stephan huller

The whole question comes down whether 'Clementine silences' are just random omissions or oversights (or ignoring of sections of text) or whether they point to actual omissions in the original Alexandrian versions of New Testament scripture. The mitigating piece of evidence of course is that the Marcionite canon often parallels the omissions of Clement - and as we have just seen in a previous post additions too (Ephj 1.21 to Galatians 3). Nowhere is this clearer than in Romans chapter where Tertullian says of chapter 9:

I overleap here an immense chasm left by scripture carved away: though I take note of the apostle giving evidence for Israel that they have a zeal of God, their own God of course, though not by means of knowledge. For they, he says, being ignorant of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God: for Christ is the end of the law in righteousness to every one that
believeth. [Tertullian Against Marcion 5:14]

Notice it doesn't say 'everything is taken out' but lots and lots of material was carved out. He lands at the beginning of chapter 10 from chapter 8 implying clearly that much of chapter 9 was carved away.

Interestingly the Biblindex lists what appear to be only four Clementine allusions to material in this 31 verse chapter:

stephan huller

Yet as I noted before even this is an overstatement as Biblindex often confounds referencing Clement's citation of OT scripture which also happens to be in the Apostolikon with a direct reference by Clement to a passage in Paul. In this particular case there is absolutely no reason for instance to count either the supposed reference to 9:15 or 9:30 as such by Clement as he just so happens to reference passages in OT also referenced by Paul. In other words, Clement doesn't say 'the apostle notes' or some such reference which would lend us to believe that he knows the scripture appeared in the Apostolikon. Indeed it is odd that he doesn't mention the Apostolikon reference - only the OT passage.

As such, as I will demonstrate there really is only one or possibly two references in Clement to Romans chapter 9. In any event, it agrees with Tertullian's report about the Marcionite text seeming to (at least from a Catholic perspective) 'carve out' most of the material from this chapter. It is unlikely to be mere coincidence given all that we have seen about agreements between the Alexandrian and Marcionite Apostolikon (let's not forget that the Marcionite collection of Paul's letters had an Epistle to the Alexandrians - a strange thing for the Alexandrian Church to reject!).

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan

You listed earlier the reference to I Corinthians 16 in Tertullian On Modesty But you have not IIUC discussed it. It would seem to cause problems for a late date for this chapter.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

At the very least I can turn around the same arguments used to argue for a 14 chapter Romans being used in the churches outside of Egypt based partly on silences in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus and Tertullian. My point at bottom is that Clement had a different 1 Corinthians. Moreover it would seem as if Origen did not have a sixteen chapter 1 Corinthians either. As always the Latin translations of Origen - it would be argued - incorporated 'foreign contaminations.'

stephan huller

Let's start with the alleged reference to Romans 9:5:

Already I am not encouraged by the preservation of fragments of Patristic sources in catenae and arabic manuscripts. Nevertheless I found that the text exists a little over two hours from my house:

http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/71...ademic+Library

For the moment I will leave this to the side and say it is highly dubious. Nevertheless I can certainly accept Clement's knowledge of the second alleged citation:

This reference is clearly unquestionable. Clement writes:

Yet the next alleged claim of Clementine citation of Romans 9:15 is clearly wrong.

This cannot possibly be accepted by anyone. The Biblindex has merely mistaken a citation of Exodus 33:10 for Rom 9:15:

So we read in Clement:

Clement's reference to 'the Lord' is clearly only found in the original material from Exodus. Paul references 'God' as saying these words. Similarly the other allusion in Stromata 2:

There is nothing in any of this to actually confirm a citation of Romans 9:15 which is probably why Roberts-Donaldson didn't see it.

Finally we alight upon the alleged witness of Rom 9:30:

The arguments here is even more obscure. Here is Romans 9:30:

And here is the section of text alleged to contain that reference according to Biblindex:

Sorry Charlie. Not good enough for Starkist. Again Roberts-Donaldson didn't see this reference nor should we.

As such we are left with only one sure reference - Romans 9:14 - and even that is only a a mere seven words even in the surviving letter:

If this was all that was retained in the Marcionite text it is easy to see why Tertullian or his source would have passed over it saying the whole section had been carved out.

Sheshbazzar

I have noticed it before, in many places it appears that it was Clements original thoughts arguments that were edited and 'cleaned up' and used to compose the much smoother flowing logic and language of the major 'Pauline Epistles'.
How often Clement presents various theological ideas in a manner indicative of being his own and original thoughts! Very often not referring back to 'the Apostle' or 'Paul' giving the credit, or an exact (and much better composed) quotation when the very material literally screams 'Pauline' theology.
Yet it is clumsily presented, as though Clement himself had never even heard this material he was writing anywhere before! One might well doubt that he had.

Horses and Chariots!
Vey' He'nay! ha'recab ho'lka l'pan'ey ha'soosim!
And Behold! the cart is before the horses! :constern01: :Cheeky:
My suspicion is someone radically 'reworked' Clement.

Kent F

Clement quotes a lot of verses from chapters 1-13 but only a few verses from chapters 14 and 15, none from chapter 16, and after 1 Cor 15:50 he moves on to quote from Galatians. Why is that? He clearly had a different ending to 1 Cor but you argue he had "our version" of 1 Cor? Illogical, to say the least. Since Clement doesn't quote chapter 16 at all, are you saying he still had this chapter in its entirety? And if not, why not? Because that's in line with your argument for chapters 14 and 15, is it not? A few quotes or no quotes at all point to the same fact: that Clement's version of 1 Cor was different than ours.

And by the way, haven't you argued for a long time that ALL of the Pauline writings are fake?

Stephan Huller has on his blog put all of these "random quotes" together to determine how Clement's version of 1 Cor and other Pauline epistles looked like. There he has claimed that verse 1 Cor 14:20 was in fact part of Clement's chapter 13, and you would know that if you had visited his blog and read his arguments.

Sheshbazzar

But does he? Perhaps it is the other way around? With some of the 'new and improved' verses being back-written into Clement?
There is something mighty fishy about how Clements material reads.

aa5874

First of all you MUST answer your own questions. You may NOT even know the Answers yourself.

Now, it is simply illogical that you can know Clement had a different ending to 1 Corinthians when he did NOT state that 1 Cor. ended at chapter 15 or have found an epistle to the Corinthians with Only 15 chapters.

And please do NOT digress. The title of OP clearly states 1 Cor 14, 15 and 16 are Fakes.

Please present the Fake passages. I have limited time.

Please, I am on BC&H right now and I want to see the FAKE passages in this thread.

stephan huller

To Shesh's point about a reworked Clement of Alexandria. A new difficulty - two different Clementine works, two slightly different citations of Ephesians 4.20 - 24. First Instructor 3 17 § 2:

Now compare Clement's citation in Stromata 3.4.28.3

I know these might seem petty, I am writing a paper on this idea and it is amazing to see how many Marcionite papers focus on whether the Marcionite reading is 'Christ' or 'Jesus Christ' when we see now that the same writer can cite material in a slightly different way. Scribal error?

Another question - I wonder if "following the likeness of the divine" is Clement already looking forward to Ephesians 5.1 (which immediately follows in the citation) "Become imitators of God, like dear children ..."