Clement Dated Luke to the Middle of the Second Century

[Stuart]

Irenaeus is not 2nd century, but a collection of material that spans 3rd and 4th century.

The very same reasons you doubt Tertullian (and I agree with some) need to be applied to the other church father writings. Ignatius is unknown -- or at least his supposed writings, until well into the 4th century. The writings of Irenaeus include references to the Anatheus controversy as it relates to the primacy of Rome. The Apologies of Tertiullian and Justin are op-ed pieces that fall apart under scrutiny and look nothing like actual letters and petitions to Imperial officials that have survived in the archeological record. The absurdity of spending large amounts of the appeal in attacks on the religion of the Emperor is beyond impossible. But these apologies do fit the politics of much later era when the Christian Emperors wished to cast themselves as better than the so called Good Emperors Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. The Dialogue with Trypho is a composite work, which might have an early element, but includes subsequent material from later hands.

There is not a church father, up to at least Augustine, that does not show signs of significant post-mortem material (if one believes the legends of their lives hold even a modicum of truth). Whether Origin, Justin, Irenaeus or others, we are dealing with often heavily interpolated documents whose authorship is as pseudonymous as the New Testament writings.

There is no evidence, outside of Christian and Christianized sources for persecutions (modern sense) of Christian prior to Decius (there is good strong evidence for this event, and North African lore is in line with this). The prevalence of this theme and especially of dubious Jewish persecution, suggests a much later era when Christianity and Judaism were actually sparring for influence among officialdom.

Having opened up the worms in the Tertullian legend and authorship, you make fair game all the other church fathers you cling to authenticity. But you do not apply the same or even half the same critical eye. Until you start to do that, it's hard to hold your claims with much weight, as you have not approached the sources with the same level of scrutiny. Examine more closely the problems with the Irenaeus and Origin writings first.

[Secret Alias]

Hmmmm. If the collection was made in the third century then the material dates back to sometime before the third century, right? And Polycarp's Letter (while likely falsified) is still earlier or as early as the material behind the third century collection.

[Secret Alias]

I'm intrigued by the parallel in meaning between 'Aristo' and 'Proteus.' The former means 'first-rank, noble' the second derives from 'first.' The problem is that Aristion is the most common form.

[Joseph D. L.]

I'm intrigued by the parallel in meaning between 'Aristo' and 'Proteus.' The former means 'first-rank, noble' the second derives from 'first.' The problem is that Aristion is the most common form.

That is something I have wondered to myself--if Peregrinus was Ariston and the figure known as Lucan, the disciple of Marcion. The general timeline still adds up.

But I think Peregrinus is Marcion, and Ignatius and Polycarp are just later traditions stemming from this. Everything just fits to me.

[Secret Alias]

-if Peregrinus was Ariston and the figure known as Lucan, the disciple of Marcion

Too many what ifs for my liking.

But I think Peregrinus is Marcion

Nah. I think a better case can be made for Polycarp/Ignatius.

[Joseph D. L.]

Polycarp and Ignatius align with his second period, whereas Marcion aligns with his first period.

Peregrinus and Marcion...

1) both come from roughly the same place at roughly the same time,
2) both are accused of seduction,
3) both have some vague troubled relationship with their fathers,
4) both are regarded as gentiles who fell in with a Jewish sectarian community,
5) both go against their Jewish masters and are excommunicated,
6) both are in Rome at roughly the same time,
7) the figures of Mark of Jerusalem and Markianos of Alexandria appear at times corresponding to Peregrinus's stay in those regions
8) both have an association with gods of the sea, Proteus for Peregrinus, Pontus for Marcion,
9) both are figures of an Unknown/Stranger God,
10, both are said to be wealthy and give generous sums to their communities

These are just some of the more generalized appropriations between Peregrinus and Marcion. When/if you accept that Marcion and Paul are just pseudonyms for the same, ghostly figure, is when the similarities between Marcion and Peregrinus becomes too much to over look. Peregrinus is the Holy Image by fire/Paul magnifies Christ within his body; Peregrinus gave away his wealth/Paul remembers the poor; Peregrinus wishes for a death like Hercules/Paul is crucified and raised with Christ; Peregrinus is excommunicated for eating offensive meat/Paul accuses Cephas of hypocrisy for not eating offensive meat in the presence of other Jews.

[Joseph D. L.]

I came to this conclusion before reading Detering's article on it, so take that for what it's worth. This is just how I see it and am willing to accept potential holes in my assessment.

[andrewcriddle]

It has been seriously suggested that Onesimus the runaway slave in Paul's letter to Philemon (not the Pastorals) and Onesimus the bishop in Ignatius are the same person fifty years apart.

Andrew Criddle

This is literature, anything is possible with legends (look at Star Trek and Harry Potter; heck Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer), there need be only the slightest connection to reality. And Onesimus is a legend that build up dramatically over time.

I think you are reading Philemon (which is pretty universally thought of as deutero-Pauline origin) far too literally. The concepts slavery and freedom have deep symbolic theological meaning in Paul, and this does not refer to earthly bondage (i.e., bond-servant = slave in out English text). Over and over in Paul we see reference to the concepts of bondage to the elements of the Universe and to the Jewish legal code, but freedom in the correct doctrine of Christ. These concepts are almost certainly what is being expressed about the "useful one" (the literal meaning of Onesimus; clearly a literary name and not a real person), who was once useless and a slave and is now useful and freed from bondage.

There are many instances of characters encountered in the New Testament who live on in greater glory in legend and apocryphal acts. This is a well known phenomena from Thomas to Paul to Peter to Simon to Aquila. Given that, I find your incredulity incredulous.

Of course if your reply was tongue in cheek, then my bad for taking it seriously.

My personal position is that:
a/ Philemon is a genuine letter of Paul (there is certainly no consensus that it is deutero-Pauline)
b/ On the traditional date of Ignatius' letters (the time of Trajan) the identity of Onesimus is Paul and Onesimus in Ignatius is very plausible
c/ The traditional date of Ignatius' letters is too early. Ignatius probably wrote in the time of Hadrian, hence it is unlikely that the Onesimus in Paul and the Onesimus in Ignatius can be the same person.

Andrew Criddle

[Joseph D. L.]

Ignatius probably wrote in the time of Hadrian, hence it is unlikely that the Onesimus in Paul and the Onesimus in Ignatius can be the same person.

Unless of course Paul likewise was active in the time of Hadrian.