NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

[Jax]

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.

I think getting the NT materials to the right centuries will be all that is possible with the information that we have now. Pinning a date to even one document in the NT would be very helpful in working out when the rest were written but that is just not possible at current.

"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."

I agree completely.

[DCHindley]

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?.

Sure,

This kind of thing is David Trobisch's passion. NT texts tend to be transmitted in groups. These tend to have certain books in certain orders, but there are variations. To get a complete NT as we know it, you'd have to copy several groups of books, the e, a, p & r groups. Not every NT manuscript collection contained all four sub groups. For example, of the 3,159 manuscripts the following statistics covers, only 59 include the entire NT.

Here is a slight restatement/correction of Trobisch's Table 4 in The First Edition of the New Testament, pg. 27:

Category	Total	Percent	e	a	p	r
e	2,123	67.2%	2,123	0	0	0
ap*	273	8.6%	0	273	273	0
p	222	7.0%	0	0	222	0
eap**	150	4.7%	150	150	150	0
r	130	4.1%	0	0	0	130
a	87	2.8%	0	87	0	0
apr	76	2.4%	0	76	76	76
eapr	59	1.9%	59	59	59	59
ea	11	0.3%	11	11	0	0
er	11	0.3%	11	0	0	11
pr	6	0.2%	0	0	6	6
ep	5	0.2%	5	0	5	0
ar	3	0.1%	0	3	0	3
ear	2	0.1%	2	2	0	2
Total	3,158	100.0%	2,361	661	791	287
TNT (p83)			2,361	662	792	287
Variance*			0	1	1	0

* variance probably should be added to category "ap"
** not in Trobisch's table. Number derived from Barb & Kurt Aland's Text of the New Testament (2nd ed. 1989, pg. 83).
e = Gospels (usually in order Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn)
a = Acts of the Apostles and General Epistles (James, Jude, 1-3 John, 1-2 Peter)
p = Letters of Paul (Hebrews usually between 2 Thess & 1 Tim, if there at all, but this varies)
r = Revelation

Occasionally other, non canonical, books are included in larger mss.

If you have a UBS or NA edition of the NT, there should be tables explaining which manuscript group various papyri or parchments, uncials and minuscules, belong to.

DCH

[MrMacSon]

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?

Yes -

1. Suetonius, Vespasian 7

. ... Here having entered alone, without attendants, the temple of Serapis, to take the auspices respecting the establishment of his power, and having done his utmost to propitiate the deity, upon turning round, [his freedman] Basilides² appeared before him, and seemed to offer him the sacred leaves, chaplets, and cakes, according to the usage of the place, although no one had admitted him

---

² Tacitus describes Basilides as a man of rank among the Egyptians, and he appears also to have been a priest, as we find him officiating at Mount Carmel, c. v. This is so incompatible with his being a Roman freedman, that commentators concur in supposing that the word "libertus," although found in all the copies now extant, has crept into the text by some inadvertence of an early transcriber. Basilides appears, like Philo Judaeus, who lived about the same period, to have been half-Greek, half-Jew, and to have belonged to the celebrated Platonic school of Alexandria.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 1348,020:7

2. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1M ... an&f=false

3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/297052?seq ... b_contents

[MrMacSon]

I was under the impression that the letter of Mathetes to Diognetus was meant^y. 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.

There is no Jesus in the Roberts-Donaldson english translation of that letter and, while there are lots of references to Christians, the only reference to 'Christ' is in the heading of Chapter VII.

I often wonder if such letters or texts are about a 'tradition or religion other than 'Jesus-of-Nazareth' Christianity.

.

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

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.

Yes, but if you do not include texts written at the same time than Marcion, or before him, your conclusions will be different. Essentially, you'll conclude that external evidence came late and a lot of it from Marcion.
And of course you do not take in account the internal evidence from these canonical texts, nor the sequencing of these texts between themselves, nor the existence of evidence in a later text about an earlier one, all of these which would point for many canonical texts to have been written in the 1st century.

Cordially, Bernard

[Michael BG]

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

Kay has a translation from the Syriac

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, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, 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, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

chapter 2.

“Son of Most High God” is not in John 1:1-2, 14. It is used at Mk 5:7 (Lk 8:28).

“it is said that God came down from heaven” is not in John 1:1-2, 14. It is the Word who was with God and became flesh.

“from a Hebrew virgin” the gospels of Matthew and Luke have separate traditions.

“assumed and clothed himself with flesh” is not in John 1:14 which has “the Word became flesh”. While Romans 8:3 has “God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh”.

“the Son of God lived in a daughter of man”; there is no “daughter of man” in the New Testament.

“he had twelve disciples”; Mark 2:15 “were sitting with Jesus and his disciples, for they were many and they followed him” and Mark 3:16 “And he appointed twelve”.

“he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven” Mark 8:31 “rejected by the elders, and the chief-priests and the scribes and be killed and after three days rise again”; Acts 2:29-34 … David … died and was buried … Jesus … raised up … exalted … David … ascend into the heavens”.

“these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world” Mark 16:20 “And they went forth and preached everywhere”; Luke 24:47 “repentance and the forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations”; Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations”.

The only words that come close to having an exact match are “Son of Most High God” but because the term “Most High God” is used in the Old Testament I do not think we should conclude these words are being quoted from either Mark or Luke. 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.

[MrMacSon]

to MrMacSon,

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.

Yes, but if you do not include texts written at the same time than Marcion, or before him, your conclusions will be different. Essentially, you'll conclude that external evidence came late and a lot of it from Marcion.

I take your point, but I'm not trying to come to a conclusion about where information came from yet.

I'm just trying to determine what evidence there is that each Patristic Father (or Marcion, or the didache) knew each of the NT books. I'm not sure one verse or three vague passages from a NT book is enough.
.

[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?

Yes -

1. Suetonius, Vespasian 7

. ... Here having entered alone, without attendants, the temple of Serapis, to take the auspices respecting the establishment of his power, and having done his utmost to propitiate the deity, upon turning round, [his freedman] Basilides² appeared before him, and seemed to offer him the sacred leaves, chaplets, and cakes, according to the usage of the place, although no one had admitted him

---

² Tacitus describes Basilides as a man of rank among the Egyptians, and he appears also to have been a priest, as we find him officiating at Mount Carmel, c. v. This is so incompatible with his being a Roman freedman, that commentators concur in supposing that the word "libertus," although found in all the copies now extant, has crept into the text by some inadvertence of an early transcriber. Basilides appears, like Philo Judaeus, who lived about the same period, to have been half-Greek, half-Jew, and to have belonged to the celebrated Platonic school of Alexandria.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 1348,020:7

2. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1M ... an&f=false

3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/297052?seq ... b_contents

It's obviously a different Basilides. The Basilides of Tacitus & Suetonius and Gnostic Basilides lived some 50 years apart. "Basilides" may have been a fairly common name: a Christian martyr had the same name around 200 CE.
And I do not know where did you get Mount Carmel.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

It's obviously a different Basilides. The Basilides of Tacitus & Suetonius and Gnostic Basilides lived some 50 years apart. "Basilides" may have been a fairly common name: a Christian martyr had the same name around 200 CE.

The 'Basilides of Tacitus & Suetonius' is a Basilides in Alexandria associated with a Serapeum and associated with Vespasian.

And associated with a prophecy for Vespasian - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1M ... an&f=false

.

[MrMacSon]

.
Notice that Domitan managed to escape by disguising himself as a priest of Isis in 69 AD, and later, in 92 AD, rebuilt a temple of Isis -

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1M ... an&f=false

.