tanya

Did it never occur to you, that maybe Clement had exactly the same version, of Paul's letter to Corinthians, which has come down to us, but his assessment of those "missing" verses, has been lost, due not to political machinations, but simply because of poor manuscript condition?

Not only was the manuscript (the only manuscript we possess) in poor condition, it was filled with inaccuracies, (using Codex Sinaiticus as a reference, for example) with regard to gospel quotes.

Carl P. Cosaert [*] has explained
I disagree with the notion that our extant copies of Paul's epistles are "fake", based upon discordance with the solitary manuscript evidence from Clement.



mod note: * The text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Carl P. Cosaert

aa5874

You want me to accept your absurd idea? NEVER.

stephan huller

Tanya

Yes Cosaert is right with respect to individual readings but his purpose was to disprove the idea that Clement's text is the Western text

tanya

That may be, Stephan, I cannot argue against your idea, but he did write a whole book, and I have only quoted a couple of lines....

The gist of his message, i.e. what I have taken away from his book, is that
a. our source material on Clement is mediocre, in worse, much worse condition, than our source material on Paul's epistles;
b. Clement's notes are not always in harmony with our texts, not only the text of Paul's epistles, but also the text of the four gospels. One would not, however, make the claim that our four gospels were "fake", right, just because Clement's quotations differ from all of our extant versions....Am I wrong here?

Cosaert makes the important point, which I did not quote, but which is germaine to this discussion, that Clement MAY have written some of his analysis outside of Alexandria, AWAY from his books and documents, i.e. writing from memory, rather than consulting a reference text.

My only point is that it seems to me, illogical to cite a corrupted text, as if it represented the gold standard, instead of simply a worthy piece of evidence, but only just a single piece of (possibly corrupted) evidence, nothing more. I certainly would not be comfortable claiming that whatever Clement had written, is indicative of the ORIGINAL text of Paul's letters, and all of those different extant versions of his epistles in our possession, (which appear to differ from the version we imagine that Clement had before him) are corrupted, fraudulent, and FAKE.

If anything, I would argue, as is the case with Irenaeus' claim that Jesus was 50+ years old, at the time of his murder, that our BEST evidence contradicts that claim.

You may be correct, and I may be wrong. Perhaps Clement's writings SHOULD represent the gold standard. I see no reason to make that assumption, and contrarily, I see at least two reasons to oppose that notion: mediocrity of our extant copy; only a single example of Clement's text.

stephan huller

I have ordered Mees book on Clement through interlibrary loan. Schmid seems to think highly of the analysis. It is in German so how bad can it be? Lol. The problem with Cosaert's book is that he is too interested in comparing Clement's citations with the later recensions (Alexandrian etc). Cosaert criticizes anyone who does not proceed in this manner. Yet this assumes that there is even a possibility the Alexandrian text existed before the fourth century which is foolish.

It is obvious that Clement's text is different. I also think the actual texts of Clement's writings have suffered from editorial reworking. When I get a chance I will cite Jerome and Rufinus's reference to the practice of “correcting” third century Alexandrian material which dates to the time of Origen, Eusebius and later

tanya

ok, good, then we are not so far apart, as you may have imagined, at the outset.....

Sheshbazzar

Having participated with you in countless threads now, I certainly wouldn't expect you to accept any idea I have ever suggested about anything. Not sure of just which of my various ideas it is that you are objecting to now.

My comment was based upon observation, that in the over 12000 posts you have made, I cannot recall even one where you have ever came to the defense of a statement made by fellow forum poster.
Can you provide any instances where you have ever defended a statement made by a fellow Forum member, or a point being made by someone other than yourself?

Yes, there are some instances of where you have taken over an argument instituted by others, but you always manage to make it over into matter of YOU being the ONE person in the thread, -alone-, who is always right about everything, and is NEVER wrong, or in error about anything.
You even shut out any ideas provided by those Original Poster's whose thoughts you capitalize upon to grandstand your own absolutely infallible authority upon every single thing, so that anyone even attempting to provide any further information or observations, even such as agree with your arguments or positions, only feeds your self-important egotistical frenzy.

aa5874

What nonsense are you posting? This thread is not about me.

I have no time to waste with your FRIVOLOUS absurd statements.

Please deal with the OP.

The title of this thread is 1 Corinthians chapters 14,15 and 16 are fakes.

The author of the thread cannot demonstrate that 1 Cor. 14, 15 and 16 are fakes up to now.

Sheshbazzar

Do I really care what You "have no time" for?

And just why is it that I should care what you (in particular) claim to "have no time" for here?

I have time, plenty of time, to hear, and to consider, whatever information or observations Stephan wishes to present on this matter.

You have threads on this Forum that have exceeded a thousand plus posts before finally being shut down.
So you certainly should have nothing to bitch about not having "no time" for an important and extensively researched thread, that has not yet even reached 150 posts.

Stephan Huller, the author of this thread has already supplied us with a huge amount of information concerning the anomalies and those discrepancies that exist within these texts.
And as I stated back on page one, I for one intend to thoroughly hear him out, and any arguments he chooses to present, till HE decides to end.
No one is forcing you to read, or to participate in any manner in this thread.

If you you cannot present your questions and your comments in a polite and civil manner because you "have no time", you are -more- than welcome to move on.

Doing so will allow you more of your precious time for creating another one of your own, aa5874 generated, thousand plus posts horse-shit threads.

aa5874

It is obvious that you are on a propaganda mission. People here are NOT brain-dead.

You have supported me until I disagreed with you. You are whining because I did NOT accept your Flawed reasoning.

Get over it. Even EXPERTS may disagree about any matter.

Hardly any EXPERTS may agree with Stephan Huller's claim that 1 Cor. 14-16 are fakes. Some Experts may think Stephan Huller's arguments are "horse-shit".

Name an Expert that agrees with Stephan Huller about anything on Marcion.

Please, deal with the OP.

Please demonstrate that Stephan Huller has Identified and presented a single fake passage in 1 Cor. 14, 15 and 16.

I have ALREADY shown the Stephan Huller was merely DUMPING IRRELEVANT material in order to divert attention that he could NOT show what he implied in the title of the thread.

It cannot be shown by Stephan Huller that Clement of Alexander attributed any passage in 1 Cor. 14, 15 and 16 to any other writer or any other book or that there are any Pauline writings without 1 Cor. 14, 15 and 16.

This is Clement of Alexander where he Identified a passage from 1 Corinthians and written by Paul.

"The Instructor" 1. 1Cor. 14:20 - Stephan Huller has failed to demonstrate what he has implied in his OP.