NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

[Bernard Muller]

There are also possible synoptic gospel connections in Clement:

There are other connections to gMark in 1 Clement, which I explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html#1clement
They include a verse which is almost the same, word by word, in 1 Clement & gMark, but different in the LXX & gMatthew. And the direction appears to be gMark => 1 Clement.

What information do we have for ' 'gnostic Basilides', who lived 50 years later' ??

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/basilides.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

About the epistle of Barnabas:

The epistle has numerous quotes from the scriptures and also allegedly from Jesus, which are not known from any other early Christian texts. However, it is likely "Barnabas" knew about bits & pieces of GMatthew, probably by mouth to ears or recollection from past readings. Let's review the evidence:
- Barnabas7:3 "But moreover when crucified He had vinegar and gall given Him to drink ..."
Only in GMatthew, Jesus is given a mixture of vinegar and gall at his crucifixion:
Mt27:34 "they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink."
Note: the gall is not necessary for the argument developed by "Barnabas" in 7:3-5.
- Barnabas4:14 "as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen."
It appears "Barnabas" was confused about the origin of this citation, not appearing in the O.T. But in the N.T., it shows in GMatthew and only here:
Mt22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
Furthermore, the saying is typically Matthean, and about the treatment of undesirables:
Mt7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven"
Also, the saying fits very well into the heavily "colored" all-Matthean ending (22:11-14) of the parable of the wedding banquet. More about Matthew's undesirables here.

and

a) 'Barnabas' and GMatthew or GMark
- Barnabas7:9 "... Is not this He, Whom once we crucified and set at nought and spat upon;"
Jesus is spat upon only in Mk15:19 & Mt27:30
- Barnabas5:9 "He came not to call the righteous but sinners"
Mk2:17 & Mt9:13 "... I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners ..."

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I put together a list a while ago of passages from 1 Clement and from Barnabas which pertain (potentially) to the historical Jesus, and these of course are also often relevant to the question of gospel sources:

• 1 Clement: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1697&p=38327#p38327.
• Barnabas: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1697&p=38327#p38366.

[Ben C. Smith]

Bernard has on that page from his site:

- Barnabas4:14 "as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen."
It appears "Barnabas" was confused about the origin of this citation, not appearing in the O.T. But in the N.T., it shows in GMatthew and only here:
Mt22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

The alternate view is that Matthew was already considered to be scripture by the time Barnabas was written.

A possibly parallel situation occurs in 1 Clement:

1 Clement 13.1-4: 1 Let us therefore, brethren, be of humble mind, laying aside all haughtiness, and pride, and foolishness, and angry feelings; and let us act according to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit says, "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, neither let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glories glory in the Lord, in diligently seeking Him, and doing judgment and righteousness"), being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke, teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: 2 "Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you; as you do, so shall it be done to you; as you judge, so shall you be judged; as you are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure you measure, with the same it shall be measured to you." 3 By this precept and by these rules let us establish ourselves, that we walk with all humility in obedience to His holy words. For the holy word says, 4 "On whom shall I look, but on him that is meek and peaceable, and who trembles at My words?"

An easy reading of this passage is that "the words of the Lord Jesus" are a subset of "that which is written" — the sense being that, of the things which have been written, we are to be especially mindful of the particular words spoken by the Lord Jesus on this topic. And "that which is written" is most often a formula used for introducing scripture.

[Michael BG]

What gospels material do Aristides and Quadratus have in surviving writings attributed to them?

…

Quadratus of Athens wrote also an apology at the same time of Aristides' one, according to Eusebius. A small fragment is preserved, containing probably the first reference (outside the gospels) of healing & resurrections by an earthly Jesus:
"Our Saviour's works, moreover, were always present: for they were real, consisting of those who had been healed of their diseases, those who had been raised from the dead; who were not only seen whilst they were being healed and raised up, but were afterwards constantly present. Nor did they remain only during the sojourn of the Saviour on earth, but also a considerable time after His departure ..."

Cordially, Bernard

This from Quadratus of Athens is not evidence that any written gospels existed when this apology was written. (We only have Eusebius to tell us when this was, but Eusebius is an unreliable witness.)

to Michael BG,

It seems safe to assume that the author of the Apology of Aristides has some of the same traditions which are found in the gospels and letters of Paul but he either does not know them or doesn’t use them regularly enough to quote from them.

By gospels material, I did not mean Aristides quoted the gospels, Rather he paraphrased them. Why would he need to quote them exactly?

Also in the apology, we have: "Take, then, their writings, and read therein, and lo! you will find that I have not put forth these things on my own authority, nor spoken thus as their advocate; but since I read in their writings I was fully assured of these things as also of things which are to come."
All the gospels things that Aristides described were in Christian writings.

Cordially, Bernard

You seem to be agreeing with me, that Aristides did not quote from the gospels. If this is the case then logically he cannot be used as evidence that the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John existed in his day. All that can be drawn from the evidence is that he was aware of some things in them as I have stated.

When he states there are "writings" this again cannot be used as evidence that the gospels or the letters of Paul were known to him. All that can be stated is that when Aristides wrote (138-161 CE) it is likely that there existed some writings which included some of the things Aristides writes.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

An easy reading of this passage is that "the words of the Lord Jesus" are a subset of "that which is written" — the sense being that, of the things which have been written, we are to be especially mindful of the particular words spoken by the Lord Jesus on this topic. And "that which is written" is most often a formula used for introducing scripture.

It looks to me what "the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke" have already been written (and not necessarily in the OT). Actually what follows is loose cut & paste from Q & gMark.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

An easy reading of this passage is that "the words of the Lord Jesus" are a subset of "that which is written" — the sense being that, of the things which have been written, we are to be especially mindful of the particular words spoken by the Lord Jesus on this topic. And "that which is written" is most often a formula used for introducing scripture.

It looks to me what "the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke" have already been written (and not necessarily in the OT). Actually what follows is loose cut & paste from Q & gMark.

Sure, but what I am saying is that this passage, like Barnabas 4.14, may be actually calling something from the NT (from the synoptics or Q or whatever) scripture ("what has been written").

[Bernard Muller]

to Michael BG,

You seem to be agreeing with me, that Aristides did not quote from the gospels. If this is the case then logically he cannot be used as evidence that the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John existed in his day. All that can be drawn from the evidence is that he was aware of some things in them as I have stated.

I said Aristides paraphrased the gospels, or rather abbreviated the core of the gospels stories. And yes, that can be used as evidence that Aristides knew of a few gospels.
I agree with you Aristides was aware of things which are in the gospels. The same applies to Quadratus.

Cordially, Bernard

[Michael BG]

I said Aristides paraphrased the gospels, or rather abbreviated the core of the gospels stories. And yes, that can be used as evidence that Aristides knew of a few gospels.
I agree with you Aristides was aware of things which are in the gospels. The same applies to Quadratus.

Being aware of the things in the gospels and the epistles is not the same as having access to the gospels and epistles. I do not understand why you do not understand this. I think we both accept that the some of the traditions in the gospels existed before they were written down in the gospels. Therefore people apart from the gospel writers had access to these pre-gospels traditions. As Aristides does not provide any evidence he is aware of any unique gospel writer’s redaction we should not conclude he was aware of the gospels rather than the pre-gospel traditions.

[MrMacSon]

.
I agree with Michael, though wonder if these edits make it clearer [they do for me, anyway] -

Being aware of the 'things [that also appear] in the gospels and the epistles' is not the same as having access to the gospels and epistles. I do not understand why you do not understand this. I think we both accept that the some of the traditions... existed before they were written down in the gospels. Therefore people apart from the gospel writers had access to these pre-gospels traditions. As Aristides does not provide any evidence he is aware of any unique gospel writer’s redaction we should not conclude he was aware of the gospels rather than the pre-gospel traditions.