RSS

Apostolic Succession, part II

07 Aug
Here is a nice rundown of “Apostolic Succession” tracing the authorship of the gospel of Mark (the first gospel written) compiled by Joe Wallack at FRDB:
 
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to “Mark” and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word “disciples”) to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul – 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/…r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul – Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/…r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to “Mark” in the first century because there was no Gospel “Mark” to attribute to at the time.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi…t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

CAUTION – It's generally agreed that extant “Ignatius” contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and doctrine of birth, passion and resurrection.

Christian doctrine starts with Paul's Assertian of resurrection. Now it has expanded to passion and birth. Why birth? Apparently at the time of Magnesians there are those who deny that Jesus was born. Presumably these are Gnostics who existed before any Canonical Gospel.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and three mystery doctrine of virginity of Mary and birth and death of Jesus.

c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Does show awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics that even hierarchy is subject to. Doctrines of Faith expanded to Negative command. It is blasphemy (evil) not to believe them. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Philosophical argument with historical emphasis. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics.

c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha…7/Gospel1.html

Per Tertullian and Epiphanius Marcion did not claim that his Gospel was from historical witness. Marcion's Gospel has Peter and the twelve as Disciples and as historical witness to Jesus' Ministry and Passion but never shows them as understanding Jesus' Mission. Note that this is the first point in the Timelion where there is basic agreement with “Mark” regarding the role of Peter and the Disciples. They were historical witness to Jesus' Mission but did not understand it and did not document it. This is probably the best category of evidence to evaluate which was earlier, Marcion “Luke” or orthodox “Luke”, because the primary purpose of the original Gospel is to discredit Peter and the Disciples. It is orthodox “Luke” which flips the issue and makes Peter and the Disciples historical witness that did understand Jesus and the Gospel that is the Reaction to the original (“Mark”) is likely the later.

c. 145 Second Clement [Forged]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm

JW:
Emphasis on Revelation. The Church as a witness is spiritual (as opposed to historical). Quotes supposed historical conversation between Jesus and Peter. No explicit assertian that Peter documented his witness. Emphasis on Eschatological.

c. 145 Epistle of the Apostles

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi…ng/episaps.htm

JW:
Claimed Witness has completely flipped here from Revelation to Historical.
Explicit claim that historical disciples (including Peter, Cephas and Judas) have written this Gospel. Assertian that supposed authors are aware of Gnostics Simon and Cerinthus. Conflict between orthodox and Gnostics, both originally based on Revelation, which has moved to supposed Historical claims. Note that for this author to claim that Peter and Cephas are part of a joint effort behind the Gospel and no mention of “Mark” indicates that this author either has never heard of “Mark”, does not consider it authoritative or even considers it a Gnostic product.

c. 155 Justin Martyr

http://www.textexcavation.com/justinmartyr.html#misc

Justin also refers to the memoirs of the apostles, or some variation thereof, a number of times:

* Apology 1.33.5.
* Apology 1.66.3.
* Apology 1.67.3.
* Dialogue 100.4.
* Dialogue 101.3b.
* Dialogue 102.5.
* Dialogue 103.6a.
* Dialogue 103.8.
* Dialogue 104.1b-2.
* Dialogue 105.1.
* Dialogue 105.5b.
* Dialogue 105.6.
* Dialogue 106.1.
* Dialogue 106.3.
* Dialogue 106.4.
* Dialogue 107.1.

JW:
Familiar with Synoptics. Claimed Witness has completely flipped here from Revelation to Historical. Explicit claims that historical disciples have written Gospels. No attribution of names to Gospels (one possible reference to Peter's memoirs, http://www.textexcavation.com/justin…ml#sonsthunder ). No mention of “Mark” and no mention of Paul. No mention of Acts. It would appear that at this time orthodox Christianity accepted that there were Gospels from Historical witnesses but had not given these Gospels official names.

The Timelion is starting to flesh out here:

1) Revelation from Paul. Ignore Historical witness.

2) Revelation from Paul supplemented by Historical witness.

3) Orthodox/Gnostic split. Orthodox say HW understood. Gnostics (Marcion El All) say they did not.

4) Orthodox flip from emphasis on Revelation to emphasis on Historical. Paul is associated with Gnostics and not mentioned by orthodox.

5) Justin Martyr.

6) Acts written reconciling Paul/Revelation to Peter/History. Orthodox bring Paul back into mention.

Joseph

And then step (7) is Irenaeus naming the gospels, the first witness to the Pastoral Epistles, and his arguments against the Gnostics in “Against Heresies” in 180 CE…

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on Apostolic Succession, part II

Posted by on August 7, 2009 in early Christianity

 

Comments are closed.

 
NeuroLogica Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Slate Star Codex

"Talks a good game about freedom when out of power, but once he’s in - bam! Everyone's enslaved in the human-flourishing mines."

Κέλσος

Matthew Ferguson Blogs

The Wandering Scientist

Just another WordPress.com site

NT Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Euangelion Kata Markon

A blog dedicated to the academic study of the "Gospel According to Mark"

PsyPost

Behavior, cognition and society

PsyBlog

Understand your mind with the science of psychology -

Vridar

Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Maximum Entropy

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

atheist, polyamorous skeptics

Criticism is not uncivil

Say..

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Research Digest

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Disrupting Dinner Parties

Feminism is for everyone!

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

The New Oxonian

Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient

The Musings of Thomas Verenna

A Biblioblog about imitation, the Biblical Narratives, and the figure of Jesus

%d bloggers like this: