a woman, laying it down. and setting it forth unconditionally. But afterwards, being aware of the weakness of the less continent, and their passion for intercourse, he permitted those who are unable to govern the flesh to use their own wives, rather than, shamefully transgressing, to give themselves up to fornication. Then, after having given this permission, he immediately added these words, “that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency;” which means, “if you, such as you are, cannot, on account of the incontinence and softness of your bodies, be perfectly continent, I will rather permit you to have intercourse with your own wives, lest, professing perfect continence, ye be constantly tempted by the evil one, and be inflamed with lust after other men’s wives.”
Indeed what is most interesting about these references is that they are immediately followed by what appears to be an editors hand 'correcting' the apparent 'mistake' in overlooking 1 Cor 7.2 - 4.

In the very next chapter of Methodius's work we see the editor go out of his way to deny that he did not know or was ignoring 1 Cor 7.2 - 4 by having him announce:

Quote:
Come, now, and let us examine more carefully the very words which are before us, and observe that the apostle did not grant these things unconditionally to all, but first laid down the reason on account of which he was led to this. For, having set forth that “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” he added immediately, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife” —that is, “on account of the fornication which would arise from your being unable to restrain your voluptuousness”—“and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” [1 Cor. 7. 2–6]. And this is very carefully considered. “By permission” he says, showing that he was giving counsel, “not of command;” for he receives command respecting chastity and the not touching of a woman, but permission respecting those who are unable, as I said, to chasten their appetites. These things, then, he lays down concerning men and women who are married to one spouse, or who shall hereafter be so; but we must now examine carefully the apostle’s language respecting men who have lost their wives, and women who have lost their husbands, and what he declares on this subject. [Methodius 3.12]
It is worth noting that the very same thing happens in Clement after the unmistakable omission of 1 Cor 7.2 - 4. The editor has Clement 'strengthen' his 'commitment to marriage' by making reference to material that was apparently unknown in Christian manuscript in late second century Alexandria. Indeed it is worth adding that Origen is the only ante-Nicene witness to 1 Cor 7.4.

Indeed if we discount this last section as a later addition to Methodius's original work, it is incredible to see how remarkably similar Clement and Methodius's citation of the rest of the chapter are. After both men 'skip over' to the material in 1 Cor 7 - 9 Methodius skips down to 1 Cor 7.25 - Clement pretty much does the same thing avoiding any reference whatsoever to 1 Cor 7.24 (aside from one other obvious addition we shall discuss later).
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-23-2011, 11:24 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

It is not only Clement, Methodius, Basilides and likely Marcion who had this 1 Cor 7.1,5 reading as the opening words to chapter seven but also Tatian:

Quote:
He (Tatian) agreed to their coming together again because of Satan and because of weakness of will, but he showed that anyone who is inclined to succumb is going to be serving two masters, God when there is agreement, and weakness of will, sexual immorality, and the devil when there is not." [Stromata 3.81.2]
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-23-2011, 11:46 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Tertullian (or his source) in Against Marcion gives an overview of his 1 Corinthians 7. The standard English translation for many years lists the allusions as follows:

Quote:
We must now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, more continent than the apostle, prohibits. For the apostle, although preferring the grace of continence, [1 Cor. 7. 7, 8] yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it, [and advises the continuance therein rather than the dissolution there of. [1 Cor. 7. 9, 13, 14] Christ plainly forbids divorce, Moses unquestionably permits it. [1 Cor. 7. 27] Now, when Marcion wholly prohibits all carnal intercourse to the faithful (for we will say nothing about his catechumens), and when he prescribes repudiation of all engagements before marriage, whose teaching does he follow, that of Moses or of Christ? Even Christ, however, when He here commands "the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband," [1 Cor. 7. 10, 11] both permitted divorce, which indeed He never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed (the sanctity) of marriage, by first forbidding its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed by reconciliation. But what reasons does (the apostle) allege for continence? Because "the time is short."[1 Cor. 7. 29] I had almost thought it was because in Christ there was another god! And yet He from whom emanates this shortness of the time, will also send what suits the said brevity. No one makes provision for the time which is another's. You degrade your god, O Marcion, when you make him circumscribed at all by the Creator's time. Assuredly also, when (the apostle) rules that marriage should be "only in the Lord," [1 Cor. 7. 39] that no Christian should intermarry with a heathen, he maintains a law of the Creator, who everywhere prohibits marriage with strangers [Tertullian Against Marcion 5.7]
The references in Clement to 1 Corinthians [STAEHLIN O., FRUECHTEL L., 3e éd., GCS 52 (1960) pour les livres 1-6 ; STAEHLIN O., FRUECHTEL L., TREU U., 2e éd., GCS 17 (1970), 3-102 pour les livres 7-8] reflect the same pattern. If we ignore the 1 Corinthians 1;5 introduction (and its subsequent emendation) we see the following references:

Quote:
1 Cor 7.7 - Stromata 3 101 § 3 (p.242, l.31) BP1; 4 133 § 3 (p.307, l.26) BP1
1 Cor 7.8 - Stromata 3 68 § 2 (p.227, l.1) BP1; 3 85 § 2 (p.235, l.18) BP1
1 Cor 7.9 - Stromata 3 2 § 1 (p.195, l.18) BP1; 3 4 § 3 (p.197, l.14) BP1; 3 97 § 1 (p.240, l.21) BP1
1 Cor 7.10 Stromata 3 108 § 1 (p.246, l.10) BP1
1 Cor 7.13, 14 3 47 § 1 (p.217, l.27) BP1; 3 84 § 3 (p.235, l.1) BP1; 3 108 § 1 (p.246, l.10) BP1
1 Cor 7.24?? Stromata 3 79 § 7 (p.232, l.3) BP1; 3 86 § 1 (p.235, l.26) BP1
1 Cor 7.27 Stromata 3 51 § 3 (p.219, l.33) BP1; 3 97 § 4 (p.241, l.3) BP1
1 Cor 7.28 Stromata 3 82 § 4 (p.233, l.27) BP1; 4 21 § 2 (p.257, l.28) BP1
1 Cor 7.29 Instructor 2 35 § 4 (p.178, l.15) BP1; 2 36 § 1 (p.178, l.18) BP1 Stromata 3 95 § 3 (p.240, l.7) BP1; 7 64 § 2 (p.46, l.6) BP1
1 Cor 7.30 Instructor 2 36 § 1 (p.178, l.18) BP1
1 Cor 7.31 Stromata 3 95 § 3 (p.240, l.7) BP1
1 Cor 7.32 Stromata 3 88 § 2 (p.236, l.28) BP1
1 Cor 7.33 Stromata 3 88 § 2 (p.236, l.28) BP1; 3 97 § 3 (p.241, l.2) BP1
1 Cor 7.34 Instructor 2 109 § 4 (p.223, l.1) BP1 Stromata 3 88 § 3 (p.236, l.32) BP1
1 Cor 7.35 Stromata 3 82 § 4 (p.233, l.27) BP1; 4 21 § 2 (p.257, l.30) BP1; 7 13 § 3 (p.10, l.25) BP1; 7 64 § 2 (p.46, l.7) BP1
1 Cor 7.36 Stromata 3 79 § 2 (p.231, l.21) BP1
1 Cor 7.38 Stromata 4 149 § 2 (p.314, l.8) BP1
1 Cor 7.39 Stromata 3 80 § 1 (p.232, l.7) BP1; 3 82 § 4 (p.233, l.25) BP1
1 Cor 7.40 Stromata 3 80 § 1 (p.232, l.7) BP1; 3 82 § 4 (p.233, l.25) BP1
The very same pattern of the text clusters is apparent in Methodius's treatment of the material in chapters 11, 12 and 13 of the Conuiuium Book 3. I have already discussed Methodius's citation of the 1 Cor 7.1;5 opening and its subsequent 'clarification' by a later editor. The rest of the material that follows is remarkably similar to what we have been seeing:

Quote:
“I say therefore,” he goes on, [1 Cor. 7. 8, 9] “to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” Here also he persisted in giving the preference to continence. For, taking himself as a notable example, in order to stir them up to emulation, he challenged his hearers to this state of life, teaching that it was better that a man who had been bound to one wife should henceforth remain single, as he also did. [1 Cor 7.7] But if, on the other hand, this should be a matter of difficulty to any one, on account of the strength of animal passion, he allows that one who is in such a condition may, “by permission,” contract a second marriage; not as though he expressed the opinion that a second marriage was in itself good, [Καλόν] but judging it better than burning. Just as though, in the fast which prepares for the Easter celebration, one should offer food to another who was dangerously ill, and say,” In truth, my friend, it were fitting and good that you should bravely hold out like us, and partake of the same things, [i.e., participate in the same ordinances, and in their fruits] for it is forbidden even to think of food to-day; but since you are held down and weakened by disease, and cannot bear it, therefore, ‘by permission,’ we advise you to eat food, lest, being quite unable, from sickness, to hold up against the desire for food, you perish.” Thus also the apostle speaks here, first saying that he wished all were healthy and continent, as he also was, but afterwards allowing a second marriage to those who are burdened with the disease of the passions, lest they should be wholly defiled by fornication, goaded on by the itchings of the organs of generation to promiscuous intercourse, considering such a second marriage far preferable to burning and indecency.

I have now brought to an end what I have to say respecting continence and marriage and chastity, and intercourse with men, and in which of these there is help towards progress in righteousness; but it still remains to speak concerning virginity—if, indeed, anything be prescribed on this subject. Let us then treat this subject also; for it stands thus: [1 Cor. 7. 25–28] “Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress; I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.” Having given his opinion with great caution respecting virginity, and being about to advise him who wished it to give his virgin in marriage, so that none of those things which conduce to sanctification should be of necessity and by compulsion, but according to the free purpose of the soul. for this is acceptable to God, he does not wish these things to be said as by authority, and as the mind of the Lord, with reference to the giving of a virgin in marriage; for after he had said, [1 Cor. 7. 28] “if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned,” directly afterwards, with the greatest caution, he modified his statement, showing that he had advised these things by human permission, and not by divine. So, immediately after he had said, “if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned,” he added, “such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.” [1 Cor. 7. 28] By which he means: “I sparing you, such as you are, consented to these things, because you have chosen to think thus of them, that I may not seem to hurry you on by violence, and compel any one to this. [Which I recommend] But yet if it shall please you who find chastity hard to bear, rather to turn to marriage; I consider it to be profitable for you to restrain yourselves in the gratification of the flesh, not making your marriage an occasion for abusing your own vessels to uncleanness.” Then he adds, [1 Cor. 7. 29] [Nobody can feel more deeply than I do the immeasurable evils of an enforced celibacy; nobody can feel more deeply the deplorable state of the Church which furnishes only rare and exceptional examples of voluntary celibacy for the sake of Christ. “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none.” And again, going on and challenging them to the same things, he confirmed his statement, powerfully supporting the state of virginity, and adding expressly the following words to those which he had spoken before, he exclaimed, [1 Cor. 7. 32–34]. “I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord:26052605 A clause is omitted here in the text. but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Now it is clear to all, without any doubt, that to care for the things of the Lord and to please God, is much better than to care for the things of the world and to please one’s wife. For who is there so foolish and blind. as not to perceive in this statement the higher praise which Paul accords to chastity? “And this,” he says, [1 Cor. 7. 35] “I speak for your own profit, not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely.”
I find the parallels between the three witnesses quite remarkable, the manner in which only a few section are consistently cited by these 'anti-Origenist' writers, where as in Origen's own writings almost every line is cited. The list from Biblindex.fr for instance for passages cited by Origen is:

Quote:
1 Cor 7.1
1 Cor 7.2
1 Cor 7.3
1 Cor 7.4
1 Cor 7.5
1 Cor 7.6
1 Cor 7.7
1 Cor 7.8
1 Cor 7.9
1 Cor 7.10
1 Cor 7.11
1 Cor 7.12
1 Cor 7.14
1 Cor 7.15
1 Cor 7.16
1 Cor 7.18
1 Cor 7.19
1 Cor 7.20
1 Cor 7.21
1 Cor 7.22
1 Cor 7.23
1 Cor 7.24
1 Cor 7.25
1 Cor 7.26
1 Cor 7.27
1 Cor 7.28
1 Cor 7.31
1 Cor 7.34
1 Cor 7.35
1 Cor 7.39
1 Cor 7.40
Irenaeus by contrast

Quote:
7.6
7.11
7.14
7.18
7.24
7.25
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:25 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.