NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by MrMacSon »


Here is a modification of a table that appeared in another thread, with the Fathers and their columns rearranged more in ascending chronology and Marcion brought into this side of the table, rather than being left among the canons (which have been left out).

I'd like to look at the passages that give rise to propositions or conclusions that each Patristic Father knew each of the NT books.

It seems that, in a lot of cases, Fathers only allude to a passage or two (or three or so) and not much else, and even then, it may be a coincidence.

Let's start with Polycarp as per http://www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml

But feel free to comment on any of the Fathers and things that show they new the various NT books.

We can even change the categories; Initially -
  • X = Allusion to, or Passage from;
  • O = Named as Authoritiative;
  • ? = disputed
Now -
  • ? = disputed.
  • X = Allusion to, or small passage/s from.
  • O = Named as Authoritiative.

[ [ [
? = disputed.

X = Allusion to, or small passage/s from.

O = Named as Authoritiative;

Papias


c.130 to 140

Mathetes' letter to Diognetus

c. 150


Didache

c. 120
to 150

Marcion

Polycarp


c. 110
to 150

Justin Martyr

c. 150 - 155

Irenaeus


fl. 160
to 202

Tertullian


c 190
to 220

Clement of Alexandria

fl. 185
to 210

Origen


fl. 200
to 254

Eusebius


c. 325
to 340

Cyril of Jerusalem

c. 315
to 386

Jerome
Matthew
?
x
x
x
o
x
x
o
o
o
o
Mark
?
?
?
x
x
x
x
x
o
o
o
Luke
x
o
x
x
o
o
x
o
o
o
o
John
?/x
o
o
x
x
o
o
o
o
Acts
x
x
o
x
x
x
o
o
o
Romans
x
o
x
x
o
x
o
x
o
o
o
I Cor
x
o
x
x
o
x
o
x
o
o
o
2 Cor
x
o
x
x
o
x
o
x
o
o
o
Galatians
x
o
x
x
o
x
o
x
o
o
o
Ephesians
o
x
x
o
x
x
x
o
o
o
Philippians
o
?
o
x
o
x
o
o
o
Colossians
x
o
x
x
o
x
o
x
o
o
o
1 Thess
x
o
?
x
o
x
x
x
o
o
o
2 Thess
o
?
x
o
x
x
x
o
o
o
I Timothy
x
?
x
x
o
x
o
o
o
2 Timiothy
?
x
x
x
o
o
o
Titus
x
x
x
o
x
o
o
o
Philemon
o
x
o
o
o
Hebrews
?
x
x
o
?
o
o
o
James
?
o
o
1 Peter
x
x
o
x
o
o
o
o
o
2 Peter
?
?
o
o
1 John
?
o
x
o
o
o
o
2 John
x
x
?
?
o
o
3 John
?
?
o
o
Jude
x
x
o
?
o
o
Revelation
?/x/o
x
o
o
x
o
o
o
o


Note the absences of allusions or references to James, 2 Peter, and 3 John before Origen or Eusebius, and even then by way of ?

Is 2 John secure with Polycarp or Irenaeus ??


.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:17 pm, edited 8 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 »

.
Here's a comparison table - http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Here's Justin Martyr from that site - http://www.ntcanon.org/Justin_Martyr.shtml
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Peter Kirby »

Feels like some of this needs to be normalized a bit for the size of the source (e.g. Jude, Philemon, 2 & 3 John) when making some forms of arguments based on the relative known reference count.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Jax »

I wonder at Papias alluding to the John Gospel and naming as authoritative Revelation. What sources did you use to decide this?
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Jax »

Nice table BTW. Would it help, I wonder, to list the NT material in the order that it might have been composed rather than the way it is listed in the cannon today?
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Michael BG »

Jax wrote: Nice table BTW. Would it help, I wonder, to list the NT material in the order that it might have been composed rather than the way it is listed in the cannon today?
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.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: NT books apparently known by Patristic Fathers

Post by Jax »

Michael BG wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:25 am
Jax wrote: Nice table BTW. Would it help, I wonder, to list the NT material in the order that it might have been composed rather than the way it is listed in the cannon today?
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.
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 »

I don't think the Didache should be on that list, because it was not written by any Patristic fathers.
Papias alluded to gMatthew? I wonder about where is the evidence for that.

Of course, we cannot assume the patristic fathers had to allude to or quote or named all the NT texts they knew about. That was not the purpose of what they wrote.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
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 9:03 am I don't think the Didache should be on that list, because it was not written by any Patristic fathers.
Papias alluded to gMatthew? I wonder about where is the evidence for that.
You know the evidence for it. The issue is whether or not our canonical Matthew is one of the Greek translations mentioned in the quotation. It is absolutely fine to argue that it is not; but on a general chart like this it would be positively disingenuous to overlook that passage or blithely assume in advance that it cannot refer to the text we know as Matthew. The possibility is very real.

What I am not sure about in this particular tabular system is the question mark symbol. Does it mean that it is questionable whether the father referred to the text at all (in which case it serves as a diluted X), or merely that it is questionable whether the father quoted it as authoritative (in which case it serves as a diluted O)? If the former, I would be in favor of a question mark both for Matthew and for Mark in the Papias column. But there has to be something for both Matthew and Mark in that column.
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 »

to Ben,
Yes, I forgot about the logias of Matthew. But I think that should be marked in the column as a ? .

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply