1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

[Ben C. Smith]

Hello all. I am still alive.
I confess I did not follow that thread, and my participation in it is very late, but this is what I wrote in http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html:

>>Did "Matthew" know about '1Clement'?
Let's look at these items:
a) Mt5:7 NASB "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy [1]."
The Greek root for "merciful" ('eleemon') is the same in '1Clement' and here, but different in Lk6:36-38 ('oiktirmon').
Also GMatthew is closer to '1Clement' ("Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy") than GLuke ("Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful").
b) Mt7:1-2a NASB "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged [5] ..."
This first sentence is almost word by word as in Lk6:37 ("Do not judge, and you will not be judged") but again differing from '1Clement' ("as you judge, so shall you be judged"). However, the second one is very similar to the one by "Clement".
And it appears we have a contradiction here: first "do not judge", then "as you judge"! It seems "Matthew" combined the two versions, that is the one from "Q" and the one from '1Clement' (as he did in 13:31-32 (parable of the mustard seed) and 12:31-32, combining the "Q" version with Mark's).
In conclusion, it is probable "Matthew" knew about '1Clement'.<<

I also have compelling evidence in the same webpage that "Luke" (gospel & Acts) knew about 1 Clement (and not the other way around).

Cordially, Bernard

Good stuff. Thanks.

[John2]

... rather, 1 Clement is probably an example of "the true faith" which continued, according to Hegesippus, into Primus' time. To call its author a liar for having penned the saying about eyes and ears just does not fit into this scenario very well; it is more like what Hegesippus might say about the heresies which arose after Trajan, and, in fact, he writes about them with a present participle (φαμένους, "those who say" them).

But from Hegesippus' point of view the eyes and ears saying was a corruption of the OT, so his concern was only for that particular aspect in Paul and 1 Clement, even if he otherwise had respect for them. Would it be like saying "those who use that variant of the OT are wrong to do so" rather than "those who use it are wrong about everything"?

It would be, "Those who say this thing (which is a corruption of Isaiah) are lying" because "both the holy scriptures and the Lord say" (τῶν τε θειῶν γραφῶν καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου λέγοντος) otherwise. ("Wrong about everything" is irrelevant and unnecessary. "Lying" against the scriptures and the Lord himself is the charge on record.)

Alright then, and that seems like an acceptable thing for Hegesippus to point out in the mid-second century CE even if the corruption was in Paul and 1 Clement at the time. In other words, it doesn't seem like a radical position at that time for someone to think that the OT overrides what Paul and Clement say (even if Hegesippus thought they were otherwise significant people). Would that one quibble be enough to upset the unity of the Church for Hegesippus (like belief in the things Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 15:3-11 and the widespread use of Matthew)?

And what about the letter of James at that time? I presume it was known to Hegesippus (what he says is at least in keeping with it, and he clearly reveres the person of James), yet its place in the canon was disputed according to Eusebius. Do you suppose everyone in the Roman and Corinthian churches were on board with James in the mid-second century CE? Some people used it and some didn't, appears to have been the state of affairs, yet it doesn't appear to have bothered Hegesippus.

And Eusebius says all kinds of things were disputed up to his time (including Jude, whose grandsons Hegesippus writes about). But that doesn't mean "the Church" wasn't unified just because of this situation, does it? Didn't other things make up for these differences (like the gospels)? Would it have been any bigger of a deal if Hegesippus had an issue with one thing in Paul and 1 Clement, particularly something that pertained to a corruption of the OT?

[Ben C. Smith]

For Hegesippus to say explicitly that the authors of 1 Corinthians and 1 Clement were lying just does not track well for me. I doubt that happened.

I do not know what Hegesippus thought of the epistle of James, because it never comes up, but it would not surprise me at all if he did not consider it to be genuinely Jacobian. Nor would it surprise me if he did not know about it.

1 Clement, however, comes up directly, and 1 Corinthians comes up indirectly through 1 Clement. If there was a dispute about James, and Hegesippus wished to avoid giving the impression that such disputes existed, then he would perhaps be wise not to mention James. But apparently he does mention 1 Clement, and apparently he does mention a saying which exists in our extant 1 Clement.

In other words, it doesn't seem like a radical position at that time for someone to think that the OT overrides what Paul and Clement say (even if Hegesippus thought they were otherwise significant people).

The saying which Hegesippus says overrides it comes from the NT (on the lips of Jesus), not from the OT. I am not sure how much that matters to you.

Would it have been any bigger of a deal if Hegesippus had an issue with one thing in Paul and 1 Clement, particularly something that pertained to a corruption of the OT?

Disputing a single item in these epistles is not the issue. The issue is saying that their authors are lying. That is extreme. You seem to think it is no big deal, but for me it does not jive at all with the rest of what we know about Hegesippus. Furthermore, his phrasing it as he did — with a present participle of a verb for "saying," not for "writing" — suggests to me that he did not know the saying as something written in 1 Corinthians or in 1 Clement; he knew that saying as something that was being spoken in various circles (and you and I have both seen how widespread this saying was).

The fact that I was already considering both of these passages (in 1 Corinthians and in 1 Clement) as possible interpolations for completely different reasons is interesting, too; for this statement by Stephen Gobar to suddenly make perfect sense in this way is quite satisfying. I know you disagree, but that has happened before; so be it.

[John2]

The saying which Hegesippus says overrides it comes from the NT (on the lips of Jesus), not from the OT. I am not sure how much that matters to you.

Yeah, I noticed that earlier. I had forgotten about that. (The last time I thought about Gobar was the last time we had talked about him.) Well, it seems like it also would override Paul and 1 Clement if Hegesippus thought they had corrupted a saying of Jesus.

But I guess we've about talked this subject out, and I appreciate all you've said (or written, rather).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SINTH98Ph0g

[John2]

Who is Gobar? All I know is that he is the bane of my existence (he messes up everything), and this is all I've found online so far (in an abstract):

Chapter 232 of Photius 'Bibliotheca is dedicated to the book by "a certain Stephen, tritheist, a.k.a. Gobar": we can gather no more information about him from other sources. Recent research proposed an effective interpretation of some of Gobar's thoughts on the background of sixth-century theological controversies in Egypt: now we may better perceive what his work may have been like, although it stays somehow mysterious; and we may also grasp the reasons why Photius had such a lively interest in debates arising from Origen's eschatological doctrines. Some issues raised by the iconoclastic controversy - one may assume - sparked Photius 'interest in the nature and consistency of the glorious body.

And Photius writes at the beginning of the chapter that he cites Gobar on Hegesippus:

Read the book of a certain Stephen, a tritheist, surnamed Gobar The work seems to have involved a lot of work without procuring a profit proportional to the great pain expended; it exhibits in fact more futile vanity than utility. The chapters which the author has written relating to questions of general order which concern the church are up to about 52; some chapters on more limited subjects are mingled in there. These chapters are divided into expositions of two contradictory opinions. And these opinions are not advanced either by logic or from the holy scriptures but uniquely, according to the author, from the citation of various Fathers of whom some advance the point of view of the church and others who reject it. The latter point of view is defended by ancient testimonies and ancient authors who had not made an exact study of all the problems, and certain of these citations don't defend the point of view supposed anyway, but only seem to do so, at least to the eyes that collected them. As for the point of view of the church, it is confirmed by the testimonies of authors who have defined the truth with the greatest exactitude.


http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photi ... otheca.htm

And here is Gobar's citation there in full:

The good things prepared for the just, the eye has not seen, the ears have not heard and they are not found in the heart of man. However Hegesippus, one of the ancients, a contemporary of the apostles, in the third book of his Commentaries, in I do not know what context, says that these are empty words and that those who say them are liars since the Holy Scriptures say, "Blessed are your eyes because they see and happy your ears because they hear," etc.

But footnote 7 for this says something interesting and has some other translations of this passage followed by a comment by Lightfoot:

Henry mentions that the opinion of Hegesippus on this matter is also mentioned by Gregory of Nyssa, Or. catech. 40, PG 45 c. 104D, who reports Hegesippus as saying the opposite.

In the interests of accuracy, I include some other translations and discussion of this passage from Photius which I found online.

•'The good things prepared for the just (ta h(toimasmena toij dikaioij agaqa) no eye has seen nor ear heard nor have they ascended to the human heart' (cf. 1 Cor. 2.9). Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolic man, says in the fifth book of his Memoirs -- I do not know quite what he meant -- that these words were spoken vainly, and those who said them lied against both the divine scriptures and the Lord who said 'Blessed are your eyes....' (Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, chapter 10, fn. 31, tr. Paul J. Achtemeier).


•"That the good things prepared for the righteous neither eye saw, nor ear heard, nor entered they into the heart of man. Hegesippus, however, an ancient and apostolic man, how moved I know not, says in the fifth book of his Memoirs that these words are vainly spoken, and that those who say these things give the lie to the divine writings and to the Lord, saying: 'Blessed are your eyes that see, and your ears that hear,'" etc. (Makarioi oi ophthalmoi humôn oi blepontes, kai ta ôta humôn ta akouonta, kai ta exês). (Cassels,Supernatural Religion)


•Again, when he reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tübingen interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists' might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." (Lightfoot on Supernatural Religion)

I'm not sure what to make of Lightfoot's comment, but who is Henry, and where can I find what Gregory of Nyssa says about Hegesippus saying the opposite of what Gobar cites (Or. catech. 40, PG 45 c. 104D? What the heck is that)? I'd be much obliged for any help.

[John2]

And here's what confuses me. Whether it is an interpolation or not, I get the impression that 1 Cor. 2:9 and 1 Clem. 34 are citing a variant of the OT (as per pseudo-Philo; cf. Is. 64:4: "Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived,
no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him").

Yet according to Gobar, Hegesippus thought this was a corruption of Mt. 13:16 ("But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear"), which seems to be the opposite of what 1 Cor. and 1 Clem. say (""Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, the things which He has prepared for those who wait for Him"), and it is in response to Is. 6:9-10:

Go and tell this people, "Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving." Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.

And if I recall correctly, the pseudo-Philo variant isn't in Isaiah. So what the heck is going on here?

[John2]

And here's another question I will need help with because I don't know or have access to the Greek. Ben noted that Hegesippus says that "no eye/no ear" was a saying and thus it was not written, but in the same sentence (at least in this translation) Hegesippus says that this saying is contrary to what "the Holy Scriptures" (in this case meaning the NT) say ("these are empty words and that those who say them are liars since the Holy Scriptures say ..."). What's going on here?

[neilgodfrey]

And here's what confuses me. Whether it is an interpolation or not, I get the impression that 1 Cor. 2:9 and 1 Clem. 34 are citing a variant of the OT (as per pseudo-Philo; cf. Is. 64:4: "Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived,
no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him").

Yet according to Gobar, Hegesippus thought this was a corruption of Mt. 13:16 ("But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear"), which seems to be the opposite of what 1 Cor. and 1 Clem. say (""Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, the things which He has prepared for those who wait for Him"), and it is in response to Is. 6:9-10:

Go and tell this people, "Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving." Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.

And if I recall correctly, the pseudo-Philo variant isn't in Isaiah. So what the heck is going on here?

Are you aware of attempts to argue that the passage originated in the Ascension of Isaiah, that Paul was quoting the AoI?

[John2]

Neil wrote;

Are you aware of attempts to argue that the passage originated in the Ascension of Isaiah, that Paul was quoting the AoI?

No, but that sounds interesting. I'm not seeing the passage (as such) in AoI, but I see that this book (https://books.google.com/books?id=QaFu2 ... ye&f=false) says that "Similar sayings are found in the Ascension of Isaiah, where Pauline influence is to be discerned," along with a bunch of other apocryphal writings, and, interestingly, the Talmud (San. 99a). Do you have any links to other arguments?


And here is a link to San. 99a: https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.99a?lang=bi

[Ben C. Smith]

But footnote 7 for this says something interesting and has some other translations of this passage followed by a comment by Lightfoot:

Henry mentions that the opinion of Hegesippus on this matter is also mentioned by Gregory of Nyssa, Or. catech. 40, PG 45 c. 104D, who reports Hegesippus as saying the opposite.

....

I'm not sure what to make of Lightfoot's comment, but who is Henry, and where can I find what Gregory of Nyssa says about Hegesippus saying the opposite of what Gobar cites (Or. catech. 40, PG 45 c. 104D? What the heck is that)? I'd be much obliged for any help.

PG 45, column 104D = Patrologia Graeca 45 (by Migne), column 104, section D. This is from Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 40. I checked this claim before (scroll down to the bottom of the post), but I can find no mention of Hegesippus in this text.

And here's another question I will need help with because I don't know or have access to the Greek. Ben noted that Hegesippus says that "no eye/no ear" was a saying and thus it was not written, but in the same sentence (at least in this translation) Hegesippus says that this saying is contrary to what "the Holy Scriptures" (in this case meaning the NT) say ("these are empty words and that those who say them are liars since the Holy Scriptures say ..."). What's going on here?

Two different words for "say." The word φημί is commonly used for oral reports, especially in expressions like "they say." The word λέγω is more generic, and is very commonly used of what the scriptures "say."

And here's what confuses me. Whether it is an interpolation or not, I get the impression that 1 Cor. 2:9 and 1 Clem. 34 are citing a variant of the OT (as per pseudo-Philo; cf. Is. 64:4: "Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him").

Yet according to Gobar, Hegesippus thought this was a corruption of Mt. 13:16 ("But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear"), which seems to be the opposite of what 1 Cor. and 1 Clem. say (""Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, the things which He has prepared for those who wait for Him"), and it is in response to Is. 6:9-10:

Go and tell this people, "Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving." Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.

And if I recall correctly, the pseudo-Philo variant isn't in Isaiah. So what the heck is going on here?

I believe that this debate parallels, or is similar to, the ancient controversy over Moses versus Isaiah. Moses said that no one can see God and live, whereas Isaiah claims to have seen God (and, by implication, lived to tell us about it).

Some of the rabbis eventually settled on the notion that "eyes have not seen, nor ears heard" what lies in wait for the faithful after the Messianic Era. All the prophecies of peace and prosperity were of the Days of the Messiah, whereas what comes after those days, in the Age to Come, is beyond even the prophetic ken.

What I think is at stake in this context involving Hegesippus is exactly which point on the eschatological timetable one thinks one is inhabiting. Is one still looking forward to wonders beyond human imagination, or has that part of the timeline already been achieved through Christ? It is futurist (or expected) eschatology versus preterist (or realized) eschatology. This same game is played elsewhere in the extant record with different playing pieces. Is the resurrection still future, for example, or is it past, as Hymenaeus and Philetus taught (2 Timothy 2.16-18)? The Pauline epistles themselves appear to proceed from a generally futurist orientation in what are often considered the genuine letters to a generally preterist orientation in pseudo-Paulines such as Colossians and Ephesians.

Yes, the saying itself is a composite of different verses from Isaiah. But the application of that saying is what made it controversial, I think.

I see that this book (https://books.google.com/books?id=QaFu2 ... ye&f=false) says that "Similar sayings are found in the Ascension of Isaiah, where Pauline influence is to be discerned," along with a bunch of other apocryphal writings, and, interestingly, the Talmud (San. 99a).

I have posted the quote from the Ascension of Isaiah elsewhere. And that passage in the Talmud is part of the rabbinical discussion I mentioned above. ETA: And let me add a few more such quotations from my notes:

Plutarch, How the Young Person Should Study Poetry 17e: 17e And let these [words] of Empedocles be at hand: "Thus these things are not to be seen by men, nor heard, nor comprehended with the mind." / 17e Καὶ τὰ Ἐμπεδοκλέους ἔστω πρόχειρα ταυτί· Οὕτως οὔτ´ ἐπιδερκτὰ τάδ´ ἀνδράσιν οὔτ´ ἐπακουστὰ οὔτε νόῳ περιληπτά.

Testament of Jacob 8.8: 8 And he showed me all the resting places and all the good things prepared for the righteous, and the things that eye has not seen nor ear heard, and have not come into the heart of men, that God has prepared for those who love him and do his will on earth (for, if they end well, they do his will).

Apocalypse of Peter 6-7: 6 And as we prayed, suddenly there appeared two men standing before the Lord towards the East, on whom we were not able to look; 7 for there came forth from their countenance a ray as of the sun, and their raiment was shining, such as eye of man never saw; for no mouth is able to express or heart to conceive the glory with which they were endued, and the beauty of their appearance.

Talmud, Sanhedrin 99a: 99a .... Rabbi Hiyya ben Abba said in Rabbi Johanan's name, "All the prophets prophesied [all the good things] only in respect of the Messianic era; but as for the world to come, 'The eye has not seen, O Lord, beside you, what he has prepared for him who waits for him.'" Now, he disagrees with Samuel, who said, "This world differs from [that of] the days of the Messiah only in respect of servitude to [foreign] powers." ....

Talmud, Berachoth 34b: 34b .... R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Johanan: "All the prophets prophesied only for the days of the Messiah, but as for the world to come, 'Eye hath not seen, oh God, beside Thee.' These Rabbis differ from Samuel; for Samuel said, 'There is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah except [that in the latter there will be no] bondage of foreign powers, as it says, "For the poor shall never cease out of the land."'" ....

Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 40: ἀναγκαῖον ἂν εἴη τούτοις προσθεῖναι καὶ τὸ λειπόμενον, ὅτι οὔτε τὰ ἀγαθὰ τὰ ἐν ἐπαγγελίαις τοῖς εὖ βεβιωκόσι προκείμενα τοιαῦτά ἐστιν ὡς εἰς ὑπογραφὴν λόγου ἐλθεῖν. πῶς γὰρ ἃ οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν, οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν, οὔτε ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη; οὔτε μὴν ἡ ἀλγεινὴ τῶν πεπλημμεληκότων ζωὴ πρός τι τῶν τῇδε λυπούντων τὴν αἴσθησιν ὁμοτίμως ἔχει. ἀλλὰ κἂν ἐπονομασθῇ τι τῶν ἐκεῖ κολαστηρίων τοῖς ὧδε γνωριζομένοις ὀνόμασιν, οὐκ ἐν ὀλίγῳ τὴν παραλλαγὴν ἔχει. πῦρ γὰρ ἀκούων ἄλλο τι παρὰ τοῦτο νοεῖν ἐδιδάχθης ἐκ τοῦ προσκεῖσθαί τι τῷ πυρὶ ἐκείνῳ ὃ ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἔστι· τὸ μὲν γὰρ οὐ σβέννυται, τούτου δὲ πολλὰ παρὰ τῆς πείρας ἐξεύρηται τὰ σβεστήρια, πολλὴ δὲ τοῦ σβεννυμένου πρὸς τὸ μὴ παραδεχόμενον σβέσιν ἡ διαφορά. οὐκοῦν ἄλλο τι, καὶ οὐχὶ τοῦτό ἐστι. πάλιν σκώληκά τις ἀκούσας μὴ διὰ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας πρὸς τὸ ἐπίγειον τοῦτο θηρίον ἀποφερέσθω τῇ διανοίᾳ· ἡ γὰρ προσθήκη τοῦ ἀτελεύτητον εἶναι ἄλλην τινὰ φύσιν παρὰ τὴν γινωσκομένην νοεῖν ὑποτίθεται. ἐπεὶ οὖν ταῦτα πρόκειται τῇ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετὰ ταῦτα βίου, καταλλήλως ἐκ τῆς ἑκάστου προαιρέσεως κατὰ τὴν δικαίαν τοῦ θεοῦ κρίσιν ἀναφυόμενα τῷ βίῳ, σωφρονούντων ἂν εἴη μὴ πρὸς τὸ παρὸν ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο βλέπειν, καὶ τῆς ἀφράστου μακαριότητος ἐν τῇ ὀλίγῃ ταύτῃ καὶ προσκαίρῳ ζωῇ τὰς ἀφορμὰς καταβάλλεσθαι καὶ τῆς τῶν κακῶν πείρας δι' ἀγαθῆς προαιρέσεως ἀλλοτριοῦσθαι, νῦν μὲν κατὰ τὸν βίον, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ κατὰ τὴν αἰωνίαν ἀντίδοσιν. / It will be necessary to add to what has been said this remaining statement also; viz. that those good things which are held out in the Gospels to those who have led a godly life, are not such as can be precisely described. For how is that possible with things which “eye hath not seen, neither ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man?” Indeed, the sinner’s life of torment presents no equivalent to anything that pains the sense here. Even if some one of the punishments in that other world be named in terms that are well known here, the distinction is still not small. When you hear the word fire, you have been taught to think of a fire other than the fire we see, owing to something being added to that fire which in this there is not; for that fire is never quenched, whereas experience has discovered many ways of quenching this; and there is a great difference between a fire which can be extinguished, and one that does not admit of extinction. That fire, therefore, is something other than this. If, gain, a person hears the word “worm,” let not his thoughts, from the similarity of the term, be carried to the creature here that crawls upon the ground; for the addition that it “dieth not” suggests the thought of another reptile than that known here. Since, then, these things are set before us as to be expected in the life that follows this, being the natural outgrowth according to the righteous judgment of God, in the life of each, of his particular disposition, it must be the part of the wise not to regard the present, but that which follows after, and to lay down the foundations for that unspeakable blessedness during this short and fleeting life, and by a good choice to wean themselves from all experience of evil, now in their lifetime here, hereafter in their eternal recompense.

Theodore A. Bergren, "Christian Influence on the Transmission History of 4, 5, and 6 Ezra," in Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, edited by James C. Vanderkam & William Adler, pages 110-111: In 7:96, the phrase “and they will see what no eye has seen” is inserted into a description of the joys of the elect. This statement is close to a passage quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 2:9-10 (probably derived from Isa 64:4) and has numerous other parallels in ancient Jewish, Christian and Islamic literature. Although it is not certain that the phrase in Arabic 1 derives directly from 1 Corinthians, such an origin is possible. .... In [4 Ezra] 5:40, the expanded Armenian text includes an element similar to that noted above in the Arabic 1 version of 7:96: “...the good things from him which eye has not seen and ear has not heard and have not occurred to man and man has never considered, which God has prepared for his beloved ones.” The literal approximation of this text to 1 Cor 2:9, which is much closer and more extensive than was the case in Arabic 1, makes it almost certain that the Armenian refers to the Pauline passage.