>>17752958
Never made that claim so I am not sure why you're asking me this. In one instance Origen knew of the specific manuscript that was lost (for a very long time) and in the other he made an assumption based on his knowledge for the source material cited in 1 Corinthians 2:9 Remember he says he read many others and does not specify them in every situation. But in any case you're missing the point, I am saying that absence of manuscript evidence in current year means nothing if you have good reasons to suspect that it could have existed such as reports from ~1400 years ago from the people in the region in question. And again it should be stressed that this is not the traditional approach to the Christian scriptures but one that Christians are falsely imposing onto us. Even so though they fail