aa5874

How in the world would a fraud, committed most likely by apologetic sources or even the Church itself, be rejected by the Church when it Benefited from the fraud??

We have before us Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings and one was written BEFORE the other yet they do NOT agree but they are CANONISED.

Based on your view then Acts of the Apstles and the Pauline writings
should have been "harmonized" but quite to the contrary they were NOT.

The author of Acts did NOT even state Paul wrote letters to churches. The author did NOT credit Paul with writing letters--the author specifically wrote that it was the Jerusalem church that wrote letter and gave the CONTENTS of a typical Jerusalem church letter.

We have gMatthew and gLuke, one was written before the other so why are they NOT harmonised before Canonised??? Herod did NOT kill any children, there were NO Magi and Jesus did NOT flee to Egypt in gLuke.

The anonymous letter appears to be attempting to "historicise" Paul and his letters to the Corinthians

You have NOT identified "the internal evidence". There is NO internal evidence in the anonymous letter that show it was written before the 5th century.

The anonymous letter has NOT ever been dated by Paleography or scientific means.

Your assertion is erroneous when we have apologetic sources making claims about the same Clement that are NOT harmonized--NOT in agreement.

Do we NOT have a supposed 5th century apologetic source, Letter 53 attributed to Augustine of Hippo, that claims Clement was bishop AFTER Linus and NOT Anacletus when a supposed 2nd century source, "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, claimed Clement was AFTER Anacletus???

You are just making blunders after blunders.

It is clear that a LATER apologetic source does NOT have to be in agreement and this pattern is found throughout apologetic sources of antiquity.

Your claim is erroneous. The anonymous letter gives the PRECISE impression that the Gospel,Paul and the Pauline letters to the Corinthians were well known.


1 Clement 421 Clement 49 You seem to think that we do NOT have the ANONYMOUS letter attributed to Clement. We know what it states.

We also have Apologetic sources of the Church which are NOT aware of the anonymous letter and claimed Clement was bishop LONG BEFORE 95-97 CE.

There is NO way you can show that Rufinus, Tertullian, Optatus and Augustine knew of the anonymous letter and up to the 5th century.

There was NO known letter attributed to Clement of Rome in 95-97 CE--We have a fraud on our hands since Multiple Apologetic sources of the Church itself did NOT recognise a bishop named Clement at c 95-97.

Sheshbazzar

You are simply not comprehending my position.

Our differences here are arising out of the fact that I am focusing on what is revealed within the basic composition that would have comprised the original and uninterpolated text of 1 Clement that was written and circulated before the latter Church developed a 'church history' that forced them to go back and revise and interpolate 1 Clement to make appear to conform to that latter fabricated 'church history'.

The essential ancient (earlier) 1 Clement was not quoting any such writings as ' gMatthew, Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews and 2 Peter', The emerging Christian church had not even composed any such completed books at that time, although these various 'sayings' and 'traditions' were known and drawn on by the anonymous writer who latter came to be called 'Clement', in the composition of this original and as yet uninterpolated and 'un-doctored' text, that is, all those old portions where 'Clement' the anonymous, -writing in his own words, his own original thoughts,- appears to be 'channeling Paul' or 'quoting' or ad-libbing without providing any attributions,- from those books that we have became familiar with as the NT texts.
These sections of the 'old' anonymous 'Clement' are part of what the latter church writers drew upon in the fabrication of the latter composed Epistles and Gospels.

(Why were the various contemporary writers of the 1st and early 2nd centuries all so unfamiliar with the Christian religion and its 'well known' Gospels?
-a clue. Contrary to Church's fabricated 'Christian 'history', -it really wasn't there yet.)

But as they developed their false Church history it became necessary to 'revise' the writing of the anonymous writer, giving him the name 'Clement' and inserting myrid references to 'Paul' and various other latter church created figures and ideas.
But as that underlying original text was already long established and quite intricately composed, it still retains its original sense of having been the thoughts of its early and unknown author.
This is the part that I have been focusing on, that gives the lie to claims of the Epistles, Acts and Gospels as being authentic early 1st century compositions. And do note the emphasis on 'compositions' as the sayings, tropes, and oral traditions were early. The writings called 'Mark', 'Matthew', 'Luke', 'John' 'Acts' and the 'Epistles' as the finished compositions that make up our written NT were not written as early as they are misrepresented to be, but are all late productions of the evolved orthodox church.

All of your objections on the other hand, are focused upon that apparent lack of familiarity with 1 Clement that is displayed by prominent latter church writers, and upon those sections of the text that are latter interpolations.

The Church needed this text to continue to exist, and to be selectively quotable by the Church's 'Authorities' on occasion so as to establish their bogus claims to a Apostolic Succession and Authority, but they certainly did not want the 'lower' classes to become overly familiar with it, and thereby be able to determine what the actual progression of the Christian religion had been.
Therefore they excluded it from the Canon so that it would not be commonly read, but it remained essential to the hierarchy in the assertion of their right to their 'Authority'.

The Church had determined, that it was for their own good, to feed the people a false Church fabricated version of 'Church History', one that (falsely) placed the writing of the Gospels, Acts, and the various Epistles in a dim and far distant past.
To succeed at this the actual text of 1 Clement had to be restricted from any general circulation until the other latter composed Gospels, Acts, and Epistles had been 'set in order', well established and publicly accepted as being authentic and early.
This required the massive publication and public distribution of the newly created 'Canonical New Testament texts' while at the same time keeping a fairly tight grip upon 1 Clement secure and out of the public eye.

Asserted Church Authority came down to; "WE will tell you what to believe, what you are allowed to think, and what our Church's history is."

Most bought it, and most still do. We on this board, ought not to be found remaining within that 'most'.





.

aa5874

Please, you are making unsubstantiated claims which are incomprehensible. The internal statements in the anonymous letter do NOT show that the "Church was forced to go back and revise and interpolated 1 Clement when you claim that the very same letter is NOT harmonised.

Again, you ASSUME that there is some EARLIER uninterpolated letter. You are just inventing your own history.

Where is your interpolated 1 Clement??? As soon as people here make unsubstantiated claims it would seem that they take the interpolation route.

Where do you get your stories that you write about the anonymous letter???



Again, you are making unsubstantiated claims. You are MERELY PRESUMING that the anonymous letter is EARLY without a shred of evidence.

Again, a complete unsubstantiated invention. You provided NO sources to show what you claim did happen.

I do NOT invent stories I simple present the EVIDENCE provided by Apologetic sources.

It is claimed that Augustine of Hippo wrote in the 5th century and in a LETTER he claimed Clement was the bishop of Rome AFTER Linus, NOT after Anacletus.

Augustine of Hippo did NOT know of the Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth at 95-97 CE, did NOT know of a Letter attributed to Clement as bishop 95-97 CE and did NOT know Clement was bishop 95-97 CE and at least three other apologetic sources, Rufinus, Optatus, and Tertullian.

Apologetic sources from the 2nd to 5th century are NOT aware that Clement was bishop 95-97.

The abundance of evidence do suggest that the anonymous letter was fabricated AFTER the 5th century and was UNKNOWN for hundreds of years.

Sheshbazzar

Then there is no reason to continue this discussion with you.

The APOLOGETIC text of 1 Clement to you then must be inviolable, its every word to be accepted, and as being EVIDENCE penned by its original writer exactly as it now appears.
You are welcome to continue to accept that The Epistles, Acts, and the Gospels were all written before 100 CE.

ONE QUESTION remains however for you to provide a satisfactory answer to;

Why were the various contemporary sources of the 1st and early 2nd centuries all so unfamiliar with the Chrestian religion and its well known 'Paul' and Gospels???

no 'clues' from me this time.

stephan huller

the fact that paul is referenced in an expanded version of the original letter known to Clement of A proves nothing. our text of 1clement is an orthodox counterfeiting of the original

DCHindley

As explained in the 1922 book on the Morgan fragment by Lowe & Rand, comparison of the text of Aldus' 1508 edition, which he Aldus said he created from a copy of the Parisinus codex, containing all 10 books, and six other printed and handwritten texts of some of the letters, and the Morgan fragments, show that the fragment and the text of Parisinus are nearly identical (Aldus' edition, though, contains emendations to correct errors in Parisinus, which were for the most part already suggested by earlier editors of the letters).

So it seems certain that a 10 book codex, Parisinus, existed around 1506 (when Aldus' received "a copy of the entire manuscript plus six other copies, [which were] handwritten or printed editions collated with old manuscripts" from the architect Giovanni Giocondo of Verona, who himself copied it from the Parisinus mss then at the Abbey of Saint-Victor in Paris. It also appears that Alvise Mocenigo, the representative of the Venetian Senate in France, bought or at any rate secured the original manuscript from the Abby and brought it to Paris before 1508.

Other humanists, such as Pietro Marino Aleandro (Petrus Leander) had made a partial copy of a little more than half the letters in Parisinus book 10 [letters "41-121 in editions of our day"], which he gave to Girolamo Avanzi who printed it in 1502.

Guillaume Budé also had access to it or its copy as he owned a printed volume of "Beroaldus’ edition of the nine books, published in 1498; [plus] the letters of Book 10 in Avanzi’s edition; and [with] the missing letters [from books 8 and 10] handwritten on inserted leaves." While the added leaves were by a professional copyist (not Budé), Budé added throughout both the printed text and the handwritten leaves his own annotations. The added leaves and the annotations match those of Aldus' Codex Parisinus.

So, to admit as you seem to that the Morgan fragment of 6 pages containing the end of Book 2, and the index and beginning of Book 3, is from Parisinus, which is otherwise abundantly shown to have included book 10, did not in fact include book 10 because it did not survive (along with book 1 & most of 2, most of 3 to Book 9) is nothing more than wishful thinking. Let's just wish those other lost fragments away and pretend that they too are fabrications while we are at it?

DCH

aa5874

ALL we have are the WRITTEN statements from Apologetic sources. We have NO artifacts and we have NO dating by Paleography or Scientific means for the anonymous letter.

I can ONLY use the WRITTEN statements from antiquity.

I will NOT entertain YOUR IMAGINATION as an historical source.

You are making statements about the anonymous letter that are UNKNOWN and cannot be substantiated so I must REJECT THEM.

ALL my statements are DIRECTLY from sources of antiquity and this is PRECISELY how theories are developed. I MUST, Must have a source. I must have evidence.

I have Tertullian, Rufinus, Optatus and Augustine of Hippo.

You have your imagination. I know of NO theory or case that is argued by imagination.

Sheshbazzar

And of course you MUST consider anything contained within those WRITTEN statements as being inviolable and FACTUAL.

I have not asked you to entertain my imagination as a historical source.

I actually EXPECTED you to closely EXAMINE 1 Clement and see in what ways many of his so-called references and quotations are presented as his own original thoughts and composition. And just how crudely constructed and unpolished these compositions are in comparison to the texts they allegedly were lifted from.

And to be capable of applying a modicum of logic, and of analysis as to WHY this would be.

Why would anyone take a very well composed, well known, and wildly popular text and deliberately rewrite it into a less well composed, rambling and inferior form???

Thus far you have provided nothing to try to explain this weird reversal of the normal progress of written literature, simply choosing to ignore it even when it is being placed right under your nose.

Asking you to examine and to explain this matter, I was obviously expecting too much of your limited intellectual abilities.

spin

You ought to learn something about what you pretend to talk about. The Romans were rather conservative in their religious ideas, frequently what could be called parochial. As there was a great influx of people into the city, many diverse religious ideas arrived there. It was for the vast majority of Romans Lares and Penates and nothing else until the inroads of Mithraism in the soldiery and mercantile world, followed by christianity. The whims of various emperors were tolerated and the habits of foreign slaves were ignored. But do look into the issue of Roman religious practices and stop talking nonsense.

As evidence is the only thing that you can provide that has any use and you've already indicated you had none, enjoy the word games (such as the following).

You don't have any monopoly on the notion of rationality, but your lack of interest in evidence tends to indicate that you actually have little notion of rationality.

I guess that means he's not one of your co-religionists. But come to think of it, history shows that they were frequently foul, right wing b*****ds, so surely you can't complain about the Dalai Lama.

As there is nothing to tether 1 Clement to any historical hook before about 130 CE, please feel free to supply some evidence to show that it was in fact earlier, otherwise we are left with the position that 1 Clement is useless as a historical indicator.

sotto voce

Progress!