Vorkosigan

Hahahaha. When I read that the thing has no clear provenance and has never been carbon dated, that was a red flag. But I didn't see any reason not to trust the analysis of the writing. This is new information, however. Thanks.

aa5874

Well, based on Trobisch this may mean that it is the writings of Irenaeus that are FAKES. Irenaeus is supposedly a 2nd century writer.

All writings that are claimed to be from the 1st-2nd century with the Pauline Epistles may INDEED be FAKES which includes the writings attributed to Ignatius, Clement of Rome and Irenaeus.

tanya

I deny having misstated the OP.

Here it is, AGAIN:
Sparse? Really? 96.7% is missing, and you call the remaining 3+% "sparse"?
That's your take on Stephan Huller's first paragraph of this thread?

One of us, is completely wrong.

Here's what Stephan Huller wrote:
Let me connect the dots for you, Toto, since the arithmetic and logic may be unattractive:

40 + 58 + 24 = 122
1 + 3 + 0 = 4

4/122 = 3.3%

Now, here's the logic:

a. 1 Corinthians Chapters 14, 15 and 16 Are Fakes;

b. how do we know this to be true? Stephan explains why:
Clement knew only 4 out of 122 lines in 1 Corinthians.

c. why does Clement know only four lines? He only knows four lines, because ALL THE REST OF THE LINES in our possession, today, represent interpolations, scribal additions, which did not exist at the time of Clement of Alexandria, according to Stephan.

Now, HOW HAVE I MISSTATED THE OP?????? utter nonsense.

You have here misrepresented what Stephan wrote:

According to Stephan, we know that our versions of 1 Corinthians 14,15, 16 are fake, because Clement of Alexandria did not comment on 96.7% of our extant text, AND that almost no pre-Nicene Church Father knows anything about chapter 16, in essence, confirming the absence of 96.7% of what we possess today.

So, this then becomes a thread about statistics?

Hmmm. Let's see, out of 4 possible lines of text, how many lines of text did aa5874 select? I don't know the answer. Not being very familiar with Biblical Statistics, I would hazard a guess, though, that there is a VERY LOW probability that the four citations offered by aa5874 correspond to the same four lines of text described by Stephan Huller. In other words, my money is on the notion that NONE of those four examples, described by aa5874, had been included by Stephan Huller, as lines from Paul's letter known to Clement. That mystery could be clarified by Stephan, specifiying precisely which four lines Clement does describe.

Further confusion? other church fathers? Are you certain, Toto, that you are not confused? Did not Stephan Huller write
How, then, does a forum member introduce confusion by citing evidence from other church fathers?

Really? Which point would that be? As far as I am concerned, he is right on target.

It would be instructive to illustrate how those several examples, offered by aa5874, fall short of the mark, in disproving Stephan's hypothesis that Clement did not know 96.7% of the lines found in our versions of 1 Corinthians 14, 15, 16.

Rubbish.

I deny having misstated or misrepresented anyone's writing, and I urge you, to offer the quote from my submissions, (post number and line number, please) supporting this absurd accusation.

Really?

Do you understand what Stephan has written? Do I need to copy it again? Stephan claimed that almost nothing (a discussion of only 4/122 lines of text)
had been written by Clement as commentary about Paul's epistle, corresponding to what we call, today, 1 Corinthians 14, 15, 16, leaving us with the impression that this observation underscores his OP: that our extant copies of that epistle of Paul are all "fake" , because, according to Stephan, Clement did not know of their existence.

aa5874 offered SEVERAL citations disproving Stephan's opinion, that Clement had failed to discuss many verses from the relevant chapters of Paul's epistle. In other words, he demonstrated the FACT that Clement of Alexander DID KNOW more than just four lines from those three chapters of Paul's epistle. If you wish to prove me wrong, all you have to do, is furnish the four lines from Paul's letter acknowledged by Stephan as having been known to Clement, and compare those four lines, to the examples furnished by aa5874. If they overlap, then, good: in such a case, I am wrong.

I am disinclined to offer advice to anyone but you, Toto: please do not claim that a forum member has deliberately falsified the position of another forum participant, without documenting that supposed transgression. I deny, most emphatically, having misrepresented Stephan Huller's position.


:constern01:

stephan huller

tanya,

if your post wasn't guided by profound personal hatred wouldn't it simply be a matter of demonstrating that either:

a) I am wrong for claiming that Clement cites chapters 14, 15 or 16 the SAME OR LESS than the rest of 1 Corinthians or the rest of the Apostolikon
b) that the other Church Fathers cite chapters 14 or 16 the SAME OR LESS than the rest of 1 Corinthians or the rest of the Apostolikon (I have always maintained that outside of Clement the other Fathers cite chapter 15 MORE)

Why does this come down to a question of whether aa has the right to act like a deranged lunatic - akin to someone accusing his mother of being the town whore - for mere putting forward an untested hypothesis?

There is no debate that aa is an annoyance and an embarrassment at this forum. That is beyond question. To somehow justify his recent explosion is about as ridiculous as any of previous assaults. Human beings should be capable of engaging in rational discourse. The only serious question is whether or not I have misrepresented Clement and/or the Church Father's citation of the last three chapters of 1 Corinthians. This should not be a question that engenders deep emotions.

tanya

As far as I am concerned, this has nothing to do with aa5874.

Zero.

Nada.

Any forum member who knows the patristic evidence (I do not) could offer the same attempted refutation of your hypothesis.

Please focus on offering a rebuttal to aa5874, which has nothing to do with cakes, ding dongs, or whores.

Please list the four lines of text from Paul's epistle to the Corinthians, from chapters 14 and 15, so that we may compare them to the evidence cited by aa5874, but please disregard WHO submitted the data, and focus your attention instead on the data, itself.

That's not my take on the issue.

I cannot express an opinion other than my own, but I believe that as author of this thread, paraphrasing Sheshbazzar's wise remarks, you should be entitled to express your opinion. I don't reproach you for expressing your opinion. I happen to believe, myself, that our extant copies of Paul's epistles are forged. But, my belief, unlike yours, is based on IGNORANCE, superstition, and tradition, not erudition.

So, I hold you to a higher standard than I do myself. I cannot read Hebrew. I don't know Syriac or Aramaic.

I regard you as something of a scholar on biblical matters. What you write, unlike what I write, is important. Accordingly, there is more responsibility on your shoulders than on mine.

When you start a thread, claiming that our extant copies of one of Paul's epistles is a fraud, my antennae are raised. Here's a scholar writing about a subject near and dear to my heart.

OOPS, the scholar's writing is utter nonsense. Now what shall I do? I tried to get you to revise your outlandish OP, by writing post 7, to no avail.

I was amazed that you ignored the evidence piling up around you. Why wouldn't you respond, instead of belittling? That is so surprising to me. What do you lose by explaining to all concerned precisely which four lines Clement discusses? Why not address the most damaging issue head on: Does Clement in fact demonstrate awareness of chapters 14, 15, 16, as aa5874 documented? If so, then, has the OP been refuted? If so, no biggie, but, it would be more collegial, in my opinion, to admit error, instead of belittling someone who presented the data.

For now, what is important, in my opinion, is to summarize from your perspective, which lines, specifically which particular, enumerated lines from which verses of which chapters of 1 Corinthians are discussed by Clement, regardless of where he discusses them, i.e. independent of which text they appear in, today.

Even if, however, it should turn out, that only a tiny handful of lines are acknowledged by Clement, I still believe, that it is improper for a learned scholar, like you, to claim that all of our extant copies are "fake", on that basis, as I hinted in post 7.

stephan huller

So why not go through the citations of the Church Fathers that I linked at my blog or go to Biblindex (or the catena at earlychurchfathers.com) and demonstrate that I have misrepresented the early sources?

aa5874

<edit>

Your OP is titled 1 Corinthians chapters 14, 15 and 16 are FAKES but all you have shown so far is that 1 Corinthians 16 was NOT mentioned.

<edit>.

I am the ONLY Poster who have challenged your ABSURD claim by SHOWING that writings ATTRIBUTED to supposed 2nd and 3rd century writers DO CONTAIN 1 Corinthians 14 and 15 and show no signs that Clement of Alexandria had a different version of 1 Corinthians.
<edit>.

stephan huller

Why can't anyone simply disprove my assertion that Clement's frequency of citing material from 1 Corinthians DECREASES in the last three chapters? Why can't anyone challenge the claim that there are no witnesses to chapter 16 of 1 Corinthians before the fourth century? How can a claim like this stir such passions in a freethinking and supposedly rational forum? It should be black and white. Either I am right in claiming this or wrong. If you think I am wrong, please demonstrate where I have misrepresented the evidence.

Toto

That's not the OP, that's the title. You need to pay more attention to detail.

How do you define sparse? For most definitions, quoting only 3% would be considered sparse = rare = not common. :huh:

Yes you have.

Yes, in fact.

This is not the relevant statistic. Are you serious?

Go ahead and demonstrate that.


He did not. Go back and read his post of Nov. 2. Do not confuse it with the post where he lists the multiple verses from Tertullian.

tanya

Two points:

First: So, reading the above:
I went here to find out what folks claim Clement wrote about any verse of 1 Corinthians. Haha. good luck.

Then I went to CCEL, same result. There are only 26 chapters, not 92.

Finally, I visited the Gnostic society, with the same result, since all these web sites are presenting text from the same book.

Second: Having failed to locate sh's reference, I then sought aa's reference:

Here it is, anyone can read it:
n.b. my emphasis, I presume, in ignorance, that "the apostle", refers to "Paul".

So, here is a reference, from post 13, dated 02 November 2011, which demonstrates, to my satisfaction, as one wholly, blissfully, completely unaware of all scholarly pursuits, that the claim that all of our extant copies of 1 Corinthians 15 are "fake", because of a supposed paucity of citations from Clement of Alexandria, about its contents, has been demonstrated to be incorrect, unless, the four miserable citations, discussed but not explicitly defined, by Stephan Huller, include this particular citation.

haha, you are teasing me, right?

You figure, this fool, this moron, this cupcake, or as Stephan prefers, dingdong, tanya will not know the difference between Tertullian and Clement....

hahaha, yes, that is not too far off the mark, of course, (not Mark), yes, I am uninformed. So, you are correct to assume that I most probably cannot distinguish one patristic author from another....

yup, good, a sense of humor. Very nice.

no, I don't think so. The citations are NOT from Tertullian, friend. I found them, independently, by searching for hours, through the text of Clement.

aa5874 has provided solid evidence refuting the OP.

OOPS:
wrong again, says Toto:
hahaha, more humor. I love it. Thank you for lightening a heavy thread with some jocularity. much appreciated. We need more humor and less abuse.

Details, details, ok.
Let's look at some threads started by Toto:

Number, Title, date, OP?
1. Dale Martin: the Historical Jesus is a construct, not a real person 22 October 2011

2. The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 25 October 2011

3. Roger Bagnall "Early Christian Books in Egypt"

Is there a single person on this forum who wishes to argue with me, that the TITLE of these threads, and the OP, are NOT IDENTICAL?

Somebody?

I note that despite claiming that tanya has confounded the OP with the title, Toto, declined to clarify for the forum's lesser mortals, how Stephan Huller's title deviates from his OP.

WHAT EXACTLY is the OP, Toto, if not "1 Corinthians Chapters 14, 15 and 16 Are Fakes"

Since Toto imagines, in his fertile imagination, that this thread has something to do with statistics, let us ask if anyone can compute the probability that this particular citation from chapter 15 which appeared in Stromateis, is one of the four lonely comments referred to by Stephan Huller?

Conclusions, thus far:

a. Stephan Huller's hyperbolic OP (or title, if you prefer) has been repudiated, UNLESS, he or anyone else, (Toto) can demonstrate that this particular comment, found in Stromateis 2:20 is one of the four ("scarce") comments acknowledged by Stephan as representing the basis for his claim of a paucity of comments by Clement regarding chapter 15. I was unable to verify even one of Stephan's bandwidth consuming lists of supposed references. By contrast, it was painless, effortless to locate and confirm the citation from aa5874.

b. Tertullian does not figure into my investigations. I have no idea where Toto came up with that notion.

c. if the OP is not "1 Corinthians Chapters 14, 15 and 16 Are Fakes", then what is it?

Some bald men and women, nevertheless have a few scarce hairs on their heads. "fake" anything is an accusation which requires rigorous attention to detail, Toto.