Originally Posted by Christopher Price

The Importance of the Manuscript Evidence

Dr. Price complains about the purported lack of manuscript evidence relevant to the disputed passage. Dr. Price’s theory, for which he gives few facts, is that the manuscripts “mysteriously vanished” due to orthodox suppression. As most scholars recognize, however, the opposite is true. “Compared to any other letter collection . . . the letters of Paul have survived in an enormous number of manuscripts that provide a large number of variant readings."

Here are the relevant early manuscripts:

Papyrus 46. This manuscript dates from the late second century and contains most of Paul’s letters, including 1 Corinthians. It is classified as the Proto-Alexandrian type.

Codex Vaticanus (B). This manuscript dates from between 325-350 AD. It contains the whole New Testament, minus the Pastorals and Philemon, as well as the Greek (LXX) Old Testament. It is classified as the Alexandrian type.

Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). This manuscript dates from around 340 AD. It contains the entire New Testament and half of the Old Testament. It is classified as the Alexandrian type.

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C). This manuscript dates from around 350 AD. It contains only part of the Old Testament but most of the New Testament. It is classified as the Alexandrian type.

Codex Alexandrinus (A). Dating from about 450 AD, this too is a complete manuscript of the Bible with only minor omissions. It is classified as a mix of the Byzantine and Alexandrian types.

Codex Claromontanus (D 06). This manuscript dates from the fifth century in Greek with a corresponding Latin translation. It is of the Western type.

0270. A small fragment of 1 Corinthians which contains 1 Cor. 15:10-15. It dates from as early as the fourth century.

In summary, there is a physical manuscript containing the disputed passage from the late second century, three major manuscripts from the 300s, a fragment from the 300s that contains part of the disputed passage, and two more major manuscripts from the 400s. The majority of the manuscripts are of the Alexandrian type but there is some diversity.

To the uninitiated, this may not seem like much with which to work. But it represents a very early witness (p46) and a diversity of relatively early witnesses to the verses (three Alexandrian, one Western, one Byzantine/Alexandrian, and one unidentified). As manuscript evidence goes, this is an abundance.

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

We have evidence that some version of this passage was in the text of Paul used by Marcion and Valentinus. See The post-Resurection appearances of Jesus

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Marcionism is an Early Christian dualist belief system that originates in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144. Marcion affirmed Jesus Christ as the savior sent by God and Paul as his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and Yahweh. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology, but in other ways quite different and unique.

Marcionism was denounced by its opponents as heresy, and written against, notably by Tertullian, in a five-book treatise Adversus Marcionem, written about 208. However, the strictures against Marcionism predate the authority, claimed by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, to declare what is heretical against the Church. Marcion's writings are lost, though they were widely read and numerous manuscripts must have existed. Even so, many scholars (including Henry Wace) claim it is possible to reconstruct and deduce a large part of ancient Marcionism through what later critics, especially Tertullian, said concerning Marcion.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Valentinus' detractors

Shortly after Valentinus' death, Irenaeus began his massive work Adversus Haereses with a highly-colored and negative view of Valentinus and his teachings that occupies most of his first book. A modern student, M. T. Riley, observes that Tertullian's Adversus Valentinianos retranslated some passages from Irenaeus, without adding original material. Later, Epiphanius of Salamis discussed and dismissed him (Haer., XXXI). As with all the non-traditional early Christian writers, Valentinus has been known largely through quotations in the works of his detractors, though an Alexandrian follower also preserved some fragmentary sections as extended quotes. A Valentinian teacher Ptolemy refers to "apostolic tradition which we too have received by succession" in his Letter to Flora. Ptolemy is known only for this letter to a wealthy gnostic lady named Flora, a letter itself only known by its full inclusion in Epiphanius' Panarion; it relates the gnostic view of the Law of Moses, and the situation of the Demiurge relative to this law. The possibility should not be ignored that the letter was composed by Epiphanius, in the manner of composed speeches that ancient historians put into the mouths of their protagonists, as a succinct way to sum up.

The Gospel of Truth

Main article: Gospel of Truth
In this situation, a new field in Valentinian studies opened when the Nag Hammadi library was discovered in Egypt in 1945. Among the very mixed bag of works branded as gnostic was a series of writings which could very well be associated with Valentinus, particularly the Coptic text called the Gospel of Truth which bears the same title reported by Irenaeus as belonging to a text by Valentinus (Adversus Haereses 3.11.9). It is a declaration of the unknown name of the Father, possession of which enables the knower to penetrate the veil of ignorance that has separated all created beings from the Father, and declares Jesus Christ as Savior has revealed that name through a variety of modes laden with a language of abstract elements.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What are the dates of the writings of Marcion and Valentinus that you are referring to? If you are referring to copies that are dated no earlier than late in the second century, why should anyone be impressed with that?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If Marcion's writings are lost, what evidence are you referring to regarding his use of Paul's writings?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following from Wikipedia:

As the article says, Iranaeus had "a highly-colored and negative view of Valentinus and his teachings." Does that imply that using Valentinus as a source is questionable?

I am not a scholarly type, so please forgive my inadequacies.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What are the dates of the writings of Marcion and Valentinus that you are referring to? If you are referring to copies that are dated no earlier than late in the second century, why should anyone be impressed with that?

Consider the following from Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Justin Martyr contradicts the information found in Wikipedia. According to Justin, Marcion's Jesus was NOT the son of the God of the Jews.

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IIUC Wikipedia does not say that Marcion's Jesus was the son of the God of the Jews. I'm not sure what you mean here by a contradiction.

Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by aa5874

What does "Jesus was the son of God" mean? The son of Allah?

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Marcion believed that Jesus was the son of the true ultimate God.
Marcion believed that the true ultimate God was quite different from the God of the Jews.

Andrew Criddle