NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Bernard Muller »

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.

Since you want to keep the Didache (BTW, the Didache without the Christian additions but with many quotes from gMatthew can be dated before 97 CE from its own internal evidence), then you should also put 1 Clement (X for 1 Corinthians and Hebrews, X or ? for gMark), and Barnabas' epistle (X for gMatthew, ? for gLuke & Acts), which also through the internal evidence would be late 1st century.

Since you have Marcion on your list, you should have also other Gnostics also, such as Basilides and Valentinus.
According to Hippolytus of Rome, Basilides (120-140 CE) knew about the gospels stories and quoted gJohn, gLuke (on the godly conception) and gMatthew. Valentinus quoted gLuke (also on the godly conception).
Aristides and Quadratus also have gospels material in their surviving writings.

All details & evidence here: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by MrMacSon »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:24 pm
IMHO, I don't think we can safely assume we have the works of actual Patristic Fathers in the letter(s) attributed to "Apostolic fathers" like Clement (of Rome), Barnabas, Mathetes to Diognetus, Ignatius, and Polycarp. I would not even dare to attribute these books to hard and fast dates of composition.
Cheers, Dave. That's a good point about letters attributed to Apostolic Fathers (and it also raises the issue of definitions of 'Apostolic' and 'Patristic' Fathers).

Justin Martyr, at least his Dialogue with Trypho, I'll accept as original to that person, but not the "Aplogies" he supposedly addressed to various Roman Emperors. 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.

That they mention only bits and pieces of Matthew's (Gk) gospel, and maybe something from the major letters of Paul, may just be the intent of the authors to remain true to the memories of these folks in the popular Christian consciousness, and not include intentional anachronisms. If we look hard enough, though, unintentional anachronisms probably do exist in them, if they are really the products of pious story-telling (myth making) and moral admonitions from later times and projected back.
I wonder how much Justin knew, and how much is later tradition ie. due to 'editing'.

Irenaeus, it seems to me, is the very first Christian father who exhibits knowledge of virtually every canonical NT book, and claims at least a minor association with Polycarp (sat at the man's feet1, but I don't know if he was teaching adults as Irenaeus listened in, or was recounting stories for kiddies, or was even reading aloud from his published canons of NT sacred scripture). While I realize SA has his own take on the historicity of Irenaeus, I think that it is more likely that he did exist, right around the middle of the 2nd century.
1 Adv Haers 3.3.4.

I wonder how much of the texts of Irenaeus are real: I recently presented an argument he might have lived in Galatia, Asia Minor, rather than in Gaul, Lyons (which is really only asserted by Eusebius). See http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=3526



Since it seems unlikely that the actual authors of the "Apostolic fathers" or even Justin were aware of most of the books that Irenaeus knew about, I'd have to put the dates of their composition before the books popularized by Irenaeus became commonly known. Earliest decades of the 2nd century?
You'd put the dates of composition of the the books popularised by Irenaeus as 'earliest decades of the 2nd C?


I am guessing along with others, particularly David Trobisch, that Polycarp was the one to first publish sets of books for devotional use, from his hometown of Smyrna, Asia Minor, although I am not sure how many of the "big 4" collections this included
  • (e = four gospels Mt, Mk, Lk & Jn;
  • a = Acts of the Apostles & General letters i.e., James, Jude, John, but not of Paul;
  • p = 13 letters of Paul +/- Hebrews; and
  • r = Revelation of Jesus Christ to his Slave John),
or whether the earliest editions of these sets of books were different than what ended up being preserved.
Yes, that's hard to know. That leads to considering memoirs or proto- or ur- texts.

eta: Can you elaborate on 'e', 'a', 'p', and 'r', Dave?
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by MrMacSon »

Jax wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:29 pm
... I don't think that Revelation belongs with the Johannine material. It seems like it was produced very early.
Jax wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:31 pm
I was under the impression that the letter of Mathetes to Diognetus was meanty. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diognetus.html
Cheers. I think Revelation could be from or based on another tradition, such as a pagan religion.

y I'll edit it.
Jax wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:29 pm
I produced that other spreadsheet to illustrate possible ordering based on dependency of some of the writings on the others. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
Cheers.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Bernard Muller »

Origen states that Basilides himself interpreted Romans 7:9 in this sense,

The Apostle said, 'I lived without a law once,' that is, before I came into this body, I lived in such a form of body as was not under a law, that of a beast namely, or a bird.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilides#Sources

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:56 pm 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.
I'm not sure "the sayings and deeds of Christ" is reference to a whole book (such as gMark) or even a significant part of it / a known text or book

Since you want to keep the Didache (BTW, the Didache without the Christian additions but with many quotes from gMatthew can be dated before 97 CE from its own internal evidence), then you should also put 1 Clement (X for 1 Corinthians and Hebrews, X or ? for gMark), and Barnabas' epistle (X for gMatthew, ? for gLuke & Acts), which also through the internal evidence would be late 1st century.
We can look at adding these or doing a similar table about then when we've finished looking at what we have so far. Though feel free to comment in this thread about them and the passages they refer to.

Since you have Marcion on your list, you should have also other Gnostics also, such as Basilides and Valentinus.

According to Hippolytus of Rome, Basilides (120-140 CE) knew about the gospels stories and quoted gJohn, gLuke (on the godly conception) and gMatthew. Valentinus quoted gLuke (also on the godly conception).

Aristides and Quadratus also have gospels material in their surviving writings.

All details & evidence here: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

Cordially, Bernard
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.

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

.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Jax »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:37 pm I was under the impression that the letter of Mathetes to Diognetus was meanty. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diognetus.html
y I'll edit it.
Cool.

Also, from the link, "It is widely believed that the last two chapters were added at a later time. There are two schools as to its dating, one which favors a date approximately 130 CE and the other which favors a date approximately 200 CE or even later in the third century. I am not sure if there is evidence to resolve the question.".

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

Cheers.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:56 pm 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....
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Jax wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:55 pmAlso 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.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Bernard Muller »

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
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:17 pm
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 ?
Post Reply