stephan huller

And with respect to paleographic dating, I happened to be hanging around David Trobisch when he was a speaker at the Sinaiticus conference. He told me that all dates for texts were inevitably too early owing to the ambition of scholars. I will call him today about P46. I accept that it was at least third century in origin. I accept Andrew's dating. I accept that some versions of 1 Corinthians had chapter 16 by the middle of the third century but it is still interesting that no Church Father cites the material before the fourth century ...

aa5874

What a total CONTRADICTION. You ACTUALLY READ my posts and RESPOND and then claim you have me on "ignore".

Do you think people here are BRAIN DEAD?

Why do people here do NOT expect any opposition to people who posts ERRONEOUS information?

Stephan Huller has INVENTED a "pattern of intertwining of Galatians and 1 Cor. 14 and 15".

The author of "The Instructor" attributed to Clement of Alexandria CLEARLY identified the FIRST Epistle to the Corinthians.

"The Instructor" 1 KJV 1Corinthians 14:20 -
The Stromata 7.14 KJV 1Corinthians 6:1-2 Stephan Huller SIMPLY has NOT demonstrated at all that Clement of Alexandria had a different text of 1 Corinthians and that 1 Corinthians 14, 15, and 16 are fakes.

stephan huller

Another example of Clement connecting 1 Corinthians and Galatians:

tanya

No, you err, else, you misunderstand the point.

Stephan wrote that our extant copies of Paul's first letter to Corinthians were "fake". Why did he write that?

He did NOT write that, because part of 1 Corinthians was once incorporated into Clement's copy of Galatians. No, Stephan Huller wrote that in his OP, because, in his opinion, at the time he submitted the OP to forum members, Clement of Alexandria had not possessed, nor had he expressed an opinion regarding, 1 Corinthians 14, 15, 16.

That means, Vork, that "matching 1 Cor 14/15 in Tertullian and Clement of A does [OMIT] refute that particular point.", omitting the "not".

Upon encountering aa5874's refutation of his thesis, Stephan Huller could have done the honorable thing, and acknowledged an error.

We all err. It is human.

But, instead of acknowledging his error, Stephan labelled aa5874 a "ding dong", and subsequently made a disparaging remark about his ability to comprehend the subtleties of Stephan Huller's remarkable discovery.

While that did not surprise me, as I have encountered Stephan Huller's comments in other threads, I was surprised that other forum members DEFENDED Stephan, implying that aa5874 was at fault, for his failure to comprehend the fact that no patristic author, prior to the fourth century, possessed a copy of Paul's first letter to Corinthians chapters 14, 15, and 16.

It was not Stephan's nonsense that especially irritated me, but the attitude of other forum members to disregard Stephan's disparaging comments to someone who had just refuted Stephan's research interest. That is not a healthy attitude of skepticism, in my opinion.

DCHindley

Hello Vork,

Same here. What is ironic is that not infrequently aa5874 makes good observations. I'm not equating aa5872 with Bruno Bauer, but what Schweitzer says about Bauer applies in a sense to aa5874:

No attention was paid to Bauer, and in part he himself was responsible for the neglect. The bitterness and the carelessness of his writing, the contradictions in which he becomes involved, the fantastic imagination which he allows to run riot, made it impossible for the few who read him to regard him seriously. (Paul & His Interpreters, ET 1912, pp 122-123)

I have to wonder whether Clement of A was taking some of his quotes from a florilegium (collection of passages from sacred scripture, usually thematic in nature), at least in some cases. We know that Christian authors frequently made errors in attribution of authorship when quoting from Jewish scriptures (once even in the NT).

Then there is the possibility that he was using a codex containing only the first four Pauline Books (see Trobisch on this) which ends with Galatians. If the four books each had postscripts giving the book name (Nag Hammadi style) with Clement of A. carelessly citing anything he found in it with the book indicated in the postscript of the last book, which would be Galatians.

Of course Stephen will suggest that we have the Marcionite collection starting with Galatians. This can all be put to rest, considering we have reconstructions of Marcion's Galatians as it is represented in the polemic of Christian heresy hunters. Perhaps Stephen should find ALL the passages that Marcion is charged with "changing" or "omitting," either in the reconstructions of von Manen or his buddy Mahar (but he can ignore the speculations of Esnig) and compare them to Clement's version (done in both Greek and English, so the rest of us can learn from his manic intense research).

DCH

Toto

You have forced me to reread this thread. Please do not misstate the OP. Stephan wrote that Clement's citations of 1 Cor 14-16 were sparse, in comparison to Clement's other citations of Corinthians, and in comparison to other church fathers.

aa5874 then produced a few of Clement's citations, evidently missing the point that this was a statistical argument, not a claim that Clement made no references to 1 Cor 14-16. He then introduced further confusion by pointing out that these chapters existed in other church fathers.

aa5874 did miss the point. Maybe it wasn't nice to call him ding dong, but you can report a post if you think if violates a rule. You don't have to obsess over it.

Now you have introduced further confusion by misstating Stephan Huller's contention. It is certainly not that no patristic author possessed a copy of 1 Cor 14-16. It is clear that fathers other than Clement of Alexandria did.

But he didn't refute anything.

You would do well to advise aa5874 about how healthy it is to admit error, and how a sweeter attitude would enhance his reputation.

aa5874

This is the sort of nonsense that I detest.

The VERY OP is titled "1 Corinthians Chapters 14,15, and 16 are Fakes" and that MUST be what Stephan Huller is ATTEMPTING to demonstrate but he has UTTERLY FAILED and can ONLY show that Clement of Alexander did NOT mention 1 Corinthians 16.

That is all.

We can SEE the OP.

We are NOT brain dead.

Stephan Huller HAS NOT and CANNOT show that 1 Cor. 14, 15 and 16 are fakes.

Why can't you TELL Stephan Huller that he has NOT proven his OP as yet?

Are Stephan Huller's claims INERRANT?

Can't Stephan Huller ADMIT that he has NOT demonstrated his OP is accurate.

Please do NOT mention my name because you tend to MISREPRESENT my position.

This is MY position--Stephan Huller has UTTERLY FAILED to show that 1 Corinthians 14, 15 and 16 are fakes. He has ONLY shown the Clement of Alexander did NOT mention 1 Corinthians 16.

stephan huller

I spoke today to two manuscript experts who actually held the Chester Beatty Codex in their hands.

David Trobisch told me that the estimates before the third century (he agrees with Andrew's dates here) are highly imaginative and enthusiastic. A range a reasonable dates are end of second century to middle of the third century. Yet he added that there are 'curiosities' with the text but wouldn't elaborate

When I asked my second source what Trobisch was getting at he was reluctant to answer and then after prodding agreed to tell me if I wouldn't reveal my name. My son wants to use my lap top to play superhero games so I am just going to copy his points as I wrote them down with out much effort to reshape them:

P 46 is a one layer codex which looks like an 'experiment' - i.e. that the person writing it didn't have much experience using this technology and was 'figuring out' how to transpose writings to this format. When you make a codex apparently you have to do some serious calculations beforehand to figure out how many pages you are going to need. Once you go beyond the middle you can't add any new leafs. Have to calculate very carefully beforehand (four leaves).

Also once you close the codex the middle pages will stick out have to cut off the overlap. The inner pages less so. 1/3 less room from the middle.

The person making the codex didn't take into considerations these facts which would be known to any ancient manufacturer of codices. Once he discovered he would have all these blank pages at the end he started making his letters bigger and less letters on each page. As such it has the look of a 'first time' effort - an 'experiment.'

My second source raised the possibility that the text might well be a modern forgery developed by the rich industrialist. We have the manuscript of course. It could easily be tested with c 14 technology but this has never been done because of course (a) it would lower the value of the discovery if it were discovered to be a forgery (b) it would cause some small damage to the text and (c) it serves the apologists of orthodoxy to have an early (some even argue first century) text of the Catholic order.

Trobisch never put forward this Stephen Carlson-like conspiracy theory of course but he has reservations about dating the text before the third century even though the type of handwriting (which is so difficult to date he said) could be late second century.

Hope that is of interest to everyone. Back to my life as a Dad. It's Saturday ...

stephan huller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding_Dong

stephan huller

Another possible point in favor of identifying Clement's late referencing of Galatians (Gal 2.19) with the Marcionite recension. The first identification of both Marcionite 'corruption' and Marcionite interpretation of material from the main body of the text of Galatians inevitably start at chapter 3. This is both for Tertullian and Origen (= Jerome). Origen apparently brings forward Gal 3:1 as the first Marcionite exegesis of Galatians and continues thereafter. Origen and Tertullian both identify Gal 3:6 as the first Marcionite omission (Tertullian from memory). Origen does make reference to the Galatian prologue but Tertullian interesting avoids all discussion of the text and interestingly acknowledges that he has avoided discussing it (or forgotten to discuss it) in his book. The prologue of Galatians could well have been the prologue for the Alexandrian work too.