Here is a modification of a table that appeared in another thread, with the Fathers and their columns rearranged more in ascending chronology and Marcion brought into this side of the table, rather than being left among the canons (which have been left out).
I'd like to look at the passages that give rise to propositions or conclusions that each Patristic Father knew each of the NT books.
It seems that, in a lot of cases, Fathers only allude to a passage or two (or three or so) and not much else, and even then, it may be a coincidence.
Feels like some of this needs to be normalized a bit for the size of the source (e.g. Jude, Philemon, 2 & 3 John) when making some forms of arguments based on the relative known reference count.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Nice table BTW. Would it help, I wonder, to list the NT material in the order that it might have been composed rather than the way it is listed in the cannon today?
Jax wrote: ↑
Nice table BTW. Would it help, I wonder, to list the NT material in the order that it might have been composed rather than the way it is listed in the cannon today?
Nice table, I wonder if it can be used to come up with a date for when we can be 90% certain that each book was in existence.
Jax wrote: ↑
Nice table BTW. Would it help, I wonder, to list the NT material in the order that it might have been composed rather than the way it is listed in the cannon today?
Nice table, I wonder if it can be used to come up with a date for when we can be 90% certain that each book was in existence.
Just looking at the data, I would guess no earlier than Origen.
I don't think the Didache should be on that list, because it was not written by any Patristic fathers.
Papias alluded to gMatthew? I wonder about where is the evidence for that.
Of course, we cannot assume the patristic fathers had to allude to or quote or named all the NT texts they knew about. That was not the purpose of what they wrote.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:03 am
I don't think the Didache should be on that list, because it was not written by any Patristic fathers.
Papias alluded to gMatthew? I wonder about where is the evidence for that.
You know the evidence for it. The issue is whether or not our canonical Matthew is one of the Greek translations mentioned in the quotation. It is absolutely fine to argue that it is not; but on a general chart like this it would be positively disingenuous to overlook that passage or blithely assume in advance that it cannot refer to the text we know as Matthew. The possibility is very real.
What I am not sure about in this particular tabular system is the question mark symbol. Does it mean that it is questionable whether the father referred to the text at all (in which case it serves as a diluted X), or merely that it is questionable whether the father quoted it as authoritative (in which case it serves as a diluted O)? If the former, I would be in favor of a question mark both for Matthew and for Mark in the Papias column. But there has to be something for both Matthew and Mark in that column.