Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 11-03-2011, 02:04 PM

Indeed, I want to make clear to you that I am becoming ever more convinced that the material from Galatians immediately followed 1 Corinthians 15:50 in the first letter of the heretical canon. It is not only logical with respect to Clement's citation of material from 1 Corinthians and Galatians (and the manner in which he thinks stuff which according to our canon identified with the latter is actually in the former) but Tertullian's consistent identification of Galatians being the proper explanation of 1 Corinthians 15:50. In other words, whenever Tertullian is engaged with these heretics who possess a different canon he makes arguments which say to the effect 'look for yourselves at what follows 1 Cor 15:50 in your canon!"

In other words, the argument that we just saw in Tertullian's polemic against the Marcionites i.e:

Quote:

For what are this next words? "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." [1 Cor 15.50] He means the works of the flesh and blood, which, in his Epistle to the Galatians, deprive men of the kingdom of God. [Gal. 5. 19-21] [Tertullian Against Marcion 5.9]

could be easily dismissed as one of many possible interpretations which just popped out of Tertullian's imagination if it were not for the fact that it is repeated over a half dozen times in his debates with the heretics. As such, it has to be assumed that this is not a random illustration but something which comes from a fixed literary tradition - i.e. that the material from Galatians did indeed immediately follow 1 Cor 15:50.

For Tertullian not only repeated ad naseum the idea that the heretics misunderstand the material from Galatians (i.e. it is not about the rejection of the flesh but the works of the flesh):

Quote:

It is not indeed the flesh which he bids us to put off, but the works which he in another passage shows to be works of the flesh. Galatians 5:19 He brings no accusation against men's bodies [Tertullian on the Resurrection of Flesh 45]

Tertullian repeats over and over again the argument that these ideas from Galatians should prove to the heretics that their understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:50 is off the mark as we see from what follows in the same work:

Quote:

Since, therefore, he makes the image both of the earthy and the heavenly consist of moral conduct— the one to be abjured, and the other to be pursued— and then consistently adds, For this I say (on account, that is, of what I have already said, because the conjunction for connects what follows with the preceding words) that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, 1 Corinthians 15:50 — he means the flesh and blood to be understood in no other sense than the before-mentioned image of the earthy; and since this is reckoned to consist in the old conversation, which old conversation receives not the kingdom of God, therefore flesh and blood, by not receiving the kingdom of God, are reduced to the life of the old conversation. Of course, as the apostle has never put the substance for the works of man, he cannot use such a construction here. Since, however he has declared of men which are yet alive in the flesh, that they are not in the flesh, Romans 8:9 meaning that they are not living in the works of the flesh, you ought not to subvert its form nor its substance, but only the works done in the substance (of the flesh), alienating us from the kingdom of God. It is after displaying to the Galatians these pernicious works that he professes to warn them beforehand, even as he had told them in time past, that they which do such things should not inherit the kingdom of God, Galatians 5:21 even because they bore not the image of the heavenly, as they had borne the image of the earthy; and so, in consequence of their old conversation, they were to be regarded as nothing else than flesh and blood. But even if the apostle had abruptly thrown out the sentence that flesh and blood must be excluded from the kingdom of God, without any previous intimation of his meaning, would it not have been equally our duty to interpret these two substances as the old man abandoned to mere flesh and blood— in other words, to eating and drinking, one feature of which would be to speak against the faith of the resurrection: Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 1 Corinthians 15:32 Now, when the apostle parenthetically inserted this, he censured flesh and blood because of their enjoyment in eating and drinking.

Putting aside, however, all interpretations of this sort, which criminate the works of the flesh and blood, it may be permitted me to claim for the resurrection these very substances, understood in none other than their natural sense. For it is not the resurrection that is directly denied to flesh and blood, but the kingdom of God, which is incidental to the resurrection (for there is a resurrection of judgment also); and there is even a confirmation of the general resurrection of the flesh, whenever a special one is excepted. Now, when it is clearly stated what the condition is to which the resurrection does not lead, it is understood what that is to which it does lead; and, therefore, while it is in consideration of men's merits that a difference is made in their resurrection by their conduct in the flesh, and not by the substance thereof, it is evident even from this, that flesh and blood are excluded from the kingdom of God in respect of their sin, not of their substance; and although in respect of their natural condition they will rise again for the judgment, because they rise not for the kingdom. Again, I will say, Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; 1 Corinthians 15:50 and justly (does the apostle declare this of them, considered) alone and in themselves, in order to show that the Spirit is still needed (to qualify them) for the kingdom. For it is the Spirit that quickens us for the kingdom of God; the flesh profits nothing. [John 6:63] There is, however, something else which can be profitable thereunto, that is, the Spirit; and through the Spirit, the works also of the Spirit. Flesh and blood, therefore, must in every case rise again, equally, in their proper quality. But they to whom it is granted to enter the kingdom of God, will have to put on the power of an incorruptible and immortal life; for without this, or before they are able to obtain it, they cannot enter into the kingdom of God. With good reason, then, flesh and blood, as we have already said, by themselves fail to obtain the kingdom of God. But inasmuch as this corruptible (that is, the flesh) must put on incorruption, and this mortal (that is, the blood) must put on immortality, 1 Corinthians 15:53 by the change which is to follow the resurrection, it will, for the best of reasons, happen that flesh and blood, after that change and investiture, will become able to inherit the kingdom of God— but not without the resurrection. Some will have it, that by the phrase flesh and blood, because of its rite of circumcision, Judaism is meant, which is itself too alienated from the kingdom of God, as being accounted the old or former conversation, and as being designated by this title in another passage of the apostle also, who, when it pleased God to reveal to him His Son, to preach Him among the heathen, immediately conferred not with flesh and blood, as he writes to the Galatians, (meaning by the phrase) the circumcision, that is to say, Judaism. [Tertullian Resurrection 49, 50]

and again in the Prescription Tertullian makes the exact same argument with respect to other passages in 1 Corinthians:

Quote:

Who are the false apostles but the preachers of a spurious gospel? Who also are the Antichrists, both now and evermore, but the men who rebel against Christ? Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the church by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by the cruelty of his attacks, except that persecution make seven martyrs, (but) heresy only apostates. And therefore heresies must needs be in order that they which are approved might be made manifest, [1 Corinthians 11:19] both those who remained steadfast under persecution, and those who did not wander out of their way into heresy. For the apostle does not mean that those persons should be deemed approved who exchange their creed for heresy; although they contrariously interpret his words to their own side, when he says in another passage, Prove all things; hold fast that which is good; as if, after proving all things amiss, one might not through error make a determined choice of some evil thing.

Moreover, when he blames dissensions and schisms, which undoubtedly are evils, he immediately adds heresies likewise. Now, that which he subjoins to evil things, he of course confesses to be itself an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he tells us that his belief of their schisms and dissensions was grounded on his knowledge that there must be heresies also. [1 Corinthians 11:19] For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended to make manifest all such as were approved; 1 Corinthians 11:18 in other words, those whom they were unable to pervert. In short, since the whole passage points to the maintenance of unity and the checking of divisions, inasmuch as heresies sever men from unity no less than schisms and dissensions, no doubt he classes heresies under the same head of censure as he does schisms also and dissensions. And by so doing, he makes those to be not approved, who have fallen into heresies; more especially when with reproofs he exhorts men to turn away from such, teaching them that they should all speak and think the selfsame thing, [1 Corinthians 1:10] the very object which heresies do not permit.

On this point, however, we dwell no longer, since it is the same Paul who, in his Epistle to the Galatians, counts heresies among the sins of the flesh [Tertullian Prescription 4 - 6]

and again

Quote:

Now, with the view of branding the apostles with some mark of ignorance, they put forth the case of Peter and them that were with him having been rebuked by Paul. Something therefore, they say, was wanting in them. (This they allege,) in order that they may from this construct that other position of theirs, that a fuller knowledge may possibly have afterwards come over (the apostles,) such as fell to the share of Paul when he rebuked those who preceded him. I may here say to those who reject The Acts of the Apostles: It is first necessary that you show us who this Paul was—both what he was before he was an apostle, and how he became an apostle,— so very great is the use which they make of him in respect of other questions also. It is true that he tells us himself that he was a persecutor before he became an apostle, Galatians 1:13 still this is not enough for any man who examines before he believes, since even the Lord Himself did not bear witness of Himself. John 5:31 But let them believe without the Scriptures, if their object is to believe contrary to the Scriptures. Still they should show, from the circumstance which they allege of Peter's being rebuked by Paul, that Paul added yet another form of the gospel besides that which Peter and the rest had previously set forth. But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren— to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles' hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter, Galatians 1:18 because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching. Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have glorified the Lord, Galatians 1:24 because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him. They accordingly even gave him the right hand of fellowship, Galatians 2:9 as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged among themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons, Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching. For it does not appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son) of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him) announced. [Tertullian Prescription 23]

More examples of the interconnectedness

Quote:

Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Galatians 3:1 and, You did run so well; who has hindered you? Galatians 5:7 and how the epistle actually begins: I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him, who has called you as His own in grace, to another gospel. Galatians 1:6 That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they were yet carnal, who required to be fed with milk, being as yet unable to bear strong meat; who also thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know. 1 Corinthians 8:2 When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle rejoices and gives thanks to God, which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution. [Tertullian Prescription 27]

and again:

Quote:

Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith. Besides all this, I add a review of the doctrines themselves, which, existing as they did in the days of the apostles, were both exposed and denounced by the said apostles. For by this method they will be more easily reprobated, when they are detected to have been even then in existence, or at any rate to have been seedlings of the (tares) which then were. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:12 This opinion was the special property of the Sadducees. A part of it, however, is maintained by Marcion and Apelles and Valentinus, and all other impugners of the resurrection. Writing also to the Galatians, he inveighs against such men as observed and defend circumcision and the (Mosaic) law. Galatians 5:2 Thus runs Hebion's heresy. Such also as forbid to marry he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. 1 Timothy 4:3 Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles. (The apostle) directs a similar blow against those who said that the resurrection was past already. 2 Timothy 2:3 Such an opinion did the Valentinians assert of themselves. When again he mentions endless genealogies, 1 Timothy 1:4 one also recognises Valentinus, in whose system a certain Æon, whosoever he be, of a new name, and that not one only, generates of his own grace Sense and Truth; and these in like manner produce of themselves Word and Life, while these again afterwards beget Man and the Church. From these primary eight ten other Æons after them spring, and then the twelve others arise with their wonderful names, to complete the mere story of the thirty Æons. The same apostle, when disapproving of those who are in bondage to elements, Galatians 4:9 points us to some dogma of Hermogenes, who introduces matter as having no beginning, and then compares it with God, who has no beginning. [Tertullian Prescription 32, 33]

and again:

Quote:

Even the apostle ought not to be known for any one statement in which he is wont to reproach the flesh ... although he affirms that the flesh lusts against the Spirit; Galatians 5:17 yet in these and similar assertions which he makes, it is not the substance of the flesh, but its actions, which are censured. Moreover, we shall elsewhere take occasion to remark, that no reproaches can fairly be cast upon the flesh, without tending also to the castigation of the soul, which compels the flesh to do its bidding. However, let me meanwhile add that in the same passage Paul carries about in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus; Galatians 6:17 he also forbids our body to be profaned, as being the temple of God; 1 Corinthians 3:16 he makes our bodies the members of Christ; 1 Corinthians 6:15 and he exhorts us to exalt and glorify God in our body. If, therefore, the humiliations of the flesh thrust off its resurrection, why shall not its high prerogatives rather avail to bring it about?— since it better suits the character of God to restore to salvation what for a while He rejected, than to surrender to perdition what He once approved. [Resurrection 10]

Tertullian's understanding is basically shared by Methodius who writes in On the Resurrection:

Quote:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Corinthians 15:50 By flesh, he did not mean flesh itself, but the irrational impulse towards the lascivious pleasures of the soul." [1.3.5]

stephan huller · 11-03-2011, 02:51 PM

Yet the coup de grace is of course that we can trace the ideas of Tertullian back one generation further - to Clement of Alexandria's adversary Irenaeus of Rome. In other words, if we look at Against Heresies Book 5:9 we see that Irenaeus starts with Clement's own interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:50 (from Stromata 3) and then proceeds to assault it by means of the false canon of the Catholics eventually settling on the same argument used by Tertullian (because Irenaeus wrote the original material which Tertullian translated into Latin) - namely that the heretics should see that Paul cannot mean 'works of the Creator' can't receive the kingdom because Galatians 5 provides the proper context for 1 Corinthians 15:50 again:

Quote:

[The apostle], foreseeing the wicked speeches of unbelievers, has particularized the works which he terms carnal; and he explains himself, lest any room for doubt be left to those who do dishonestly pervert his meaning, thus saying in the Epistle to the Galatians: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are adulteries, fornications, uncleanness, luxuriousness, idolatries, witchcrafts, hatreds, contentions jealousies, wraths, emulations, animosities, irritable speeches, dissensions, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, carousings, and such like; of which I warn you, as also I have warned you, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19, etc. Thus does he point out to his hearers in a more explicit manner what it is [he means when he declares], Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God. For they who do these things, since they do indeed walk after the flesh, have not the power of living unto God. And then, again, he proceeds to tell us the spiritual actions which vivify a man, that is, the engrafting of the Spirit; thus saying, But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, goodness, benignity, faith, meekness, continence, chastity: against these there is no law. Galatians 5:22 As, therefore, he who has gone forward to the better things, and has brought forth the fruit of the Spirit, is saved altogether because of the communion of the Spirit; so also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle testifies, saying to the Corinthians, Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err, he says: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these you indeed have been; but you have been washed, but you have been sanctified, but you have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 He shows in the clearest manner through what things it is that man goes to destruction, if he has continued to live after the flesh; and then, on the other hand, [he points out] through what things he is saved. Now he says that the things which save are the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God. [Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.11]

Again all evidence points to Irenaeus as the source for the argument and likely the development of the particular conclusion to 1 Corinthians which exists now (i.e. chapter 15). Irenaeus doesn't know chapter 16. Nevertheless he likely had a hand in producing chapter 15 against the original ending which he knew which was Galatians chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6.

stephan huller · 11-03-2011, 03:44 PM

I know this isn't going to interest anyone, but I am quite satisfied at least there are sufficient grounds to move ahead joining 1 Cor 15:50 with the earliest reference to Galatians in Clement. After all Irenaeus is clearly attacking Clement at the beginning of this long section in Book Five (Against Heresies 5.9 - 15). Compare:

Quote:

Among the other [truths] proclaimed by the apostle, there is also this one, "That flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."(7) This is [the passage] which is adduced by all the heretics in support of their folly, with an attempt to annoy us, and to point out that the handiwork of God is not saved. They do not take this fact into consideration, that there are three things out of which, as I have shown, the complete man is composed--flesh, soul, and spirit. One of these does indeed preserve and fashion [the man]--this is the spirit; while as to another it is united and formed--that is the flesh; then [comes] that which is between these two--that is the soul, which sometimes indeed, when it follows the spirit, is raised up by it, but sometimes it sympathizes with the flesh, and falls into carnal lusts. Those then, as many as they be, who have not that which saves and forms [us] into life [eternal], shall be, and shall be called, [mere] flesh and blood; for these are they who have not the Spirit of God in themselves. Wherefore men of this stamp are spoken of by the Lord as "dead;" for, says He, "Let the dead bury their dead," because they have not the Spirit which quickens man. [Irenaeus 5.9.1]

with Clement's explicit connection of 1 Corinthians 15:50 with his earliest citation of Galatians (as noted earlier his earliest is Gal 2.19, 20, 21 and then this one Gal 3.3):

Quote:

Well? Does not the Savior heal body and soul alike from passions? It could not be, if the flesh were at enmity with the soul, that he would have put up fortifications against the soul in the soul’s own territory by strengthening flesh, the enemy, with health. "Brothers, I tell you that flesh and blood are not able to inherit the kingdom of God; the perishable will never inherit imperishability." [1 Cor 15.50] For sin, being perishable, cannot enjoy fellowship with imperishability (that is righteousness). "Are you such fools?" he asks. "You have made a start with the Spirit. Are you now going to reach perfection through the flesh? [Galatians 3:3] [Strom 3.104.4]

This is Clement's habit throughout the Stromata and Instructor. He doesn't string together random quotes but usually pairs (or makes into groups of three) citations to explain what the Apostle means by a given passage. The second half of Irenaeus's attack is clearly also against Clement in another section of Stromata 3 (even though Clement references the Marcionites):

Quote:

From the heretics we have spoken of Marcion from Pontus who deprecates the use of worldly things because of his antipathy to their creator. The creator is thus actually responsible for his self-control, if you can call it self-control. This giant who battles with God and thinks he can withstand him is an unwilling ascetic who runs down the creation and the formation of human beings. If they quote the Lord’s words addressed to Philip, "Let the dead bury their dead; for your part follow me," they should also reflect that Philip’s flesh was of the same formation, and he was not endowed with a polluted corpse. Then how could he have a body of flesh without having a corpse? Because when the Lord put his passions to death he rose from the grave and lived to Christ. We have spoken of the lawless communism in women held by Carpocrates. [Stromata 3.25.1]

Oh my friends, not only is 1 Corinthians clearly connected with the first citation of Galatians in Clement but Clement's exegesis of 'let the dead bury the dead' is the same as what Irenaeus admonishes in the same material. I think we have enough grounds to connect the two lost parts of the first letter of the Apostolikon (divided by the orthodoxy and reconfigured in order to 'disprove' the older traditions attached to the apostle).

Oh if women cared about these things I'd by going home with someone right now. As it is, off to shop at Safeway ...

spin · 11-03-2011, 07:04 PM

I'd wonder how much can be made of ClementineA silences. I'd guess one would need to know his predilections and how he uses an assortment of other sources to see if he could necessarily be expected to cite "everything" from a source.

stephan huller · 11-03-2011, 07:13 PM

A valid and welcomed criticism which is why I think I have to work on connecting the Clementine silences with known Marcionite silences (see Tertullian's statement about the omission of Romans chapter 9; it is paralleled in Clement). There are others. The problem is that this seems too long for a journal article.

Appreciate constructive feedback

Thanks

aa5874 · 11-03-2011, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

A valid and welcomed criticism which is why I think I have to work on connecting the Clementine silences with known Marcionite silences (see Tertullian's statement about the omission of Romans chapter 9; it is paralleled in Clement). There are others. The problem is that this seems too long for a journal article.

Appreciate constructive feedback

Thanks

Your claim in the OP that 1 Corinthians 14, 15 and 16 are fakes because they were hardly used is completely erroneous.

Examine "Against Marcion" 5 and "On the Resurrection of the Flesh" attributed to Tertullian.

1 Cor. 14. verses 21-25-26-32-34-35 are mentioned.

1 Cor. 15- verses 11-12-18-19-21-22-26-29-30-32-35-36-37-38-39-40-41-42-43-44-45-46-47-48-50-51-52-53-55-56 are mentioned.

Examine "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

1 Cor. 15. verses 25-26-27-28 are mentioned.

Examine "Against Celsus" 5 attributed to Origen

1 Cor. 15 verses 35-36-37-38-42-43-44-50-51 are mentioned.

Your OP is BLATANTLY Flawed.

The mention of chapters 14 and 15 of 1 Cor. 15 simply cannot show that they are fakes.

stephan huller · 11-03-2011, 11:18 PM

aa,

Not surprisingly you don't understand the argument. The argument is twofold:

1) Clement of Alexandria's text of 1 Corinthians is different than anyone else's. Clement's citation of the chapters 14 and 15 are atypical when compared to his knowledge of other parts of 1 Corinthians. All other Patristic witnesses know about chapter 14 and 15 although many ignore much of 14.
2) there are no compelling witnesses of chapter 16 before 300 CE

aa5874 · 11-03-2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

aa,

Not surprisingly you don't understand the argument. The argument is twofold:

1) Clement of Alexandria's text of 1 Corinthians is different than anyone else's. Clement's citation of the chapters 14 and 15 are atypical when compared to his knowledge of other parts of 1 Corinthians. All other Patristic witnesses know about chapter 14 and 15 although many ignore much of 14.
2) there are no compelling witnesses of chapter 16 before 300 CE

Your OP is EXTREMELY easy to understand.

It states that 1 Corinthians chapters 14, 15 and 16 are Fakes but you have UTTERLY FAILED to show what you assert.

You have ONLY shown that 1 Cor.16 was hardly mentioned.

I have shown you that writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen do CONTAIN passages from 1 Cor. 14 and 15.

Your OP is UTTERLY FLAWED.

I have ALREADY read chapter 16 of 1 Cor. and it deals with Salutations and travel itinerary NOT doctrinal matters so that may be a factor why it is was NOT used.

stephan huller · 11-04-2011, 12:38 AM

Galatians 1 and 2 can be characterized as mostly a salutation and travel itinerary and they are cited by everyone but not Clement.

tanya · 11-04-2011, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have been literally going through every reference to the First Letter to the Corinthians in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria. I found that he cites just about every other line of the material which appears before chapter 14. Once we get there he knows almost nothing about any of the material.

The fact, if it should prove to be so, that Clement of Alexandria fails to describe certain, specific contents of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, does not equate to those contents having not been in Clement's possession. He may or may not have possessed these verses, we cannot conclude that he did not know of their existence, simply because he does not describe them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

For novices in this area can you answer silly questions like what Irenaeus and Tertullian know about 1 Corinthians?

WRONG. There is nothing silly about this question, it is right on target. Thank you Neil. Well written

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The writings, "The Instructor" and "the Stromata", attributed to Clement of Alexandria do NOT show that 1 Corinthians 14, 15 and 16 are fakes.

Thank you aa5874 for excellent detective work. I look forward to Stephan's rebuttal of your investigation. Surely he recognizes that you have, here in post 8, refuted his OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller, post 15

Now getting back to the discussion of Clement and his copy of 1 Corinthians. What strikes me as particularly interesting about Clement is that he is early enough to sensibly be counted as being prior to any editorial manipulation of the canon in the third century. The clear differences between himself and his 'student' Origen show that a 'new text' of the New Testament was introduced in the third century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller, post 16, still without rejoinder to post 8, ignoring aa5874

Now I have to go back to work but in order that people get up to speed with where my research is at, here are almost all of the references to 1 Corinthians in writers that I consider interesting. I omitted mention Origen here (unless he was the only witness) mostly because I have assumed that Origen's witness represents the start of the new text (i.e. something closer to what we are used to). I couldn't include all of the references however to chapter 15 because they were just to numerous. But even this is bizarre because just at the point references to chapter 15 explode in writers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Adamantius etc they actually dry up in Clement. This is utterly incredible and is worth investigating further.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller, post 17 continuing to ignore post 8

Needless to say, I think the current edition of the Pauline letters developed naturally as fakes.

endlessly repeating himself....

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller, post 19, finally addressing aa5874's several posts refuting the OP

aa, just go through the citations I have developed OF THE WHOLE WORK in Clement. You'll see for yourself how remarkable the drop off is in chapter 14 (3 allusions), 15 (3 allusions) and 16 (= none). Usually Clement has almost 10 allusions per chapter and these chapters (14 and 15) are the longest chapters in 1 Corinthians and most theologically important. The other Church Fathers as noted actually MASSIVELY INCREASE the frequency of citation in chapter 15.

I will show that even these 3 citations in chapters 14 and 15 should be lowered to 1 (and possibly none) and 2 respectively. Interestingly the explicit citations of 15 stop at the heretical favorite - 1 Corinthians 15:50 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.' Think that is coincidence? I would give up something precious to know what followed ...

I have to go back to work.

amen

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874, post 27

Please show the actual passages where Origen frequently cites 1 Corinthians 16.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller, post 28

No ding dong.

ding dong ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller, post 42

Yet the coup de grace is of course that we can trace the ideas of Tertullian back one generation further - to Clement of Alexandria's adversary Irenaeus of Rome. In other words, if we look at Against Heresies Book 5:9 we see that Irenaeus starts with Clement's own interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:50 (from Stromata 3) and then proceeds to assault it by means of the false canon of the Catholics eventually settling on the same argument used by Tertullian (because Irenaeus wrote the original material which Tertullian translated into Latin) - namely that the heretics should see that Paul cannot mean 'works of the Creator' can't receive the kingdom because Galatians 5 provides the proper context for 1 Corinthians 15:50 again:
snip
Again all evidence points to Irenaeus as the source for the argument and likely the development of the particular conclusion to 1 Corinthians which exists now (i.e. chapter 15). Irenaeus doesn't know chapter 16. Nevertheless he likely had a hand in producing chapter 15 against the original ending which he knew which was Galatians chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller, post 47

aa,

Not surprisingly you don't understand the argument. The argument is twofold:

1) Clement of Alexandria's text of 1 Corinthians is different than anyone else's. Clement's citation of the chapters 14 and 15 are atypical when compared to his knowledge of other parts of 1 Corinthians. All other Patristic witnesses know about chapter 14 and 15 although many ignore much of 14.
2) there are no compelling witnesses of chapter 16 before 300 CE

If he does not understand Stephan Huller's argument, then aa5874 would not be alone in his misgivings. There is certainly, as Andrew has indicated, evidence, (maybe it is not rock solid, but it is evidence) of a date, established by palaeography, for P46, for the latter decades of the third century, i.e. pre-Constantine, and "before 300 CE".

I do not find unreasonable, Stephan Huller's disinclination to respond to my query, in post 7. Why should he bother. Truly, my remarks are indeed those of a "ding dong".

However, the same cannot be said for the critical comments of aa5874. His criticisms, unlike my own, include citations refuting the OP.

So far as I can tell, those criticisms of aa5874, repudiating the OP, remain unanswered. Well, maybe my failure to recognize Stephan's reply to aa5874's citations (instead of meandering about describing his daily shopping chores at Safeway,) simply confirms my "ding dong" stature.

I learned two things in this thread, and that is two things more than I usually learn, so, I must be grateful to Stephan for starting this thread, notwithstanding his haughty, dismissive impoliteness to fellow forum members:

1. Irenaeus and Clement maintained an adversarial relationship: how, or why, or which doctrinal issues were at stake, I still have not grasped, but, I don't think that "ding dongs" are supposed to be fast on the draw, so I shall not acknowledge too much shame, just yet..

2. Despite my numerous protestations to the contrary, I did learn something from J-D, David, Andrew, Jake, spin, MaryHelena, Toto, Sheshbazzar, and Doug, all of whom insist, correctly, on careful, deliberate, methodical, detailed analytical research. Without their helpful comments, I may not have perceived the wizard of oz behind the curtain of this OP.

Just call me ding, for short, cause, dong implies some structural apparatus which could be embarrasing....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-03-2011, 07:04 PM	#44
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	I'd wonder how much can be made of ClementineA silences. I'd guess one would need to know his predilections and how he uses an assortment of other sources to see if he could necessarily be expected to cite "everything" from a source.

11-03-2011, 07:13 PM	#45
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	A valid and welcomed criticism which is why I think I have to work on connecting the Clementine silences with known Marcionite silences (see Tertullian's statement about the omission of Romans chapter 9; it is paralleled in Clement). There are others. The problem is that this seems too long for a journal article. Appreciate constructive feedback Thanks

11-03-2011, 11:18 PM	#47
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	aa, Not surprisingly you don't understand the argument. The argument is twofold: 1) Clement of Alexandria's text of 1 Corinthians is different than anyone else's. Clement's citation of the chapters 14 and 15 are atypical when compared to his knowledge of other parts of 1 Corinthians. All other Patristic witnesses know about chapter 14 and 15 although many ignore much of 14. 2) there are no compelling witnesses of chapter 16 before 300 CE

11-04-2011, 12:38 AM	#49
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Galatians 1 and 2 can be characterized as mostly a salutation and travel itinerary and they are cited by everyone but not Clement.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.