Kent F

aa5874 posted this as evidence against Stephan Huller's OP, quoting from Clement's Stromata: "Now I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption."
(from 1 Cor 15:50).
Well, it does. Stephan said so himself in post number 19. And he has provided links to his blog where all of the 1 Cor chapters are analyzed.

From his blog, I quote: "Clement stops citing material from the epistle at 1 Cor 15:50 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.' He also ignores most of chapters 14 and 15."

Clement's citations from 1.Cor 14 are verses 9-13, with verses 12 & 13 as suspected additions. From chapter 15: verse 34, 50 and one line from verse 54. There might be an allusion to verse 44 as well, if I understand things correctly.

So, why is that Clement quotes extensively from chapters 1-13 but then his quotes drop off to merely a few from chapters 14 & 15, and none from chapter 16? If this amounts to about 3% of the material, as Tanya said, then 97% of the material has been added by someone, has it not? Tell me, Tanya and aa, how can something which is fabricated by 97% not be called a fake??

After 1 Cor 15:50 Clement goes on to cite from Galatians 2:19 and onwards. That's why the references to Galatians are in this thread. It's highly relevant.

Keep up the good work, Stephan!

aa5874

<edit>

There are virtually no writers of antiquity that mentioned all the chapters and all the verses of any book except when writing "Homilies" or "Commentaries".

The Stromata is NOT a "Homily" or "Commentary" on 1 Corinthians.

tanya

"highly relevant" to what, Kent?

What are you attempting to explain?

Do you wish to argue, that, contrary to what Stephan Huller has written, Clement of Alexander DID make reference to the material found in our version of 1 Corinthians 15, claiming, however, that the epistle under investigation was located in the body of text which we call Galatians?

Then, isn't it more appropriate, if that is the case, (I don't know that, I am simply trying to comprehend your post) to write, in the TITLE, (or, the OP, as I claim)
"Our version of 1 Corinthians includes verses originally included in Galatians, at the time of Clement of Alexandria", instead of writing that our version is FAKE?

stephan huller

Hey tanya

It seems you have nothing to contribute to the conversation other than we shouldn't be discussing any of these things. Here's my suggestion. Why not ignore the thread and stop posting here? I have yet to see any constructive criticism of anything posted here.

aa5874

You are the one who put up the title 1 Corinthians Chapters 14,15 and 16 are Fakes so you should provide the evidence for your claim.

So far you have NOT been able to show what the title of your OP states.

My suggestion is that you REMOVE the title of your thread because you are incapable of providing any evidence to support it.

Clement of Alexandria mentioned many writings from the NT and did not mention all the chapters of every book in the NT.

stephan huller

Another curiosity demonstrating 'cross polllination' of texts is Tertullian's citation of Galatians chapter 3 with the obvious insertion of Eph 1.21 into the text:

Danny Mahar notes that the 'insertion' is also present in Ephrem's citation of the same material:

I'd like to know where I can get this text but it is yet another example (there are others) that in the early texts of the Apostolikon there was cross-polination.

Indeed I wonder whether Clement's reference to the same section also presupposes the same insertion of Eph 1.18 into Galatians chapter 3:

Compare Tertullian again:

In Clement there is no explicit citation of ANY of the portion of the material from Galatians 3 but there is a clear connection of 'the Jerusalem above' with regeneration and 'ascending' to the powers and principalities in heaven. In Tertullian there is no explicit mention of 'Jerusalem above' in this line but 'our mother' (in Clement its presence is implied by 'milk' and nursing references - i.e. "we are nursed directly we are born") but Ephesians is explicitly cited).

Kent F

It's not a question of mentioning all the chapters and verses. The whole point is that Clement makes lots of references to chapters 1-13 and after that, he only makes a few. Why is that? I haven't counted but there at least 10 quotes or more from each of the first 13 chapters, and then there are only a couple from 14 & 15 and none from chapter 16. Why is that? Can't you for one moment consider that this is because Clement didn't have chapters 14-16 as we now have them?

I thought my post was perfectly clear.

Stephan said that Clement does make references to chapters 14 & 15, verse 15.50 being one of them, but these references are very few compared to the references from the previous chapters. Clement's version of 1 Cor instead ended with verses from Galatians.

And if "our version" of 1 Cor during Clement's time only had a few lines from chapters 14 & 15, no chapter 16, and instead ended with verses included in the epistle we now call Galatians, then it's not "our version" any longer! Can't you see that? "Our version" is a fake from chapter 14 and onwards.

aa5874

I really don't understand you strange illogical line of argument.

Clement of Alexandria did quote passages from 1 Corinthians 14 and 15.

It is hopelessly illogical to argue that Clement did NOT have them.

You can ONLY logically argue that Clement did NOT have 1 Cor. 14 and 15 if he did NOT use them or if stated directly that 1 Cor. 14 and 15 contain certain verses that cannot be found in the P[auline writings.

The very first time Clement mentioned 1 Corinthians by name in the "Instructor" he identified the author as Paul and wrote a verse from 1 Cor 14 VERBATIN.

"The Instructor" 1[u][b] 1Corinthians 14:20 - Clement did NOT claim the passage was from Galatians. He identified it as the First Epistle of Corinthians with the EXACT words found in the 14 chapter.

What Stephan Huller has failed to show is that there are ALSO other books of the Bible INTERTWINED in the writings which mentioned passages in Galatians and 1 Cor. 14 and 15.

For example, in "The Instructor" 1.6 where 1 Cor.14.20 is mentioned I will show a basic partial pattern of Clement.

John 1.4--John 5.25--1 Thessalonians 4.9--Ephesians 5.8--John 6.40--John 3.36--Matthew 9.29--Galatians 3.26-28, `1 Corinthians 12.13--Luke 10.21, 1 Corinthians 14.20--1 Corinthians 13.11--Galatians 4.1-5--Galatians 4.7--1 Corinthians 3.2--Exodus 3.8--Revelation 1.8--1 Corinthians 3.1---1 Corinthians 3.3--John 6.55--1 Corinthians 13-12--Romans 8.9........

The partial Pattern of chapter 6 of book 1 of the "Instructor" clearly shows that Clement of Alexandria moves from book to book and chapter to chapter of the Bible at RANDOM.

stephan huller

aa,

I don't think you are capable of even understanding statistical analysis. Please go somewhere else with your issues. I'd suggest polishing up your math skills here http://www.nickjr.com/printables/dor...-journey.jhtml

aa5874

Your claim is absurd. I don't take advice from people who make claims and fail to produce the evidence to support them.

I have SHOWN that your claims about Clement of Alexandria are erroneous.

There is ZERO evidence that Clement of Alexandria had a different text of 1 Cor. 14, 15 and 16.

Clement of Alexandria did NOT ever use every book and chapter of all writings from the Bible.