NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

[MrMacSon]

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.

It seems 1 Clement and 'Barnabas' are worthy of publishing a table for - I do have them in spreadsheet form, so will do that after researching what y'all have had to say (and maybe still have to say)

[Bernard Muller]

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.

Why not?
Furthermore the internal evidence from the gospels themselves show they were written well before the times of Aristides and Quadratus.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

About 1 Clement 16.1-17,

For He says.... [Here he quotes Isaiah 53 in its entirety.]

Yes, but "Clement" added up three times "stripes":

In chapter 16, "Clement" quoted the LXX version of the suffering servant (Isaiah53), "as the Holy Spirit spake concerning Him [Jesus]". He kept close to the Septuagint except for his addition of three occurrences of the word "stripes" (Greek root 'plege').
a) "He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering" --> LXX (3) "he was a man in suffering"
b) "He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction" --> LXX (4) "him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction"
c) "the Lord is pleased to purify Him by stripes" --> LXX (10) "The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke"
'Stripes' means strokes or blows with a rod or lash (or/and resulting wounds).
The three additions of 'stripes' cannot be a coincidence and is most likely a reference to the flogging of Jesus in Mk15:15.

Also about 1 Clement & gMark:

In chapter 15, we have:
οὗτος ο λαος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεστιν απ εμου
"For said in a certain place, "This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."
A similar wording appears in Mk7:6:
οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ ἐμοῦ
"[same as above]"
But the corresponding passage (Isa29:13) from the LXX (allegedly quoted by "Mark": "it is written") is somewhat different: here are two slightly different versions:
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσί με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ·
and
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ

Notes:
a) "Matthew", in Mt15:3, copied GMark version but switch back to the LXX for "ὁ λαὸς οὗτος" instead of following '1 Clement' or GMark "οὗτος ὁ λαὸς".
b) "Clement" replaced "ἀπέχει" (which shows in the LXX and GMatthew) by "απεστιν".
So "Mark" consulted the LXX to put together his (abbreviated) quote, but "Clement" needed only GMark to make his.
That confirms "Clement" knew about GMark, and not the other way around.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Also about 1 Clement & gMark:

In chapter 15, we have:
οὗτος ο λαος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεστιν απ εμου
"For said in a certain place, "This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."
A similar wording appears in Mk7:6:
οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ ἐμοῦ
"[same as above]"
But the corresponding passage (Isa29:13) from the LXX (allegedly quoted by "Mark": "it is written") is somewhat different: here are two slightly different versions:
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσί με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ·
and
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ

Notes:
a) "Matthew", in Mt15:3, copied GMark version but switch back to the LXX for "ὁ λαὸς οὗτος" instead of following '1 Clement' or GMark "οὗτος ὁ λαὸς".
b) "Clement" replaced "ἀπέχει" (which shows in the LXX and GMatthew) by "απεστιν".
So "Mark" consulted the LXX to put together his (abbreviated) quote, but "Clement" needed only GMark to make his.
That confirms "Clement" knew about GMark, and not the other way around.

That is a very good argument.

[Bernard Muller]

"Barnabas" and the gospels (outside parallels with gMatthew (only) and gMatthew or gMark (only), which I already posted here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3550&p=76695&hilit=gall#p76695):

b) 'Barnabas' and the gospels (generally):
- Barnabas5:8 "... He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles ... He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel"
- Barnabas 12:10-11 "... David himself prophesies ..."The Lord said to my Lord sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool." ... See how "David calls him Lord" and does not say Son."
This is very similar to:
Lk20:41-44 "... How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David? Now David himself said ...: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."' Therefore David calls Him 'Lord'; how is He then his Son?" (see also Mk12:35-37 and Mt22:42-45)
- Barnabas6:6 "What then saith the prophet again [about Jesus]? ... For My garment they cast a lot." as in:
Mt27:35: "And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots;" (see also Mk15:24, Lk23:34 & Jn19:23)
c) 'Barnabas' and GLuke?
Barnabas15:8 "... the eighth day [Sunday] for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens."
This is according to GLuke (24).

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

Also about 1 Clement & gMark:

In chapter 15, we have:
οὗτος ο λαος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεστιν απ εμου
"For said in a certain place, "This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."
A similar wording appears in Mk7:6:
οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ ἐμοῦ
"[same as above]"
But the corresponding passage (Isa29:13) from the LXX (allegedly quoted by "Mark": "it is written") is somewhat different: here are two slightly different versions:
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσί με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ·
and
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ

Notes:
a) "Matthew", in Mt15:3, copied GMark version but switch back to the LXX for "ὁ λαὸς οὗτος" instead of following '1 Clement' or GMark "οὗτος ὁ λαὸς".
b) "Clement" replaced "ἀπέχει" (which shows in the LXX and GMatthew) by "απεστιν".
So "Mark" consulted the LXX to put together his (abbreviated) quote, but "Clement" needed only GMark to make his.
That confirms "Clement" knew about GMark, and not the other way around.

The LXX, G.Mark, and G.Matthew have "ἀπέχει".

Clement has "απεστιν".



LXX and G.Matthew have "ὁ λαὸς οὗτος".

1 Clement' and G.Mark have "οὗτος ὁ λαὸς".


On both, G.Matthew is the same as the LXX

On both, 1 Clement is different to the LXX


For "ἀπέχει" v "απεστιν", G.Mark is the same as the LXX

For "ὁ λαὸς οὗτος" v "οὗτος ὁ λαὸς", G.Mark is different to the LXX


Doesn't that suggest G.Matthew aligns with the LXX more than G.Mark,

• and that 1 Clement is more different to the LXX than both G.Matt & G.Mark?

.

[Ben C. Smith]

Also about 1 Clement & gMark:

In chapter 15, we have:
οὗτος ο λαος τοις χειλεσιν με τιμα η δε καρδια αυτων πορρω απεστιν απ εμου
"For said in a certain place, "This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."
A similar wording appears in Mk7:6:
οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ ἐμοῦ
"[same as above]"
But the corresponding passage (Isa29:13) from the LXX (allegedly quoted by "Mark": "it is written") is somewhat different: here are two slightly different versions:
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσί με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ·
and
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ

Notes:
a) "Matthew", in Mt15:3, copied GMark version but switch back to the LXX for "ὁ λαὸς οὗτος" instead of following '1 Clement' or GMark "οὗτος ὁ λαὸς".
b) "Clement" replaced "ἀπέχει" (which shows in the LXX and GMatthew) by "απεστιν".
So "Mark" consulted the LXX to put together his (abbreviated) quote, but "Clement" needed only GMark to make his.
That confirms "Clement" knew about GMark, and not the other way around.

The LXX, G.Mark, and G.Matthew have "ἀπέχει".

Clement has "απεστιν".



LXX and G.Matthew have "ὁ λαὸς οὗτος".

1 Clement' and G.Mark have "οὗτος ὁ λαὸς".


On both, G.Matthew is the same as the LXX

On both, 1 Clement is different to the LXX


For "ἀπέχει" v "απεστιν", G.Mark is the same as the LXX

For "ὁ λαὸς οὗτος" v "οὗτος ὁ λαὸς", G.Mark is different to the LXX


Doesn't that suggest G.Matthew aligns with the LXX more than G.Mark,

• and that 1 Clement is more different to the LXX than both G.Matt & G.Mark?

.

Yes, but it means that the Marcan version could not have come from 1 Clement alone; Mark had to consult the LXX to get ἀπέχει. But 1 Clement could have come from Mark alone. Since the verb change aligns neither with the LXX nor with Matthew or Mark, it is Clement's own innovation; and none of the rest of the quote evinces any use of anything that is not also present in Mark. This does not absolutely prove that 1 Clement used Mark, but it makes that possibility very easy, whereas other explanations would require more steps.

[Michael BG]

Perhaps the Epistle of Barnabas is what I am looking for to set a date whereby we have very strong evidence that some of the gospels existed.

It has been dated into the range 80 to 120 CE.

16:3-4 is normally used to date it:

3 Furthermore he says again, "Lo, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it."
4 That is happening now. For owing to the war it was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up again. (Lake)

Jay Curry Treat states on the dating of Barnabas (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, pp. 613-614):

“Since Barnabas 16:3 refers to the destruction of the temple, Barnabas must be written after 70 C.E. It must be written before its first undisputable use in Clement of Alexandria, ca. 190. Since 16:4 expects the temple to be rebuilt, it was most likely written before Hadrian built a Roman temple on the site ca. 135. …”
(http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html)

It is possible that Barnabas was written in either 130 or 131 CE after the Emperor Hadrian had agreed to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple. This would be why the author wrote that the rebuilding was happening now.

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.

Barnabas 7:3 is “ἀλλὰ καὶ σταρωθεὶς ἐποτιζετο ὄξει καὶ χολῇ.
3 But moreover when he was crucified "he was given to drink vinegar and gall."

Matthew 27:34 is ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ πιεῖν οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον:
They-give him to-drink wine with bile mixed-together

Mk 15:23 is καὶ ἐδίδουν αὐτῷ ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον,
And they-gave him to-drink blended-with-myrrh wine

Septuagint Ps 68:22 καὶ ἔδωκαν εἰς τὸ βρῶμά μου χολὴν καὶ εἰς τὴν δίψαν μου ἐπότισάν με ὄξος.

“And they gave me also gall for my food and made me drink vinegar for my thirst”

Mark has ἐσμυρνισμένον, which Strongs tells us is “mingle with myrrh, a bitter herb given to help deaden the pain of criminals sentenced to crucifixion” and οἶνον – wine.

If this is correct then Mark has something that is based on historical fact, those being crucified are offered wine with myrrh in it.

I think Matthew has changed it to οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς – wine with bitter herbs (because χολῆς can mean “bitter herbs”)

Barnabas has ὄξει καὶ χολῇ - sour wine and gall.

The Septuagint PS 68:22 has ὄξος – sour wine and gall or bitter herbs

I would like to think that Barnabas has just copied Matthew, but it is equally possible that he changed both the wine and myrrh in the original story to sour wine and gall to make it agree with Sept Ps 68:22 independent of Matthew.

- 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:

Barnabas 4:14 is πολλοὶ κλητοί, ολίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν.
many called few yet chosen (I couldn’t find a translation for εὑρεθῶμεν)

Mt 22:14 is πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί.
Many for they-are called few yet chosen

Also, the saying fits very well into the heavily "colored" all-Matthean ending (22:11-14) of the parable of the wedding banquet.

All five words in Barnabas appear in Matthew 22:14. This seems to be good evidence that the author of Barnabas knew Matthews gospel, especially if we believe that Mt 22:11-14 is wholly a Matthean creation, which is very possible.

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

Barnabas 7:6-11

7 But what are they to do with the other? "The other," he says, "is accursed." Notice how the type of Jesus is manifested:
8 "And do ye all spit on it, and goad it, and bind the scarlet wool about its head, and so let it be cast into the desert." And when it is so done, he who takes the goat into the wilderness drives it forth, and takes away the wool, and puts it upon a shrub which is called Rachel, of which we are accustomed to eat the shoots when we find them in the country: thus of Rachel alone is the fruit sweet.
9 What does this mean? Listen: "the first goat is for the altar, but the other is accursed," and note that the one that is accursed is crowned, because then "they will see him" on that day with the long scarlet robe "down to the feet" on his body, and they will say, "Is not this he whom we once crucified and rejected and pierced and spat upon? Of a truth it was he who then said that he was the Son of God."
10 But how is he like to the goat? For this reason: "the goats shall be alike, beautiful, and a pair," in order that when they see him come at that time they may be astonished at the likeness of the goat. See then the type of Jesus destined to suffer.
11 But why is it that they put the wool in the middle of the thorns? It is a type of Jesus placed in the Church, because whoever wishes to take away the scarlet wool must suffer much because the thorns are terrible and he can gain it only through pain. Thus he says, "those who will see me, and attain to my kingdom must lay hold of me through pain and suffering."

Mark 15:16-20

[16] And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion.

[17] And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him.
[18] And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!"
[19] And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him.
[20] And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.

There are many parallels, scarlet robe/ purple cloak, crowned thorns / crown of thorns as well as spat / spat. However, these actions are not specified in Leviticus 16, but Aaron has to wear special linen clothes including a headdress translated as turban. There does not appear to be enough word agreement to conclude Barnabas is using Mark’s gospel, however Matthew has “scarlet” (Mt 27:28) - κοκκίνην and Barnabas has κόκκινον. This seems to be evidence that the author of Barnabas knew Matthews gospel.

- 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 ..."

Barnabas is οὐκ ἦλθεν καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς,
"I came not to call the righteous but sinners,"

Mark 2:17 is οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.
Not I-came to-call the-just-ones but sinners

Matthew 9:13 οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.
Luke 5:32 οὐκ ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν.

Barnabas has six words identical with Mark, but not Matthew and Luke, who both made small changes to Mark. This seems to be evidence that the author of Barnabas knew Mark’s gospel.

[Ben C. Smith]

Barnabas 4:14 is πολλοὶ κλητοί, ολίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν.
many called few yet chosen (I couldn’t find a translation for εὑρεθῶμεν)

That is the passive subjunctive aorist of εὑρίσκω (to find). The sense is: "Let us take heed lest, as it is written, we be found many called but few chosen."

[Ben C. Smith]

Barnabas is οὐκ ἦλθεν καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς,
"I came not to call the righteous but sinners,"

Mark 2:17 is οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.
Not I-came to-call the-just-ones but sinners

Matthew 9:13 οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.
Luke 5:32 οὐκ ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν.

Barnabas has six words identical with Mark, but not Matthew and Luke, who both made small changes to Mark. This seems to be evidence that the author of Barnabas knew Mark’s gospel.

I wish it were so, but first of all, Mark has ἦλθον ("I came") where Barnabas has ἦλθεν ("he came"), so it is not six identical words. And Matthew's only difference is the intrusion of the γὰρ, which as a postpositive particle has to fall in this position in the clause. So Matthew and Mark are identical with respect to the words which line up with Barnabas. The omission of γὰρ cannot decide the case, since that can happen at any time for any reason in a quote, depending upon the context.