Can We Actually Date Patristic Texts With Any Degree of Accuracy?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Can We Actually Date Patristic Texts With Any Degree of Accuracy?

Post by Secret Alias »

I was going to write this as a post for another thread but decided to make this a separate thread.

Look at the relationship between Against the Valentinians (AV) and Against Heresies 1 (AH 1) in the other thread. Unmistakable dependence. Against Heresies 3 and Against the Jews too. Against Hermogenes by Tertullian and an older text attributed to Theophilus of Antioch. Against Marcion 4 and Justin or Irenaeus's Against Marcion.

If we had just one of these texts we'd say - it was written when 'author X' wrote the text. But once we become aware of Tertullian's copying of an earlier writer dating becomes problematic. For instance:

1. if we only had Tertullian's AV we'd date Valentinus to the third century not mid second century.
2. if Eusebius didn't tell us that Theophilus wrote Against Hermogenes and if Tertullian's text didn't mention a previous visit to Antioch we'd think that Hermogenes lived in Carthage mid-third century (in fact many still do).

The list goes on and on. That's why AV's reference to Marcus and Gaius is so significant. When do we date Gaius IF Gaius is Gaius of Rome?

On the one hand Eusebius says that he had a treatise of Gaius's dialogue with Proculus which dated to the time of Zephyrinus. But Photius had a marginal note in Josephus's On the World or whatever it was called which ascribed the authorship to Gaius. Some say it was Hippolytus. But the point is that our dating of texts assumes that all topical references date to the time the text was written. But if they were recycling of earlier material all dating goes out the window.

I think AV is more original that the Valentinian material in AH 1. The two MSS follow one another and then at a critical juncture where all sorts of sexual malpractices are described in AV, AH 1 jumbles the order and removes the tawdry references. The tawdry references are original. The sect resembles reporting about the Carpocratians in Hegesippus and pagan slurs against early Christians. But AV makes reference to Gaius of Rome (in the present tense) and Marcus the gnostic (in the past tense). Gaius is said to have been a bishop of Rome. But he can't have lived at the time while Victor and Zephyrinus were bishops of Rome. Perhaps Gaius was the first name of Victor. But dating of MS's based on passing references in Eusebius are impossible.

Eusebius's Dialogue With Proculus might have had internal evidence that it was written at the time of Zephyrinus. But look at the Moscow MS of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The conclusion has Irenaeus as one of the authors of the MS. Then a list of others at later dates. If we didn't have the Moscow MS we wouldn't have that critical piece of information.

We can't date Patristic MS's with any degree of certainty.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Can We Actually Date Patristic Texts With Any Degree of Accuracy?

Post by Stuart »

Short answer is no. Long answer is not today.

A big part of the reason is the field struggles is because of the tendency to want to believe tradition. Even if a scholar finds a piece doesn't fit it's supposed time, contradicts facts on the ground, but fits later, they only adjust the one piece, leaving the rest of the pieces of the puzzle intact. But if you look, you'll find scholars have found nearly every piece doesn't fit where it's supposed to, but only a few dare say all the pieces are out of place, since that upsets the traditions.

To specifics, we rely on the pseudo autobiographical material to be somewhat accurate. At this point most hold onto the notion "at least a kernel of truth in most myths." We also hold the same to suspension of belief to the stories of other Patristic figures.

If we applied the same rigorous examination of the stories we do to the NT, we'd see the recycled tropes, the parallels drawn from popular literature of antiquity to fill out the lives and stories, even create them. How dialogue is invented and so on. If we did so we'd realize that when we accept the stories we are are doing the equivalent of reading Shakespeare as the actual history.

I think you have already discovered that Irenaeus (as I've been trying to tell you for years) is like Tertullian, an anthology of works that may look like its from one author in much the same way Luke-Acts does, because of the editor, decades or even a century or more later. Detering discovered this about the writings under the name Augustine. None of these works enjoyed the modest protection Canon.

The group of writings I most suspect of being far later -- as in over a century-- than traditionally dated (besides the Dialogue of Justin) are the apologies. None of them are credible, nor make any sense for their content, as they insult the emperor and his religion, and are far too long to have ever been read by him anyway, and are too generic. When we compare these to actual letters and pleas to emperors they don;t come close. Real appeals are short, to the point, mention only immediately relevant facts or circumstances concerning specific persons on trail or sentenced.Emperors got hundreds of appeals and heard hundred of cases when they held court. You only had a couple minutes to present your case. What we have instead are long treatise asking for vague protection of the faith while telling the emperor to his face his religion is bunk. Sort of like appealing to the leader of Saudi Arabia in a really long op-ed piece that attacks the religion of Islam as bunk, and oh by the way can let off all the Christians you are unjustly accusing. That is how these apologies read, when not digressing into details of various Christian heretics, which are way off topic. I thus think they probably belong to an era when the emperors were more positively disposed to Christianity, which is to say the 4th century. But they are written as a sort of fantasy literature of how you tell them off, because we won in the end, didn't we. Sort of like Hollywood movies about getting the Nazis from the start (e.g., Indiana Jones).

If we apply common sense, most of the material drifts away from their supposed authorship, time and place. The authors become less clear. Is there any reason to think Clement or Iraneaus or Hippolytus are anymore the authors than Peter, James and Jude are the authors of the NT epistles?

Anyway, I welcome that you are waking up to the problem. It's a really big problem, since everything is based on the veracity of the Patristics.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Can We Actually Date Patristic Texts With Any Degree of Accuracy?

Post by Charles Wilson »

Stuart wrote: Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:36 amIt's a really big problem, since everything is based on the veracity of the Patristics
There are other "Objective Markers" but things may not lead to Veridical Expressions either.
The Mishmarot Priesthood was based on the 24 Groups listed in 1 Chronicles 24. Is this a valid Area of Study? A valid Area of Study for the Early Christians? Not to many here on this site and I just don't know why.

For ex.: You can find out who was on Duty at the 4 BCE Passover and who followed for the Sabbath in 3 days.

Mark 1: 7 (RSV):

[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

So much in one verse. So much.

And yet..."How can you say that Bilgah and Immer were on Duty at Passover in 4 BCE?"

Because Josephus tells us a Date for the Fall of Jerusalem and an early Rabbi states that as Jehoiarib was on Duty at the first Fall of the Temple, so, on a bad day, Jehoiarib was there on Duty at the Fall of the Second. OH!, and that much of the NT is based on this Story.

Proof Positive? No.

Like Peter, who would have been in his eighties at the Fall of the Temple - except that Peter's actions were supposed to occur in the thirties - no one can agree on any of this.

It's frustrating, as you suggest.
All I am suggesting is that there are other Sources than "the Patristics".
These Sources may not be any better.

Best,

CW
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Can We Actually Date Patristic Texts With Any Degree of Accuracy?

Post by perseusomega9 »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:38 am Eusebius's Dialogue With Proculus might have had internal evidence that it was written at the time of Zephyrinus. But look at the Moscow MS of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The conclusion has Irenaeus as one of the authors of the MS. Then a list of others at later dates. If we didn't have the Moscow MS we wouldn't have that critical piece of information.
Who are the others you mentioned?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Can We Actually Date Patristic Texts With Any Degree of Accuracy?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

perseusomega9 wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:06 am
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:38 am Eusebius's Dialogue With Proculus might have had internal evidence that it was written at the time of Zephyrinus. But look at the Moscow MS of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The conclusion has Irenaeus as one of the authors of the MS. Then a list of others at later dates. If we didn't have the Moscow MS we wouldn't have that critical piece of information.
Who are the others you mentioned?
He probably means Gaius, Socrates/Isocrates, and Pionius:

Martyrdom of Polycarp 22.2-3 (Ehrman translation): 2 Gaius transcribed these things from the papers of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp; he also lived in the same city as Irenaeus. And I, Socrates, have written these things in Corinth from the copies made by Gaius. May grace be with everyone. 3 And I, Pionius, then sought out these things and produced a copy from the one mentioned above, in accordance with a revelation of the blessed Polycarp, who showed it to me, as I will explain in what follows. And I gathered these papers together when they were nearly worn out by age, so that the Lord Jesus Christ may gather me together with his chosen ones into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen.

Alternate epilogue to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, from the Mosquensis (Ehrman translation): 1 Gaius transcribed these things from the writings of Irenaeus; he also lived in the same city with Irenaeus, a disciple of the holy Polycarp. 2 For this Irenaeus was in Rome when the bishop Polycarp was martyred, and he taught many people. And many of his writings — which are excellent and supremely true — are in circulation; in them he remembers Polycarp, because he studied under him. He powerfully refuted every heresy and passed on the ecclesiastical and universal rule of faith, as he received it from the holy one. 3 He also says that Marcion, from whom come those who are called Marcionites, once met the holy Polycarp and said, "You need to recognize us, Polycarp." But he then replied to Marcion, "I do recognize you — I recognize the firstborn of Satan!" 4 This also is found in the writings of Irenaeus, that on the day and hour that Polycarp was martyred in Smyrna, Irenaeus, who was in the city of the Romans, heard a voice like a trumpet saying, "Polycarp has been martyred." 5 And so, as was indicated before, Gaius made a transcription from the writings of Irenaeus, as Isocrates did, in Corinth, from the copies of Gaius. And then I, Pionius, wrote a copy from those of Isocrates, in accordance with a revelation of the holy Polycarp, after seeking out these writings and gathering them together when they were nearly worn out by age, so that the Lord Jesus Christ may gather me together with his chosen ones into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory, with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, forever and ever. Amen.

Sidenote: I myself just love scribal notes like these.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Can We Actually Date Patristic Texts With Any Degree of Accuracy?

Post by Secret Alias »

Me too. Yes that's what I meant. I also love knowing that these things even exist. It's the way people who stored P95 masks from the days they worked in a hospital feel today. Something useful just floating around in your memory banks.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Can We Actually Date Patristic Texts With Any Degree of Accuracy?

Post by Secret Alias »

I was telling my son (as a means of distinguishing my generation from the current video game addicts) my idea of fun at 7 or 10 was to turn over (i.e. face down) a deck of cards spread out all over the carpet and try to 'match' aces with aces, sevens with sevens. Did this for hours. No one needs a memory any more. We have Google now. When I was in the gifted program as a child teachers from around the country (Canada) would come around and sometimes they would take me out of class so I could talk to them and I would say I wasn't smart at all, I just had a good memory. Smart kid.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply