Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [TC-Alternate-list] Codex Barococcio

Expand Messages
  • David Palmer
    Well, Steven Avery / Schmuel, when I opened my translation of the gospel of John, I see this: Codex Barococciani 206 θ, A.D. 692   I apparently already
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 23, 2011
      Well, Steven Avery / Schmuel, when I opened my translation of the gospel of John, I see this:

      Codex Barococciani 206 θ, A.D. 692
       
      I apparently already corrected it sometime in the past, probably in 2008.  You have an old copy of my work.

      Here, get the current one: http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/johnwgrk.pdf    The current one, unlike the copy you have, also has adopted 3 or 4 suggestions from Nazaroo as to instances of homoioteleuton in the NA27 text.  So, your copy is very much out of date.

      David Robert Palmer
      http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
    • Daniel Buck
      It s on pages 109-111. Date is given as (c. 206) in the chart on 109 and (206) in the text on 110.  Published in 1974, so it has a good chance at being the
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 23, 2011
        It's on pages 109-111. Date is given as (c. 206) in the chart on 109 and (206) in the text on 110.  Published in 1974, so it has a good chance at being the source.

        My memory isn't perfect either; I'd completely forgotten participating in that discussion.

        Daniel Buck


        From: David Palmer <kanakawatut@...>
         
        I think the group's speculation on the main cause of the propagation of this error fell short.  I suspect that it might have been mostly spread by this book:

        http://www.amazon.com/God-Us-How-Got-Bible/dp/0802428789
         
        David Robert Palmer
        http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
      • schmuel
        Hi Folks, David Robert Palmer I think the group s speculation on the main cause of the propagation of this error fell short. I suspect that it might have been
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 23, 2011
          Hi Folks,

          David Robert Palmer
          I think the group's speculation on the main cause of the propagation of this error fell short.  I suspect that it might have been mostly spread by this book: http://www.amazon.com/God-Us-How-Got-Bible/dp/0802428789

          Steven
          Right.  That shows the error in 1980 on p. 110.
          Geisler and Nix had the error from at least 1968 p. 192

          A general introduction to the Bible
          Geisler and Nix - 1968
          http://books.google.com/books?ei=gTDuTZ_-I8nq0QGa7cj0Bw
          (search Baroccoccio)
          Emacs!

           to 1980.
          And clearly dozens followed them, and still do today.

          However many of the posts were explaining how somebody confused a catalog number as a year.  We do not know who, but possibly Geisler and Nix.  Also there is no indication that they corrected this with an errata in future editions, which would have been the integrity path.

          Shalom,
          Steven Avery
        • schmuel
          Hi Folks, DRP, when I opened my translation of the gospel of John, I see this: Codex Barococciani 206 θ, A.D. 692 I apparently already corrected it sometime
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 23, 2011
            Hi Folks,

            DRP,
             when I opened my translation of the gospel of John, I see this: Codex Barococciani 206 θ, A.D. 692
            I apparently already corrected it sometime in the past, probably in 2008.  You have an old copy of my work.

            Steven
            The old copy is a link from your domain, as I gave.
            http://www.bibletranslation.ws/john.html

            In fact Ben and Nazaroo have a correction to make here:
            http://pericopedeadultera.blogspot.com/2011/01/david-r-palmer-on-pa-pt-ii.html

            Which they got from your edition.
            And your edition still comes up on a google search.

            So, if possible, you might want to change the earlier edition, or remove it from the site.

             David Robert Palmer 
            Here, get the current one: http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/johnwgrk.pdf    The current one, unlike the copy you have, also has adopted 3 or 4 suggestions from Nazaroo as to instances of homoioteleuton in the NA27 text.  So, your copy is very much out of date.

            Sounds good.

            Shalom,
            Steven


          • steve huller
            I don t think anyone has examined the Pauline corpus of Clement of Alexandria in any detail - or at least someone who has expertise in the tradition associated
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 23, 2011
              I don't think anyone has examined the Pauline corpus of Clement of Alexandria in any detail - or at least someone who has expertise in the tradition associated with Marcion.  I want to tell everyone that when you examine Clement's citations from the Epistle to the Romans there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that it is related to or identical with what we know about the Marcionite Epistle to the Romans through Tertullian and Ephiphanius.  

              I have always had an interested in Marcion.  I think over the years my scholarship has improved.  I have always suspected that the Alexandrian tradition was Marcionite.  The key to me has always been Ambrose's role as a deacon in the church.  If the Alexandrian Church had a formal structure dating back to the early second century or so, it is impossible to reconcile Origen's patron Ambrose role as a 'former' Marcionite and his rise to the position as 'deacon' of the Church.  If Origen really 'showed him the light' it is impossible to believe he skipped the queue in front of so many people who had seniority.  Instead the Church itself must have reoriented itself in the face of Roman pressure away from its original faith.  

              Any way, I guess that an unnecessary digression.  The existence of a Marcionite letter to the Alexandrians surely demonstrates an established presence in the city (it would be impossible to imagine a letter to the Romans in our canon without a major Orthodox presence there).  But this isn't my discovery. The corollary of this 'pet theory' has always been that Clement of Alexandria, who comes from an earlier generation must by nature represent something closer to the original Marcionite faith of the Church.  His ambiguous use of a mysterious gospel text referenced as 'the Gospel,' 'the Writing' etc is one thing of course.  The discovery of a letter pointing to his knowledge of a 'mystic' gospel of Mark is another.  But most significant of all - in my opinion - was my recent examination of his version of the Pauline letters and in particular the Letter to the Romans.

              I have stumbled on to something which helps prove my age-old theory that Clement's Alexandrian tradition was Marcionite.  I can develop a much more elaborate discussion of the original Greek material from the Stromata in a formal paper.  But I want to know that you think the idea would get published somewhere before I spend the months required to carry it out.  Please allow me to demonstrate that Clement's text is related to or identical with the Marcionite version of Romans.  Let's start with the fact that Tertullian makes clear that most if not all of chapter 9 was 'missing from the Marcionite Letter to the Romans:

              For he proceeds: He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies. (Rom 8.11) In this way he confirms the resurrection of the flesh, since apart from flesh nothing else can be described as body, nor anything else be taken for mortal: and he has also given proof of Christ's corporal substance, in that our mortal bodies are to be quickened on the same terms on which he too was raised up again, and on the same terms can only mean in the body. 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. (ibid 10:3) [Against Marcion 5.9]

              The same 'chasm' appears in Epiphanius's list of Marcionite readings in Romans (he jumps from 8:4 to 10:4). Yet it also is reflected in Clement of Alexandria's citations of material from Romans. As I will demonstrate shortly Clement of Alexandria, while citation almost all of chapter 8 and most of chapter 10 has only a single and debatable allusion to chapter 9.

              Yet this is only part of the discovery. I think I can demonstrate that Clement's Alexandrian Epistle to the Romans had a very different chapter 8. The order was completely transformed and I suspect that this was shared to a large part with the Marcionite recension. We start with the most curious reference in Stromata 4.7 to a very 'choppy' block quotation from Romans chapter 8:

              Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed, can be. And they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:7) And in further explanation continues, that no one may, like Marcion regard the creature as evil. But if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (Rom 8:10) And again: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us. If we suffer with Him, that we also may be glorified together as joint-heirs of Christ. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to the purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified [Clement, Stromata 4.7]

              There are two back to back single line references and then a most curious 'block' citation of material that completely challenges our standard reading of Romans. It reads Romans 8:13,17,18, 28, 29, 30. Yet there is another long reference in Stromata 3.11 which actually helps put the jigsaw puzzle together for us:

              Once again, since he never remotely gets tired of doing good, he does not hesitate to add, "The Law of the Spirit has freed me from the Law of sin and death," since through his Son "God has pronounced judgment upon sin in the flesh so that the Law’s ordinance might find fulfillment in us, whose lives are governed by the Spirit not by the flesh." [Rom 8:2 - 4] In addition to all this, he makes what he has already said even clearer by asserting at the top of his voice, "The body is a dead thing because of sin," [Rom 8;10] showing that if it is not the soul’s temple it remains the soul’s tomb. When it is consecrated to God, he is going to continue, "the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lodges in you, and he will give life even to your mortal bodies through his indwelling Spirit." [Rom 8.11] So again he attacks the hedonists and adds, "The object of the flesh is death,[Rom 8:6] since those whose lives are governed by the flesh follow the flesh in their objectives [cf. Rom 8:5]; and the object of the flesh is hostility to God, for it is not subject to God’s Law [Rom 8:7]. Those who live on the level of flesh cannot please God [Rom 8:8]" should not be understood as some people lay down, but as I have already argued. Then in distinction from these people, he addresses the Church. "You are not living by the flesh but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is dwelling in you. Anyone without Christ’s Spirit is not of him. But if Christ is in you, then your body is a dead thing because of sin, but the Spirit is life through righteousness. So, brothers, we are in debt. Not to the flesh, to follow it in our lives; for if you follow the flesh in the way you live, you are on the way to death. But if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live. For all who are guided by God’s Spirit are sons of God." [cf. Rom 8:9 - 14] He goes on to speak against the high birth and freedom which the heretics adduce so abominably as they vaunt their licentiousness. "You have not received a spirit of slavery to drive you once again towards fear. You have received a Spirit that makes us sons and enables us to cry out, ‘Abba,’ ‘Father.’" [Rom 8:15]

              What is so amazing about this is that when you put it all together the order of the material now is completely transformed. 

              Let's start at the beginning. The section begins with verse two of chapter eight:

              The Law of the Spirit has freed me from the Law of sin and death," since through his Son "God has pronounced judgment upon sin in the flesh so that the Law’s ordinance might find fulfillment in us, whose lives are governed by the Spirit not by the flesh

              Of course Clement deliberately glosses over the part the heretical tradition took especial interest in:

              God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh

              The rest of the saying "to be a sin offering" is never cited in any early source. Thus I propose that Clement is deliberately avoiding the docetic implications of the word likeness (which was of especial interest to the Marcionites). 

              With this one small addition I think we can tentatively reconstruct Clement's version of chapter 8 as:

              The Law of the Spirit has freed me from the Law of sin and death. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh has pronounced judgment upon sin in the flesh so that the Law’s ordinance might find fulfillment in us, whose lives are governed by the Spirit not by the flesh

              For the carnal mind is enmity against God. The object of the flesh is death, since those whose lives are governed by the flesh follow the flesh in their objectives; and the object of the flesh is hostility to God, for it is not subject to God’s Law. Those who live on the level of flesh cannot please God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed, can be. And they that are in the flesh cannot please God but you are not living by the flesh but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is dwelling in you. Anyone without Christ’s Spirit is not of him. But if Christ is in you, then your body is a dead thing because of sin, but the Spirit is life through righteousness. So, brothers, we are in debt. Not to the flesh, to follow it in our lives; for if you follow the flesh in the way you live, you are on the way to death. But if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live. For all who are guided by God’s Spirit are sons of God." 

              You have not received a spirit of slavery to drive you once again towards fear. You have received a Spirit that makes us sons and enables us to cry out, ‘Abba,’ ‘Father.’ For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us. If we suffer with Him, that we also may be glorified together as joint-heirs of Christ. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to the purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified

              I know this is rather preliminary but it is important to notice that most - if not all of chapter 9 does not appear in what follows (likely only 9:14) and then it begins again to follow the existing material at the beginning of chapter 10. This was certainly shared by the Marcionite Epistle. This is not the only place we see huge differences between the Marcionite and orthodox versions of canonical scripture. 

              The reason that I think this is so fundamentally transformative is that it serves to take Marcionitism from something theoretical to something real.  There are other examples of anomalies in the citation of material from the Apostolikon.  

              My question here is (a) can anyone see any methodological issues with my construction here and (b) are there any studies of the Pauline letters in Clement that I haven't discovered.  

              Thanks 

              Stephan
            • BenD
              I ll help you publish. If you ve got something, develop it quickly to keep it yours. If necessary, you can bind it together with a critique and/or some
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 23, 2011
                I'll help you publish. If you've got something, develop it quickly to keep it yours. If necessary, you can bind it together with a critique and/or some alternate opinions, and produce a book that way.
                Ebooks are the way to go these days. Nobody is getting large volume sales, not even porn, due to the internet etc.

                But publishing is still worthwhile, and a way to get your ideas out there and interacting with others who have the same interests.

                I, or anyone here could critique it or write an introduction to a collection, and that could be a relatively popular seller.

                Never be discouraged when it comes to publishing: it was damn hard to get published in the 1960s, and its damn near impossible now, but so what? With God all things are possible.

                mr.scrivener


                --- In TC-Alternate-list@yahoogroups.com, steve huller <steve_huller@...> wrote:
                >
                > I don't think anyone has examined the Pauline corpus of Clement of Alexandria in any detail - or at least someone who has expertise in the tradition associated with Marcion.  I want to tell everyone that when you examine Clement's citations from the Epistle to the Romans there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that it is related to or identical with what we know about the Marcionite Epistle to the Romans through Tertullian and Ephiphanius.  
                >
                > I have always had an interested in Marcion.  I think over the years my scholarship has improved.  I have always suspected that the Alexandrian tradition was Marcionite.  The key to me has always been Ambrose's role as a deacon in the church.  If the Alexandrian Church had a formal structure dating back to the early second century or so, it is impossible to reconcile Origen's patron Ambrose role as a 'former' Marcionite and his rise to the position as 'deacon' of the Church.  If Origen really 'showed him the light' it is impossible to believe he skipped the queue in front of so many people who had seniority.  Instead the Church itself must have reoriented itself in the face of Roman pressure away from its original faith.  
                >
                > Any way, I guess that an unnecessary digression.  The existence of a Marcionite letter to the Alexandrians surely demonstrates an established presence in the city (it would be impossible to imagine a letter to the Romans in our canon without a major Orthodox presence there).  But this isn't my discovery. The corollary of this 'pet theory' has always been that Clement of Alexandria, who comes from an earlier generation must by nature represent something closer to the original Marcionite faith of the Church.  His ambiguous use of a mysterious gospel text referenced as 'the Gospel,' 'the Writing' etc is one thing of course.  The discovery of a letter pointing to his knowledge of a 'mystic' gospel of Mark is another.  But most significant of all - in my opinion - was my recent examination of his version of the Pauline letters and in particular the Letter to the Romans.
                >
                > I have stumbled on to something which helps prove my age-old theory that Clement's Alexandrian tradition was Marcionite.  I can develop a much more elaborate discussion of the original Greek material from the Stromata in a formal paper.  But I want to know that you think the idea would get published somewhere before I spend the months required to carry it out.  Please allow me to demonstrate that Clement's text is related to or identical with the Marcionite version of Romans.  Let's start with the fact that Tertullian makes clear that most if not all of chapter 9 was 'missing from the Marcionite Letter to the Romans:
                >
                > For he proceeds: He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies. (Rom 8.11) In this way he confirms the resurrection of the flesh, since apart from flesh nothing else can be described as body, nor anything else be taken for mortal: and he has also given proof of Christ's corporal substance, in that our mortal bodies are to be quickened on the same terms on which he too was raised up again, and on the same terms can only mean in the body. 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. (ibid 10:3) [Against Marcion 5.9]
                >
                > The same 'chasm' appears in Epiphanius's list of Marcionite readings in Romans (he jumps from 8:4 to 10:4). Yet it also is reflected in Clement of Alexandria's citations of material from Romans. As I will demonstrate shortly Clement of Alexandria, while citation almost all of chapter 8 and most of chapter 10 has only a single and debatable allusion to chapter 9.
                >
                > Yet this is only part of the discovery. I think I can demonstrate that Clement's Alexandrian Epistle to the Romans had a very different chapter 8. The order was completely transformed and I suspect that this was shared to a large part with the Marcionite recension. We start with the most curious reference in Stromata 4.7 to a very 'choppy' block quotation from Romans chapter 8:
                >
                > Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed, can be. And they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:7) And in further explanation continues, that no one may, like Marcion regard the creature as evil. But if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (Rom 8:10) And again: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us. If we suffer with Him, that we also may be glorified together as joint-heirs of Christ. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to the purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And whom He did predestinate, them He
                > also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified [Clement, Stromata 4.7]
                >
                > There are two back to back single line references and then a most curious 'block' citation of material that completely challenges our standard reading of Romans. It reads Romans 8:13,17,18, 28, 29, 30. Yet there is another long reference in Stromata 3.11 which actually helps put the jigsaw puzzle together for us:
                >
                > Once again, since he never remotely gets tired of doing good, he does not hesitate to add, "The Law of the Spirit has freed me from the Law of sin and death," since through his Son "God has pronounced judgment upon sin in the flesh so that the Law’s ordinance might find fulfillment in us, whose lives are governed by the Spirit not by the flesh." [Rom 8:2 - 4] In addition to all this, he makes what he has already said even clearer by asserting at the top of his voice, "The body is a dead thing because of sin," [Rom 8;10] showing that if it is not the soul’s temple it remains the soul’s tomb. When it is consecrated to God, he is going to continue, "the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lodges in you, and he will give life even to your mortal bodies through his indwelling Spirit." [Rom 8.11] So again he attacks the hedonists and adds, "The object of the flesh is death,[Rom 8:6] since those whose lives are governed by the flesh follow
                > the flesh in their objectives [cf. Rom 8:5]; and the object of the flesh is hostility to God, for it is not subject to God’s Law [Rom 8:7]. Those who live on the level of flesh cannot please God [Rom 8:8]" should not be understood as some people lay down, but as I have already argued. Then in distinction from these people, he addresses the Church. "You are not living by the flesh but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is dwelling in you. Anyone without Christ’s Spirit is not of him. But if Christ is in you, then your body is a dead thing because of sin, but the Spirit is life through righteousness. So, brothers, we are in debt. Not to the flesh, to follow it in our lives; for if you follow the flesh in the way you live, you are on the way to death. But if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live. For all who are guided by God’s Spirit are sons of God." [cf. Rom 8:9 - 14] He goes on to speak against the high birth
                > and freedom which the heretics adduce so abominably as they vaunt their licentiousness. "You have not received a spirit of slavery to drive you once again towards fear. You have received a Spirit that makes us sons and enables us to cry out, ‘Abba,’ ‘Father.’" [Rom 8:15]
                >
                > What is so amazing about this is that when you put it all together the order of the material now is completely transformed. 
                >
                > Let's start at the beginning. The section begins with verse two of chapter eight:
                >
                > The Law of the Spirit has freed me from the Law of sin and death," since through his Son "God has pronounced judgment upon sin in the flesh so that the Law’s ordinance might find fulfillment in us, whose lives are governed by the Spirit not by the flesh
                >
                > Of course Clement deliberately glosses over the part the heretical tradition took especial interest in:
                >
                > God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh
                >
                > The rest of the saying "to be a sin offering" is never cited in any early source. Thus I propose that Clement is deliberately avoiding the docetic implications of the word likeness (which was of especial interest to the Marcionites). 
                >
                > With this one small addition I think we can tentatively reconstruct Clement's version of chapter 8 as:
                >
                > The Law of the Spirit has freed me from the Law of sin and death. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh has pronounced judgment upon sin in the flesh so that the Law’s ordinance might find fulfillment in us, whose lives are governed by the Spirit not by the flesh
                >
                > For the carnal mind is enmity against God. The object of the flesh is death, since those whose lives are governed by the flesh follow the flesh in their objectives; and the object of the flesh is hostility to God, for it is not subject to God’s Law. Those who live on the level of flesh cannot please God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed, can be. And they that are in the flesh cannot please God but you are not living by the flesh but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is dwelling in you. Anyone without Christ’s Spirit is not of him. But if Christ is in you, then your body is a dead thing because of sin, but the Spirit is life through righteousness. So, brothers, we are in debt. Not to the flesh, to follow it in our lives; for if you follow the flesh in the way you live, you are on the way to death. But if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live. For all who are guided by God’s Spirit are sons of
                > God." 
                >
                > You have not received a spirit of slavery to drive you once again towards fear. You have received a Spirit that makes us sons and enables us to cry out, ‘Abba,’ ‘Father.’ For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us. If we suffer with Him, that we also may be glorified together as joint-heirs of Christ. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to the purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified
                >
                > I know this is rather preliminary but it is important to notice that most - if not all of chapter 9 does not appear in what follows (likely only 9:14) and then it begins again to follow the existing material at the beginning of chapter 10. This was certainly shared by the Marcionite Epistle. This is not the only place we see huge differences between the Marcionite and orthodox versions of canonical scripture. 
                >
                > The reason that I think this is so fundamentally transformative is that it serves to take Marcionitism from something theoretical to something real.  There are other examples of anomalies in the citation of material from the Apostolikon.  
                >
                > My question here is (a) can anyone see any methodological issues with my construction here and (b) are there any studies of the Pauline letters in Clement that I haven't discovered.  
                >
                > Thanks 
                >
                > Stephan
                >
              • steve_huller@yahoo.com
                Thank you so much. Driving right now. But thank you Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile ... From: BenD Sender:
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 23, 2011
                  Thank you so much. Driving right now. But thank you

                  Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


                  From: "BenD" <mr.scrivener@...>
                  Sender: TC-Alternate-list@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 01:53:10 -0000
                  To: <TC-Alternate-list@yahoogroups.com>
                  ReplyTo: TC-Alternate-list@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [TC-Alternate-list] Re: Clement of Alexandria's text of Romans

                   

                  I'll help you publish. If you've got something, develop it quickly to keep it yours. If necessary, you can bind it together with a critique and/or some alternate opinions, and produce a book that way.
                  Ebooks are the way to go these days. Nobody is getting large volume sales, not even porn, due to the internet etc.

                  But publishing is still worthwhile, and a way to get your ideas out there and interacting with others who have the same interests.

                  I, or anyone here could critique it or write an introduction to a collection, and that could be a relatively popular seller.

                  Never be discouraged when it comes to publishing: it was damn hard to get published in the 1960s, and its damn near impossible now, but so what? With God all things are possible.

                  mr.scrivener

                  --- In TC-Alternate-list@yahoogroups.com, steve huller <steve_huller@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I don't think anyone has examined the Pauline corpus of Clement of Alexandria in any detail - or at least someone who has expertise in the tradition associated with Marcion.  I want to tell everyone that when you examine Clement's citations from the Epistle to the Romans there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that it is related to or identical with what we know about the Marcionite Epistle to the Romans through Tertullian and Ephiphanius.  
                  >
                  > I have always had an interested in Marcion.  I think over the years my scholarship has improved.  I have always suspected that the Alexandrian tradition was Marcionite.  The key to me has always been Ambrose's role as a deacon in the church.  If the Alexandrian Church had a formal structure dating back to the early second century or so, it is impossible to reconcile Origen's patron Ambrose role as a 'former' Marcionite and his rise to the position as 'deacon' of the Church.  If Origen really 'showed him the light' it is impossible to believe he skipped the queue in front of so many people who had seniority.  Instead the Church itself must have reoriented itself in the face of Roman pressure away from its original faith.  
                  >
                  > Any way, I guess that an unnecessary digression.  The existence of a Marcionite letter to the Alexandrians surely demonstrates an established presence in the city (it would be impossible to imagine a letter to the Romans in our canon without a major Orthodox presence there).  But this isn't my discovery. The corollary of this 'pet theory' has always been that Clement of Alexandria, who comes from an earlier generation must by nature represent something closer to the original Marcionite faith of the Church.  His ambiguous use of a mysterious gospel text referenced as 'the Gospel,' 'the Writing' etc is one thing of course.  The discovery of a letter pointing to his knowledge of a 'mystic' gospel of Mark is another.  But most significant of all - in my opinion - was my recent examination of his version of the Pauline letters and in particular the Letter to the Romans.
                  >
                  > I have stumbled on to something which helps prove my age-old theory that Clement's Alexandrian tradition was Marcionite.  I can develop a much more elaborate discussion of the original Greek material from the Stromata in a formal paper.  But I want to know that you think the idea would get published somewhere before I spend the months required to carry it out.  Please allow me to demonstrate that Clement's text is related to or identical with the Marcionite version of Romans.  Let's start with the fact that Tertullian makes clear that most if not all of chapter 9 was 'missing from the Marcionite Letter to the Romans:
                  >
                  > For he proceeds: He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies. (Rom 8.11) In this way he confirms the resurrection of the flesh, since apart from flesh nothing else can be described as body, nor anything else be taken for mortal: and he has also given proof of Christ's corporal substance, in that our mortal bodies are to be quickened on the same terms on which he too was raised up again, and on the same terms can only mean in the body. 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. (ibid 10:3) [Against Marcion 5.9]
                  >
                  > The same 'chasm' appears in Epiphanius's list of Marcionite readings in Romans (he jumps from 8:4 to 10:4). Yet it also is reflected in Clement of Alexandria's citations of material from Romans. As I will demonstrate shortly Clement of Alexandria, while citation almost all of chapter 8 and most of chapter 10 has only a single and debatable allusion to chapter 9.
                  >
                  > Yet this is only part of the discovery. I think I can demonstrate that Clement's Alexandrian Epistle to the Romans had a very different chapter 8. The order was completely transformed and I suspect that this was shared to a large part with the Marcionite recension. We start with the most curious reference in Stromata 4.7 to a very 'choppy' block quotation from Romans chapter 8:
                  >
                  > Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed, can be. And they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:7) And in further explanation continues, that no one may, like Marcion regard the creature as evil. But if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (Rom 8:10) And again: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us. If we suffer with Him, that we also may be glorified together as joint-heirs of Christ. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to the purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And whom He did predestinate, them He
                  > also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified [Clement, Stromata 4.7]
                  >
                  > There are two back to back single line references and then a most curious 'block' citation of material that completely challenges our standard reading of Romans. It reads Romans 8:13,17,18, 28, 29, 30. Yet there is another long reference in Stromata 3.11 which actually helps put the jigsaw puzzle together for us:
                  >
                  > Once again, since he never remotely gets tired of doing good, he does not hesitate to add, "The Law of the Spirit has freed me from the Law of sin and death," since through his Son "God has pronounced judgment upon sin in the flesh so that the Law’s ordinance might find fulfillment in us, whose lives are governed by the Spirit not by the flesh." [Rom 8:2 - 4] In addition to all this, he makes what he has already said even clearer by asserting at the top of his voice, "The body is a dead thing because of sin," [Rom 8;10] showing that if it is not the soul’s temple it remains the soul’s tomb. When it is consecrated to God, he is going to continue, "the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lodges in you, and he will give life even to your mortal bodies through his indwelling Spirit." [Rom 8.11] So again he attacks the hedonists and adds, "The object of the flesh is death,[Rom 8:6] since those whose lives are governed by the flesh follow
                  > the flesh in their objectives [cf. Rom 8:5]; and the object of the flesh is hostility to God, for it is not subject to God’s Law [Rom 8:7]. Those who live on the level of flesh cannot please God [Rom 8:8]" should not be understood as some people lay down, but as I have already argued. Then in distinction from these people, he addresses the Church. "You are not living by the flesh but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is dwelling in you. Anyone without Christ’s Spirit is not of him. But if Christ is in you, then your body is a dead thing because of sin, but the Spirit is life through righteousness. So, brothers, we are in debt. Not to the flesh, to follow it in our lives; for if you follow the flesh in the way you live, you are on the way to death. But if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live. For all who are guided by God’s Spirit are sons of God." [cf. Rom 8:9 - 14] He goes on to speak against the high birth
                  > and freedom which the heretics adduce so abominably as they vaunt their licentiousness. "You have not received a spirit of slavery to drive you once again towards fear. You have received a Spirit that makes us sons and enables us to cry out, ‘Abba,’ ‘Father.’" [Rom 8:15]
                  >
                  > What is so amazing about this is that when you put it all together the order of the material now is completely transformed. 
                  >
                  > Let's start at the beginning. The section begins with verse two of chapter eight:
                  >
                  > The Law of the Spirit has freed me from the Law of sin and death," since through his Son "God has pronounced judgment upon sin in the flesh so that the Law’s ordinance might find fulfillment in us, whose lives are governed by the Spirit not by the flesh
                  >
                  > Of course Clement deliberately glosses over the part the heretical tradition took especial interest in:
                  >
                  > God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh
                  >
                  > The rest of the saying "to be a sin offering" is never cited in any early source. Thus I propose that Clement is deliberately avoiding the docetic implications of the word likeness (which was of especial interest to the Marcionites). 
                  >
                  > With this one small addition I think we can tentatively reconstruct Clement's version of chapter 8 as:
                  >
                  > The Law of the Spirit has freed me from the Law of sin and death. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh has pronounced judgment upon sin in the flesh so that the Law’s ordinance might find fulfillment in us, whose lives are governed by the Spirit not by the flesh
                  >
                  > For the carnal mind is enmity against God. The object of the flesh is death, since those whose lives are governed by the flesh follow the flesh in their objectives; and the object of the flesh is hostility to God, for it is not subject to God’s Law. Those who live on the level of flesh cannot please God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed, can be. And they that are in the flesh cannot please God but you are not living by the flesh but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is dwelling in you. Anyone without Christ’s Spirit is not of him. But if Christ is in you, then your body is a dead thing because of sin, but the Spirit is life through righteousness. So, brothers, we are in debt. Not to the flesh, to follow it in our lives; for if you follow the flesh in the way you live, you are on the way to death. But if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live. For all who are guided by God’s Spirit are sons of
                  > God." 
                  >
                  > You have not received a spirit of slavery to drive you once again towards fear. You have received a Spirit that makes us sons and enables us to cry out, ‘Abba,’ ‘Father.’ For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us. If we suffer with Him, that we also may be glorified together as joint-heirs of Christ. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to the purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified
                  >
                  > I know this is rather preliminary but it is important to notice that most - if not all of chapter 9 does not appear in what follows (likely only 9:14) and then it begins again to follow the existing material at the beginning of chapter 10. This was certainly shared by the Marcionite Epistle. This is not the only place we see huge differences between the Marcionite and orthodox versions of canonical scripture. 
                  >
                  > The reason that I think this is so fundamentally transformative is that it serves to take Marcionitism from something theoretical to something real.  There are other examples of anomalies in the citation of material from the Apostolikon.  
                  >
                  > My question here is (a) can anyone see any methodological issues with my construction here and (b) are there any studies of the Pauline letters in Clement that I haven't discovered.  
                  >
                  > Thanks 
                  >
                  > Stephan
                  >

                • David Palmer
                  Ah, I had forgotten I put that on a web page.  I do not revise my web pages that I originally posted many years ago.  Thank-you; I ll correct that.   David
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 23, 2011
                    Ah, I had forgotten I put that on a web page.  I do not revise my web pages that I originally posted many years ago.  Thank-you; I'll correct that.
                     
                    David Robert Palmer
                    http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/

                    From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
                    To: TC-Alternate-list@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 4:44 PM
                    Subject: Re: [TC-Alternate-list] Codex Barococcio

                     

                    Steven
                    The old copy is a link from your domain, as I gave.
                    http://www.bibletranslation.ws/john.html

                    In fact Ben and Nazaroo have a correction to make here:
                    http://pericopedeadultera.blogspot.com/2011/01/david-r-palmer-on-pa-pt-ii.html

                    Which they got from your edition.
                    And your edition still comes up on a google search.

                  • David Palmer
                    Ok, http://bibletranslation.ws/john.html is corrected.   David Robert Palmer http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/ Ok,
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 23, 2011
                      Ok, http://bibletranslation.ws/john.html is corrected.
                       
                      David Robert Palmer
                      http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
                    • BenD
                      Nazaroo has posted a thank-you to Mr. Palmer on the Homoioteleuton blog: http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2011/09/david-robert-palmer-on-ht-in-na27-john.html
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 23, 2011
                        Nazaroo has posted a thank-you to Mr. Palmer on the Homoioteleuton blog:

                        http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2011/09/david-robert-palmer-on-ht-in-na27-john.html

                        mr.scrivener


                        --- In TC-Alternate-list@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer <kanakawatut@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Well, Steven Avery / Schmuel, when I opened my translation of the gospel of John, I see this:
                        >
                        > Codex
                        > Barococciani 206 θ, A.D. 692
                        >  
                        > I apparently already corrected it sometime in the past, probably in 2008.  You have an old copy of my work.
                        >
                        > Here, get the current one: http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/johnwgrk.pdf%c3%82%c2%a0%c3%82%c2%a0%c3%82%c2%a0 The current one, unlike the copy you have, also has adopted 3 or 4 suggestions from Nazaroo as to instances of homoioteleuton in the NA27 text.  So, your copy is very much out of date.
                        >
                        >
                        > David Robert Palmer
                        > http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.