u/alejopolis

Per the Muratorian fragment, the John who wrote the apocalypse is a predecessor of Paul

>It is necessary for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, nevertheless speaks to all.

The author is generally using Revelation as example of seven other letters written to specific churches with teachings that have universal application, but is there also a more specific claim of who wrote when? Is this saying that John had already written the apocalypse before Paul's letters? Is there any other way of understanding what this means? Does it just mean that John himself is older than Paul or had been a Christian for a longer time?

The author of 2 Maccabees takes himself to be abridging the now lost five-volume history of the Maccabees by Jason of Cyrene

>2.23 All these things, I say, being declared by Jason of Cyrene in five books, we will assay to abridge in one volume.

Should this be taken to mean that anything that is found in 2 Maccabees can also be assumed to have existed in Jason of Cyrene? Should it be assumed at least that for anything in 2 Maccabees there was a corresponding version in Jason of Cyrene which the author had license to write his own version of with details not found in the prior source?

This is a general question about anything found in 2 Maccabees, but specific questions I have had in the past on this are about the trampling and beating of Heliodorus by divine horsemen ex machina in chapter 3, and the supernatural curses on Antiochus Epiphanes' body before his unanswered plea for mercy in chapter 9, to understand the origins of both of those stories.

---

Update: After posting this I went back over an article I had looked at a bit over a year ago comparing the ending of Acts with the ending of 2 Maccabees, I did not catch this because I didn't have the question in mind back then, but it is briefly mentioned, even with chapter 3 (the bit about Heliodorus) being possibly independent.

> In addition, it is not certain which sections of the main body of the composition cannot be ascribed to Jason. One may at least note that the two introductory letters to the Jewish diaspora in Egypt (1:1-10a; 1:10b-2:18) are independent, and the possibility remains that the same is true with regard to chapters 3 and 7.

The Untold End, 2 Maccabees and Acts, Hermann Lichtenberger

I will leave this up just for the benefit of anyone reading, but also because it is brief and doesn't answer everything I had in mind, so any more specific information on this topic is still appreciated.

Something I noticed in the Epistula Apostolorum,

>In God, the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, that he is the word become flesh: that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body, begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of the will (lust) of the flesh, but by the will of God: that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem and made manifest, and grew up and came to ripe age, when also we beheld it.

I wouldn't have read much into "grew up and came to ripe age" if not for Irenaeus similarly saying that Jesus went through all of the stages of life to sanctify them before reaching the age of a master (Against Heresies ii.22). In this passage Irenaeus explicitly says Jesus was almost 50 per John 8.57, and he also says that the crucifixion happened under Claudius (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 74).

Among other reasons like references to Simon and Cerinthus and the Quartodeciman controversy, the text is dated based on a prediction that the Parousia will be either 120 or 150 years (depending on the translation) after the ascension, so after a decision on which number is original you can have a terminus at that number plus ~30AD. However, if my speculation above is correct then the number would be added to sometime in the 40s AD so the terminus would be later.

I did find someone defend the idea that the chronology places the ascension in the 40s and that the 150 number is original, so the letter can be dated to the end of the second century, Zwaan, J. de “Date and Origin of the Epistle of the Eleven Apostles.” Pages 344–55 in Amicitiae Corolla: A Volume of Essays Presented to James Rendel Harris (found on NASSCAL).

Zwaan bases this finding not on "grew up and came to ripe age" sounding kind of like Irenaeus, but on the Archelaeus mentioned at Jesus' crucifixion being a confused reference to a figure from the 40s and not (as I assumed) a confused reference to the Archelaeus in Matthew 2.

Questions:

1. Is there any reason not to think that the author is using the same chronology as Irenaeus to assume the date of the Parousia?
2. Is there any reason not to think that "grew up and came to ripe age" is based on the same tradition as Irenaeus? Zwaan could be right about the chronology for his reasons and I be wrong for my reasons.
3. If "grew up and came to ripe age" is indeed an implicit reference to Irenaeus' Johannine tradition, are there any other implicit references like this that could be looked over because they aren't as direct as Irenaeus spelling out "almost fifty years old" and "crucified under Claudius"? Would I be so lucky to find out that there has been something published specifically about subtle references in other sources that show knowledge of this tradition?

There is an open discussion thread conversation on Irenaeus' quotations of Mark 1.1-2 and how he is apparently a witness to two different textual variants for the opening of Mark and how that's surprising given that these are all in the same volume. I will first do some context setting on all of the texts involved, but my ultimate question is if 3.11.8 is a pre-existing source incorporated by Irenaeus.

I would also like to thank the people who already said a bunch of things in the discussion thread for getting me to re-collect some prior thoughts on this. Good discussion there already for anyone who wants more context.

The variant in Mark 1.1 is whether to include Son of God or end the verse at gospel of Jesus Christ. See in Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption, p. 72-75, Ehrman lists it as an "anti adoptionist" corruption, although interestingly Irenaeus in the context of 3.16.3 seems to be using it to refute separationists not adoptionists. Irenaeus is also listed as a witness to the omission in the NA28 notes to verse 1.1

The variant in Mark 1.2 is between as it is written in the prophets and as it is written in Isaiah the prophet

In 3.10.5,

>Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God*; as it is written* in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God. Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord

In 3.11.8,

>Mark, on the other hand, commences with a reference to the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ*, as it is written* in Esaias the prophet,— pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative

In 3.16.3,

>Wherefore Mark also says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God*; as it is written* in the prophets. Knowing one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was announced by the prophets, who from the fruit of David's body was Emmanuel, the messenger of great counsel of the Father;

I definitely agree with Adela Yarbro Collins p. 112-114 (cited in the prior thread) that the lines with of Son of God aren't because Irenaeus had the short reading in all three places and scribes or the Latin translator wanted to harmonize him with the longer reading. Son of God is embedded in the context of 3.16.3 with all of the other scriptures that call Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it serves to prove the heresiological point. Collins' own solution is that Irenaeus' copy of Mark has the longer reading and he just cited the shorter one in 3.11.8 as a paraphrase, because Son of God was not required for that citation. Since he definitely did have the longer reading available for 3.16.3, and it doesn't make sense to say he was going back and forth between two manuscripts, it makes sense to just say he had the longer and paraphrased once on the shorter where Son of God wouldn't be required to make the point.

With enough stage setting, my own speculation is that 3.11.8 is a prior source and that this source is an actual witness to a text with the other reading. Instead of two manuscripts of Mark, why not just have one manuscript, with the reading in 3.10.5 and 3.16.3, and the information 3.11.8 was written earlier (by Irenaeus or someone else) and incorporated into Against Heresies book 3?

I could see it being the case that there is a standalone source dedicated to a mystical exegesis of the number 4 and the first verses of the 4 gospels, in light of the 4 corners of the compass, the 4 winds, the 4 faces of the cherubim in Revelation, the quadriformity of all living creatures (I have no idea what this is referring to), and the 4 covenants with humanity (Adam/Noah/Moses/Jesus). Per Carol Newsom, Commentary on Daniel chapter 7, four is widely used to symbolize totality and completeness so it makes sense that someone would write up a meditation on the quadriformity of the gospels and reflect on that here. Irenaeus would then be familiar with the source and add the information as a mystical/symbolic line of evidence in his project to promote the four gospels, and promote their reading together in canonical context, unlike Valentinians, Marcionites, Ebionites, and Christ/Jesus Separationists, who only read one and don't interpret it correctly.

Is there any reason to think this is the case? Has anyone argued for it? Collins discusses a few views of different scholars for what is going on with Irenaeus and the variants, but not this one. Ehrman doesn't say anything at all about Irenaeus as a witness in Orthodox Corruption. To me it would make sense of why there is the reading of Mark unique to Irenaeus here and why the other two readings before and after both align with each other. Even if this theory has already been considered and already been discredited by some obscure 19th century scholars, I would still love to see a discussion of that, wherever it may have been written.