Note: This research was originally done for my thread analyzing the origins of the Pauline epistles, but seeing as it also encompasses the remainder of the New Testament (and to a lesser extent, the Old Testament and its deuterocanon) and its hopefully-wide-ranging use, I felt it earned a separate thread.
So, I've been curious on the dating and authorship of the New Testament books for a while now, and I figured what better way to get started than by analyzing the works of all the earliest scholars and bishops in Christianity (first/second century only for the moment - I've begun researching later scholars starting with Clement of Alexandria, but I'm not sure I'll finish) to determine which books of the Bible they used and when those books reached the public and gained the public's respect, if not when those books were authored. I noted some interesting patterns and some useful things to note, but first, the data:
Clement of Rome (35-99):
Epistle to the Corinthians (Clement):
No mentions of Judges, Ruth, 2 Samuel, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Mark!!, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians!!, Colossians?, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians!!, 1 Timothy?, 2 Timothy?, Philemon, 1 Peter, 2 Peter!!, 2 John!!, 3 John!!, Jude!!, Revelation!!
Hebrews is mentioned often
Titus is mentioned
Judith quoted
Wisdom of Solomon quoted
Note: Due to just how massive of a document this is compared to the rest, I didn't painstakingly track every single verse cited - you can find a general list with this tool suggested by @Peter Kirby - biblindex.org/citation_biblique/?lang=en. Keep in mind, this site is not complete, and I was able to find several definite scriptural references not included here, as well as several dubious or flat-out wrong references that were included. However, I did keep a rough estimate of what scriptures I would to be probably/definitely referenced, which is in the list of references by book of the Bible near the end.
Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155):
Epistle to the Philippians:
Matthew (5:44, 6:12-14, 7:1, 7:2, 26:41)
Luke (6:36-37)
Acts (5:41)
Romans (14:10-12)
1 Corinthians (6:9-10)
2 Corinthians (6:7, 8:21)
Galatians (1:1, 6:7)
Ephesians (2:8-9, 4:26)
1 Timothy (6:7, 6:10)
2 Timothy (2:12)
1 Thessalonians (5:17, 5:22)
1 Peter (1:8, 1:13, 1:21, 2:12, 2:17, 2:21, 2:22, 2:24, 3:9, 4:7, 4:16, 5:5)
1 John (4:3)
Tobit (4:10, 12:9)
"But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed!" - lost scripture?
No mentions of Mark, John, Philippians (2:10? 2:16?), Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation
Ignatius of Antioch (???-108/140):
Epistle to the Ephesians:
Ephesians (5:2)
1 Corinthians (1:10, 1:20, 6:9, 16:18)
1 Peter (2:5)
Matthew 7:20 or 12:33 or Luke 6:44
Matthew 26:7 or Mark 14:3 or John 12:3 or Luke 7:38
James (1:16)
Epistle to the Magnesians:
Matthew (27:52)
Proverbs (18:17)
Epistle to the Trallians:
Colossians (3:12)
1 Corinthians (16:18)
"Woe to him by whose vanity my name is blasphemed among any" - lost scripture?
Epistle to the Romans:
1 Corinthians (4:4, 9:24, 15:8-9)
2 Corinthians (4:18)
Matthew 16:26 or Mark 8:36
Epistle to the Philadelphians:
Galatians (1:1)
James (1:16)
John (3:8)
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:
Romans (1:3)
Luke (24:39)
Matthew (3:15, 19:12)
1 Corinthians (16:18)
Epistle to Polycarp:
Matthew (10:16)
Ephesians (5:25)
1 Thessalonians (5:17)
1 Corinthians (10:31)
No mentions of Mark, Acts, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy (1:1?), 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation
Papias of Hierapolis (60-130):
Fragment 5:
John (14:2)
1 Corinthians (15:25-28)
Fragment 6:
1 John?
1 Peter?
Gospel of Hebrews?
Fragment 8:
Revelation?
Note: Fragments 5 is directly quoted from Papias, while fragments 6 and 8 are secondhand testimony that claim Papias used 1 John/1 Peter/Gospel of Hebrews and accepted Revelation. Actual dialogue from Papias regarding these books is lost to time.
Quadratus of Athens (???-129):
N/A - No surviving writings with scriptural references
Pseudo-Clement of Rome (120-140)
2 Clement:
1 Timothy (1:17, 4:16, 6:11)
Note: Seeing as this is pseudo-Clement rather than an actual apostolic father, I only scanned for references to scriptures that were otherwise unattested/little-attested to in the other works above.
?+ = Too many references to count
Apostolic father references by the books of the Bible:
Matthew - 4 Ignatius, 5 Polycarp
Mark - N/A
Luke - 2 (?) Clement, 1 Ignatius, 1 Polycarp
John - 2 (?) Clement, 1 Ignatius, 1 Papias
Acts - 1 Polycarp, 1 Clement
Romans - 1 Polycarp, ?+ Clement, 1 Ignatius
1 Corinthians - 1 Polycarp, ?+ Clement, 10 Ignatius, 1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians - 2 Polycarp, 1 Ignatius
Galatians - 2 Polycarp, 1 Ignatius
Ephesians - 2 Polycarp, 1 Clement, 2 Ignatius
Philippians - N/A
Colossians - 1 Ignatius
1 Thessalonians - 2 Polycarp, 1 Ignatius
2 Thessalonians - N/A
1 Timothy - 2 Polycarp, 3 Pseudo-Clement
2 Timothy - 1 Polycarp
Titus - 1 Clement
Philemon - N/A
Hebrews - ?+ Clement
James - 2 Clement, 2 Ignatius
1 Peter - 12 Polycarp, 1 Ignatius
2 Peter - N/A
1 John - 1 Polycarp, 2 Clement
2 John - N/A
3 John - N/A
Jude - N/A
Revelation - N/A
OT - ?+ Clement, 1 Ignatius (Proverbs)
Noncanonical - 2 Polycarp (Tobit), 2 Clement (Judith, Wisdom)
Now, with the data in front of you, I would like to present some interesting patterns/things to note here, as well as my personal thoughts on what they might mean.
First, as far as the Pauline epistles go - the original reason I did this research - the info gleaned from this is about split down the middle in terms of agreeing with scholarly views on the authorship/dating of these books. 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy are only mentioned in Polycarp's epistles and later works (several prominent scholars have put forth the theory that Polycarp in fact authored these books). Colossians is only attested to once and 2 Thessalonians is not attested to at all, so accounting for a margin of error in my findings, it seems reasonable that these epistles (the disputed epistles) are possibly non-Pauline. However, simultaneously, Ephesians (counted among the disputed scriptures) is WELL accounted for by 3 Apostolic Fathers. Titus, one of the pastorals, has a very early reference in 1 Clement. Hebrews, almost unanimously agreed to be a later work in the style of Paul rather than a genuine Pauline writing, is also utilized heavily in 1 Clement.
Second, some of the smaller books here should not be considered non-extant or private at the time of writing even if they're unattested to. Books like Philemon, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude are so small that the likelihood they would be referenced is exceedingly low, genuine or not.
Third - and this one is really interesting to me - there does not appear to be a SINGLE indisputable reference to Mark in ANY of these writings. There are many possible uses of Mark, but every single one can be mirrored in another gospel. There's not even one reference to unique Markan material or even specifically Markan phrasing, which I find particularly interesting seeing as Markan priority seems to be a very common belief. Maybe Mark was written first but kept private until well after the other gospels were authored? I'm not sure. I feel like I'm missing something here - I'm very new to this after all - but this is certainly something to note.
Fourth, Revelation makes sense not being here, its usefulness was debated for, what, a couple centuries after this? So that's not really a concern to me.
Fifth, Philippians is conspicuously also missing from all these documents. I found many supposed references to Philippians when looking at citations that other scholars had found, but all of them were mirrored in other works of the Bible, so again, no unique material or even phrasing from Philippians.
Sixth, and this isn't something I've given too much thought so there's probably an explanation, but I do find it interesting that Clement doesn't seem to use any unique phrasing or material from Matthew. I would imagine Matthew would be his top pick seeing as he was so fond of the Old Testament compared to other scholars (and to my knowledge Matthew is more in line with the OT than other gospels), but I guess not.
Now, as for what I make of all this. To me, it seems like Titus is a legitimate Pauline writing and shouldn't be counted among the dubious pastoral epistles - it was such a small writing, anyways, that it's damn near impossible to put forth a solid argument for or against its authenticity based on the work itself. 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy are probably non-Pauline works - perhaps just 2 Timothy - and there's a very good chance that one or both were written by Polycarp or at the very least publicized by him. Regarding Mark, my best guess as to why its missing is that it must have been pretty closely guarded in the early years of Christianity - something something, secret knowledge from Jesus, something something. 2 Peter (and to a lesser extent 2/3 John since they're so small) are probably later forgeries which I think (?) is a common consensus - not really sure, I know next to nothing about the general epistles. Matthew, Romans, 1 Corinthians and Ephesians were all very beloved scriptures in early Christianity based on their usage - Polycarp also seems particularly fond of 1 Peter. Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon and Judith are all mentioned by these early scholars and they do seem to generally believe the works and consider them authentic scripture - though this may simply be because they were included in the Septuagint which is likely what they were using at the time. Hebrews, I'm a bit confused on - I would imagine Polycarp and Ignatius would quote from it often seeing its careful composition and many useful scriptures, but they don't. Maybe because they were writing to Greeks rather than Hebrews? Alternatively, there is a theory proposed by a few respected scholars that Clement was actually the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, so it's possible that he wrote the work, used it in 1 Clement, and Hebrews only made it to the public well after Clement's death. No idea what happened with Philippians, I guess it's maybe just coincidence that it's completely unattested, or perhaps Philippians has a substantial amount of unoriginal material compared to the other epistles so it wouldn't necessarily be needed (I don't know if this is the case, but if it is the case, it could be why Philippians isn't witnessed). I'm also not really sure what the "woe to him" quote in these works that is completely unparalleled in scripture, canonical or otherwise, is referring to. I did Google search it and found nothing, so I doubt it could be an extant non-Christian work, so they've surely either got to be lost writings or oral tradition, right?
Alright, think that's everything. Hopefully this helps as a nice shorthand for research to see whether a particular book/verse has been cited by the apostolic fathers. Feel free to discuss, or tell me where I'm wrong, or chime in with any research, or something. If you want.
Excuse any poor formatting on this thread, I'm operating off 3 hours of sleep. I'm so tired.
So, I've been curious on the dating and authorship of the New Testament books for a while now, and I figured what better way to get started than by analyzing the works of all the earliest scholars and bishops in Christianity (first/second century only for the moment - I've begun researching later scholars starting with Clement of Alexandria, but I'm not sure I'll finish) to determine which books of the Bible they used and when those books reached the public and gained the public's respect, if not when those books were authored. I noted some interesting patterns and some useful things to note, but first, the data:
Clement of Rome (35-99):
Epistle to the Corinthians (Clement):
No mentions of Judges, Ruth, 2 Samuel, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Mark!!, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians!!, Colossians?, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians!!, 1 Timothy?, 2 Timothy?, Philemon, 1 Peter, 2 Peter!!, 2 John!!, 3 John!!, Jude!!, Revelation!!
Hebrews is mentioned often
Titus is mentioned
Judith quoted
Wisdom of Solomon quoted
Note: Due to just how massive of a document this is compared to the rest, I didn't painstakingly track every single verse cited - you can find a general list with this tool suggested by @Peter Kirby - biblindex.org/citation_biblique/?lang=en. Keep in mind, this site is not complete, and I was able to find several definite scriptural references not included here, as well as several dubious or flat-out wrong references that were included. However, I did keep a rough estimate of what scriptures I would to be probably/definitely referenced, which is in the list of references by book of the Bible near the end.
Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155):
Epistle to the Philippians:
Matthew (5:44, 6:12-14, 7:1, 7:2, 26:41)
Luke (6:36-37)
Acts (5:41)
Romans (14:10-12)
1 Corinthians (6:9-10)
2 Corinthians (6:7, 8:21)
Galatians (1:1, 6:7)
Ephesians (2:8-9, 4:26)
1 Timothy (6:7, 6:10)
2 Timothy (2:12)
1 Thessalonians (5:17, 5:22)
1 Peter (1:8, 1:13, 1:21, 2:12, 2:17, 2:21, 2:22, 2:24, 3:9, 4:7, 4:16, 5:5)
1 John (4:3)
Tobit (4:10, 12:9)
"But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed!" - lost scripture?
No mentions of Mark, John, Philippians (2:10? 2:16?), Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation
Ignatius of Antioch (???-108/140):
Epistle to the Ephesians:
Ephesians (5:2)
1 Corinthians (1:10, 1:20, 6:9, 16:18)
1 Peter (2:5)
Matthew 7:20 or 12:33 or Luke 6:44
Matthew 26:7 or Mark 14:3 or John 12:3 or Luke 7:38
James (1:16)
Epistle to the Magnesians:
Matthew (27:52)
Proverbs (18:17)
Epistle to the Trallians:
Colossians (3:12)
1 Corinthians (16:18)
"Woe to him by whose vanity my name is blasphemed among any" - lost scripture?
Epistle to the Romans:
1 Corinthians (4:4, 9:24, 15:8-9)
2 Corinthians (4:18)
Matthew 16:26 or Mark 8:36
Epistle to the Philadelphians:
Galatians (1:1)
James (1:16)
John (3:8)
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:
Romans (1:3)
Luke (24:39)
Matthew (3:15, 19:12)
1 Corinthians (16:18)
Epistle to Polycarp:
Matthew (10:16)
Ephesians (5:25)
1 Thessalonians (5:17)
1 Corinthians (10:31)
No mentions of Mark, Acts, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy (1:1?), 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation
Papias of Hierapolis (60-130):
Fragment 5:
John (14:2)
1 Corinthians (15:25-28)
Fragment 6:
1 John?
1 Peter?
Gospel of Hebrews?
Fragment 8:
Revelation?
Note: Fragments 5 is directly quoted from Papias, while fragments 6 and 8 are secondhand testimony that claim Papias used 1 John/1 Peter/Gospel of Hebrews and accepted Revelation. Actual dialogue from Papias regarding these books is lost to time.
Quadratus of Athens (???-129):
N/A - No surviving writings with scriptural references
Pseudo-Clement of Rome (120-140)
2 Clement:
1 Timothy (1:17, 4:16, 6:11)
Note: Seeing as this is pseudo-Clement rather than an actual apostolic father, I only scanned for references to scriptures that were otherwise unattested/little-attested to in the other works above.
?+ = Too many references to count
Apostolic father references by the books of the Bible:
Matthew - 4 Ignatius, 5 Polycarp
Mark - N/A
Luke - 2 (?) Clement, 1 Ignatius, 1 Polycarp
John - 2 (?) Clement, 1 Ignatius, 1 Papias
Acts - 1 Polycarp, 1 Clement
Romans - 1 Polycarp, ?+ Clement, 1 Ignatius
1 Corinthians - 1 Polycarp, ?+ Clement, 10 Ignatius, 1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians - 2 Polycarp, 1 Ignatius
Galatians - 2 Polycarp, 1 Ignatius
Ephesians - 2 Polycarp, 1 Clement, 2 Ignatius
Philippians - N/A
Colossians - 1 Ignatius
1 Thessalonians - 2 Polycarp, 1 Ignatius
2 Thessalonians - N/A
1 Timothy - 2 Polycarp, 3 Pseudo-Clement
2 Timothy - 1 Polycarp
Titus - 1 Clement
Philemon - N/A
Hebrews - ?+ Clement
James - 2 Clement, 2 Ignatius
1 Peter - 12 Polycarp, 1 Ignatius
2 Peter - N/A
1 John - 1 Polycarp, 2 Clement
2 John - N/A
3 John - N/A
Jude - N/A
Revelation - N/A
OT - ?+ Clement, 1 Ignatius (Proverbs)
Noncanonical - 2 Polycarp (Tobit), 2 Clement (Judith, Wisdom)
Now, with the data in front of you, I would like to present some interesting patterns/things to note here, as well as my personal thoughts on what they might mean.
First, as far as the Pauline epistles go - the original reason I did this research - the info gleaned from this is about split down the middle in terms of agreeing with scholarly views on the authorship/dating of these books. 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy are only mentioned in Polycarp's epistles and later works (several prominent scholars have put forth the theory that Polycarp in fact authored these books). Colossians is only attested to once and 2 Thessalonians is not attested to at all, so accounting for a margin of error in my findings, it seems reasonable that these epistles (the disputed epistles) are possibly non-Pauline. However, simultaneously, Ephesians (counted among the disputed scriptures) is WELL accounted for by 3 Apostolic Fathers. Titus, one of the pastorals, has a very early reference in 1 Clement. Hebrews, almost unanimously agreed to be a later work in the style of Paul rather than a genuine Pauline writing, is also utilized heavily in 1 Clement.
Second, some of the smaller books here should not be considered non-extant or private at the time of writing even if they're unattested to. Books like Philemon, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude are so small that the likelihood they would be referenced is exceedingly low, genuine or not.
Third - and this one is really interesting to me - there does not appear to be a SINGLE indisputable reference to Mark in ANY of these writings. There are many possible uses of Mark, but every single one can be mirrored in another gospel. There's not even one reference to unique Markan material or even specifically Markan phrasing, which I find particularly interesting seeing as Markan priority seems to be a very common belief. Maybe Mark was written first but kept private until well after the other gospels were authored? I'm not sure. I feel like I'm missing something here - I'm very new to this after all - but this is certainly something to note.
Fourth, Revelation makes sense not being here, its usefulness was debated for, what, a couple centuries after this? So that's not really a concern to me.
Fifth, Philippians is conspicuously also missing from all these documents. I found many supposed references to Philippians when looking at citations that other scholars had found, but all of them were mirrored in other works of the Bible, so again, no unique material or even phrasing from Philippians.
Sixth, and this isn't something I've given too much thought so there's probably an explanation, but I do find it interesting that Clement doesn't seem to use any unique phrasing or material from Matthew. I would imagine Matthew would be his top pick seeing as he was so fond of the Old Testament compared to other scholars (and to my knowledge Matthew is more in line with the OT than other gospels), but I guess not.
Now, as for what I make of all this. To me, it seems like Titus is a legitimate Pauline writing and shouldn't be counted among the dubious pastoral epistles - it was such a small writing, anyways, that it's damn near impossible to put forth a solid argument for or against its authenticity based on the work itself. 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy are probably non-Pauline works - perhaps just 2 Timothy - and there's a very good chance that one or both were written by Polycarp or at the very least publicized by him. Regarding Mark, my best guess as to why its missing is that it must have been pretty closely guarded in the early years of Christianity - something something, secret knowledge from Jesus, something something. 2 Peter (and to a lesser extent 2/3 John since they're so small) are probably later forgeries which I think (?) is a common consensus - not really sure, I know next to nothing about the general epistles. Matthew, Romans, 1 Corinthians and Ephesians were all very beloved scriptures in early Christianity based on their usage - Polycarp also seems particularly fond of 1 Peter. Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon and Judith are all mentioned by these early scholars and they do seem to generally believe the works and consider them authentic scripture - though this may simply be because they were included in the Septuagint which is likely what they were using at the time. Hebrews, I'm a bit confused on - I would imagine Polycarp and Ignatius would quote from it often seeing its careful composition and many useful scriptures, but they don't. Maybe because they were writing to Greeks rather than Hebrews? Alternatively, there is a theory proposed by a few respected scholars that Clement was actually the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, so it's possible that he wrote the work, used it in 1 Clement, and Hebrews only made it to the public well after Clement's death. No idea what happened with Philippians, I guess it's maybe just coincidence that it's completely unattested, or perhaps Philippians has a substantial amount of unoriginal material compared to the other epistles so it wouldn't necessarily be needed (I don't know if this is the case, but if it is the case, it could be why Philippians isn't witnessed). I'm also not really sure what the "woe to him" quote in these works that is completely unparalleled in scripture, canonical or otherwise, is referring to. I did Google search it and found nothing, so I doubt it could be an extant non-Christian work, so they've surely either got to be lost writings or oral tradition, right?
Alright, think that's everything. Hopefully this helps as a nice shorthand for research to see whether a particular book/verse has been cited by the apostolic fathers. Feel free to discuss, or tell me where I'm wrong, or chime in with any research, or something. If you want.
Excuse any poor formatting on this thread, I'm operating off 3 hours of sleep. I'm so tired.
Statistics: Posted by Vanished — Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:07 am