I don't think so.
As quoted from Early Jewish Writings, the site doesn't present a "very flexible" dating of 4 Esdras.
No. I'm not going to try to hug the date of the Apocalypse of Peter to the very same year as 4 Esdras.
I don't think so.
As quoted from Early Jewish Writings, the site doesn't present a "very flexible" dating of 4 Esdras.
No. I'm not going to try to hug the date of the Apocalypse of Peter to the very same year as 4 Esdras.
It occurs to me that the "first century" has some quasi-mystical significance to some moderns and that the date corrections so far have involved nibbling around the edges of certain texts that might be brought into the first century more (and thus make it a better "first century" listing, as opposed to the separate thread for "second century" texts).
The latest date would be 380 because the Apostolic Constitutions from c. 375-380 mention the Apocryphal books the Three Patriarchs, and as John Fadden notes in his dissertation, "T. 3 Patr. is the only collection of books of Abraham,Isaac, and Jacob that is known from antiquity." (digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1970&context=etd)M. Delcor (no. 507, p. 83) affirms its earliness, suggesting because of affinities with the Dead Sea Scrolls that it may come from approximately the same milieu and date as the Testament of Abraham. Kuhn cautions, however, that there is really no convincing evidence for a precise dating of the Testament of Isaac (no. 904). Nagel (no. 907) argues that the Sahidic version, the earliest, is translated from Greek.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/EbionitesThe Ebionite movement may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (ad 70). Its members evidently left Palestine to avoid persecution and settled in Transjordan (notably at Pella) and Syria and were later known to be in Asia Minor and Egypt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EbionJerome believed that Ebion lived at the time of John the Apostle[6] and had been refuted by John for not believing Jesus existed before Mary.[7]
[6] Jerome, Dialogus Adversus Luciferianos, 23 & Matthew Prologue.
[7] Jerome, e Viris Illustribus Liber Ad Dextrum, 9.
I'm thinking that it is just one of the Greek translations that were made of the original Hebrew Matthew that Papias mentions in EH 3.39.16. If that is the case, then it would pre-date Papias, and I view Papias as being relatively early, as per Matthews in Philip, Apostle and Evangelist (pg. 30-31):They wrote the Gospel of the Ebionites probably based on the Gospel of Matthew, so it would have to be after that date.
There has been a propensity among modern scholars to date Papias' writing during the reign of Hadrian (117-138 GE) or later rather than earlier, although the reasoning behind such estimates is often not spelled out. Eusebius considers Papias in connection with his treatment of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome during the reign of Trajan (98~117 GE). As Vernon Bartlet has pointed out, in the third book of the Historia ecclesiastica, Eusebius nowhere goes beyond Trajan's time, and in fact still treats this period at the start of book four. "Eusebius . . . saw no reason . . . to infer from internal evidence that Papias wrote after rather than before A.D. 110, though he is at pains to refute Irenaeus's statement that Papias was actually 'a hearer and eye-witness of the sacred Apostles.' " Bartlet's view has recently been confirmed by Ulrich Kortner, whose interpretation of the Papias fragments substantiates the early date suggested by Eusebius' relative chronology. Kortner argues persuasively that the polemical function of Papias' work, the Tradentenkreis of the presbyters, and Papias' association with the daughters of Philip are all more suited to a time around 110 than the middle of the second century. Since there is no convincing reason to dispute Papias' contact with the daughters of Philip, a date before 110 CE for his writing is to be preferred, lest we find ourselves constantly rewarding early Christian figures with extraordinary life spans.
You know, I've always been inclined to think that too, but lately I'm starting to wonder why there couldn't have been someone named Ebion, and your comment is spurring me to look into it. And to my surprise, in addition to the usual things I've seen that say there is no way it could be, I'm seeing some interesting references to Lightfoot, who said a founder of sects named Ebion is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud. And if I read it correctly (in a broken up snippet view I can't find again), it appeared to be said to be in San. 29 "c," but there is no San. 29"c," of course, only a and b, and it is supposedly a saying of Rabbi Yohannan (ben Zakkai?). But he does not appear to be mentioned in San. 29a or b, though he is mentioned four times in San. 27b, and I don't see a reference to Ebion there yet (via a quick eyeball scan and word search of אביון, which is how it is spelled in the OT, since I can only find the Jerusalem Talmud online untranslated so far).... there was no leader named Ebion, and rather the group took its name Ebionites based on the meaning of the word, ie. "the poor".
And here are the references to Rabbi Yohannan in San. 27b (which can be scrolled down to 29a and b).... Lightfoot says that he is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud as a founder of sects.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WA1QA ... ud&f=false
Here is what I take to be the original reference in Lightfoot: https://books.google.com/books?id=-SlWA ... 22&f=false. (This is not the famous Lightfoot of the Victorian era, but rather John Lightfoot, the churchman from century XVII.)
Ah, thanks for the clarification. It feels like I've hit a roadblock though since I can't find what he saw in the Jerusalem Talmud.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:24 pmHere is what I take to be the original reference in Lightfoot: https://books.google.com/books?id=-SlWA ... 22&f=false. (This is not the famous Lightfoot of the Victorian era, but rather John Lightfoot, the churchman from century XVII.)