NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

[Michael BG]

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.

Origen is dated to the third century dying c. 253. This is rather late. Perhaps I was not clear. I meant a date for each book not one date for them all.

Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians is dated by reference to Ignatius’ letters (c 107 CE), but if Ignatius’ letters are later fabrications, then so must Polycarp’s letter. Maxwell Staniforth states that his name is “Much-Fruit”. It can also mean “one who brings a lot of fruit and grain, rich in fruit, fruitful” (name-doctor). It therefore seems possible that the name Polycarp is a Christian creation.

It is also possible that it once existed as two separate documents, because in chapter 9 Ignatius is among the dead but in chapter 13 he is still alive.

If it is not possible to date the letter to the Philippians then it is not useful for dating the existence of the documents it quotes from.

[MrMacSon]

In truth, the only way to demonstrate to oneself that any given square on the table deserves an X, an O, a question mark, or a blank is to do the legwork.

Yep.

Most of those relationships have articles or even entire books dedicated to the reception history of particular NT books ... a lot of them seem to simply assume that the NT books came first, thereby making any allusion unidirectional (from the NT to the church father) ...

Yep. And I think a lot of that will need a rethink; and possibly construction of theoretical intermediate or concurrent texts ('Q-like' texts)

... but at least those studies lay out all, or very nearly all, of the relevant evidence.

Yep.

Also the use of "the Word" may be a reference to John. Not sure about the references to Pauline letters though.

Michael F. Bird has a chapter in Paul and the Second Century entitled The Reception of Paul in the Epistle to Diognetus. He concludes:

The Epistle to Diognetus is undoubtedly a document with strong Pauline influences (esp. from Romans, Titus, and 1 Corinthians). It is not the only influence as the Gospels figure prominently as well, especially the Fourth Gospel, but Paul is clearly the most formative intellectual force in the theology of the apologist.

I think it's interesting Michael Bird refers to 'strong Pauline influences', names 3 epistles, yet then says 'it', rather than 'they'.

[Bernard Muller]

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

From http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

The apology of Aristides, addressed (allegedly) to emperor Hadrian (117-138) (according to Eusebius), probably in 124-125 or 129, contains elements from GJohn and the Synoptics:
"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven [GJohn1:1-2,14], and from a Hebrew virgin [GMatthew or/and GLuke?] assumed and clothed himself with flesh [GJohn1:14]; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man [GMatthew or/and GLuke?]. This is taught in the gospel, ["gospel" appears to refer to oral preaching, which is also according to Christian writings, some with elements of (canonical) gospels, as shown in this passage]
` as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews,
[it is likely Aristides removed references of 'Pilate' and 'crucifixion' (performed only by the Romans) because of the alleged addressee]
` and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose [GMark or/and GMatthew?] and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world ... And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians ..."
"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."

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

[Bernard Muller]

I presume you're referring to Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho ?

Yes

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Old habits can be so hard to break....

It's not about old habits. You certainly did not convince me that the logias of Matthew are about gMatthew.
And I do not think logia as "inspired words" describes a gospel, but "sayings and deeds of Christ" does.

Cordially, Bernard

[Jax]

Also the use of "the Word" may be a reference to John. Not sure about the references to Pauline letters though.

Michael F. Bird has a chapter in Paul and the Second Century entitled The Reception of Paul in the Epistle to Diognetus. He concludes:

The Epistle to Diognetus is undoubtedly a document with strong Pauline influences (esp. from Romans, Titus, and 1 Corinthians). It is not the only influence as the Gospels figure prominently as well, especially the Fourth Gospel, but Paul is clearly the most formative intellectual force in the theology of the apologist.

In truth, the only way to demonstrate to oneself that any given square on the table deserves an X, an O, a question mark, or a blank is to do the legwork. Most of those relationships have articles or even entire books dedicated to the reception history of particular NT books (like The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus, a full monograph by Andrew Gregory). One is not required to agree with the conclusions of these studies, and in fact a lot of them seem to simply assume that the NT books came first, thereby making any allusion unidirectional (from the NT to the church father), but at least those studies lay out all, or very nearly all, of the relevant evidence.

Thank you for the M. F. Bird reference, I'll look that book up.

Agree about the "leg work" BTW.

[MrMacSon]

to MrMacSon,

I will shortly put ?'s for both for Matthew and for Mark in the Papias column

I think gMark should be marked by an X. "the sayings and deeds of Christ" implies a gospel a lot more than logias.

Old habits can be so hard to break...

Cheers -

For whatever it may be worth, I think that the earliest Christian authors had to find suitable labels for their authoritative writings, particularly the gospels. Papias calls authoritative preachings and writings logia; later on, Justin will call certain gospel texts memoirs; other authors would refer to them with formulae such as "it is written." At some point everybody agreed to call them gospels ...

.. it appears that there was a period of time during which the terminology was far from settled. Papias falls during this period of time, and it seems to me that his solution was to call these writings logia, which is a synonym for the scriptures ...

Papias implies that he considers Peter's own preaching to be logia, and he states that Matthew wrote down logia. (And, if Bernard is correct, then logia were also being passed down from the disciples of the Lord, through tradents like Aristion, all the way to the Hierapolitan himself.) My sense is that this is Papias' way of calling statements (words or stories) about Jesus inspired. He considered what Peter said and what Matthew wrote to be oracular, since these were chosen men ...

I do not think he meant to limit the term logia to [be like] the rubricated words in a trendy evangelical red letter ... any more than Philo limited the term logia to the very words spoken by God on the pages of scripture. He wrote that 'Peter had preached logia', that 'Mark had transcribed them accurately', and that the result was a record of what the Lord had said and done. This is not an "emphasis" on red-letter sayings; this is simply filling out what logia meant for Papias. Logia are not just sayings material or discourse material; logia are 'inspired words', and they can narrate the destruction of cities as easily as they can relate the very words of God from a mountaintop.

viewtopic.php?p=70871#p70871

[Bernard Muller]

I think Revelation could be from or based on another tradition, such as a pagan religion.

According to my study, Revelation started a Jewish text written soon after 70 CE, then Christianized around 95 CE.
The final version shows knowledge of gMatthew.
http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

I am not the only one to think that:

From The Catholic Encyclopedia "... the theory advanced by the German scholar Vischer. He holds the Apocalypse to have been originally a purely Jewish composition, and to have been changed into a Christian work by the insertion of those sections that deal with Christian subjects. From a doctrinal point of view, we think, it cannot be objected to. There are other instances where inspired writers have availed themselves of non-canonical literature. Intrinsically considered it is not improbable. The Apocalypse abounds in passages which bear no specific Christian character but, on the contrary, show a decidedly Jewish complexion."

Cordially, Bernard

[DCHindley]

Even then I am not sure whether the dialogue actually occurred, if it occurred at all, after the 1st Judean rebellion, or the uprising in Egypt and Cyrene, or the one under Bar Kochba. It may have been based on dialogues from the 1st war or Egyptian uprising, and recycled for a later conflict.

I am certain this dialogue never occurred and it is a literary device in the tradition of Plato's dialogues and many others of that kind. How could Justin remember in details that long discussion?

Cordially, Bernard

I presume you're referring to Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho ?

I was referring to Justin's Dialogue with Trypho but Bernard is referring to Plato's Dialogues, which are supposed to be Plato's recollection of dialogues Socrates had with various persons. Most scholars of Platonism seem to think these are fictional or at most are tied to specific discussions but not verbatim, but are more indicative of Plato's views expressed over time. We really don't know that much about the historical Socrates. So I tend to agree with Bernard in this matter.

DCH

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

I don't view Marcion as a Gnostic or a heretic. i view him as part of the continuum of the development of Christianity. As I do Valentinus, and possibly Basilides, though Basilides may have been a bishop of the cult of Serapis.

And you have evidence for all that?

About Basilides:

Basilides (120-140), as reported by Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', I, 24, 4 "[Basilides thought] He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead, so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them."

Note: Gnostic "teacher" Basilides, because he thought Christ could not die, used the synoptic gospels mention of 'Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross' to have the same Simon crucified on it, instead of Jesus.

According to Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VII:
Chapter XV "... all the events in our Lord's life occurred, according to them [Basilidians], in the same manner as they have been described in the Gospels." (which would imply Basilides knew about a few gospels, as can be confirmed next, from the same book)
- Basilides knew about GJohn:
Chapter X "The seed of the cosmical system was generated, he [Basilides] says, from nonentities; the word which was spoken, "Let there be light." And this, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been stated in the Gospels: "He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."[words in italics are as in Jn1:9]" and
Chapter XV "And that each thing, says [Basilides], has its own particular times, the Saviour is a sufficient [witness] when He observes, "Mine hour is not yet come." [words in italics are as in Jn2:4]"
- Basilides knew about GLuke:
Chapter XIV "This, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been declared: "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee," that which proceeded from the Sonship through the conterminous spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, as far as Mary; "and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee," [bolded italics as in Lk1:35]"
- Basilides knew about GMatthew:
Chapter XV "And the Magi [afford similar testimony] when they gaze wistfully upon the star [according to Mt2:1-2,9-10]. For [Jesus] Himself was, he [Basilides] says, mentally preconceived at the time of the generation of the stars,"

About Valentinus:

Valentinus (120-160) also knew about Luke's gospel, according to Irenaeus 'Against Heresies' III, XIV, 3-4 and Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VI:
Chapter XXX "[Valentinus says] Jesus was born of Mary the virgin, according to the declaration, "The Holy Ghost will come upon thee"--Sophia is the Spirit--"and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee"--the Highest is the Demiurge,--"wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy."" (bolded italics as in Lk1:35).

Cordially, Bernard