AND
As part of the whole “the NT was written so late” position, it makes sense to address this good question:
I was
wondering. In that answer you touch upon issues related to dating Mark
and the other Gospels. At the end you state that other early documents
like Barnabas and Clement of
Because these authors never say where they are getting their quotes from. They never say, "This is from Luke's Gospel, or even, this is from Luke." One skeptic I read quite some time ago says that even Ignatius, because he never names where the quote originate from, cannot be said to "know" any of them. Is this too skeptical? Did the ancients regularly cite quotes like we do now? Thanks!
I want to address two issues here: (1) the ostensible question on non-attribution; and (2) the evidence for the existence of Jesus-traditions in the late first/beginning of the second century AD.
The first question is fairly straightforward: the ancients routinely did NOT mention an author’s name in a quotation, and frequently never even indicated that a quotation was ‘occurring---they expected the reader to know, or they simply were reusing some ‘good turn of phrase’.
The data for this comes from just about every source in the period: (1) Classical writers; (2) New Testament use of the OT; and (3) Other Jewish writings of the period.
There are, of course, times when the source-as-authority DOES have to be mentioned (e.g., when Philo is demonstrating the philosophical ‘sophistication’ of Moses…smile), but more often than not, quotes are either (a) unmarked as being quotes; or (b) introduced with a generic formula without mention of the author’s name.
Let’s look at the data for these three classes:
(1) Classical writers in the New Testament/early Church period.
“His [Celsus] discussion of NT texts will be treated below, but one can say at the outset that Celsus does not bother to give verbal quotations from OT or NT texts with some rare exceptions. He quotes Jesus' words without identifying Matthew (2.24 [154,9 Koet.] is close to Mt 26:39)... In 6.16 (86,13-14 Koet.) he quotes Mt 19:24 par. He also quotes a Gnostic Christian who knows Gal 6:14 without mentioning Galatians (5.65 [68,10-11 Koet.]):… He approaches Paul's words in 1 Cor 3:19 in 6.12 (82,12 Koet.) …. …Borret identifies twenty one references to texts from Matthew by Celsus, no references to Mark, eight references to Luke (most of which are parallel to Mt), four references to John, one to 1 Cor 10:20, and one to Col 2:18. Jesus is one of the few NT figures Celsus is willing to call by name.” [HI:INTGRP, 25]
“These [Greco-Roman] works were selected over others for a variety of reasons. All the authors are relative contemporaries of Paul, spanning the period from just before to just after his time. Each represents a different type of literature: Strabo writes a semi-scholarly treatise on a "scientific" subject; "Longinus" offers an exercise in literary criticism designed to promote a particular style of writing; Heraclitus puts forward a passionately rhetorical defense of Homer against the accusations of certain detractors; and Plutarch's two essays represent first, a moral critique of poetry in general (and Homer in particular), and secondly, a personal letter of condolence to a friend grieving over a lost child. Finally, each author employs the Homeric materials in a somewhat different fashion, permitting the study of a reasonable variety of citation techniques within a narrow range of texts… A second point of note concerns the manner in which various authors incorporate citations into the body of their texts. Even more than Paul, the Greco-Roman writers examined here exhibit a high degree of flexibility and originality in the way they merge quotations into the developing flow of their own compositions. To be sure, certain more or less formulaic expressions do appear on occasion, usually in combinations that include the words phasi, legei, and heterothi (…). Linking back-to-back citations by kai, kai palin, or some similar short phrase is also a common practice. Far more common, however, are those instances where the author uses his own words to integrate the citation in a creative manner into its new literary context. Often this means omitting every explicit indication that a quotation is even being offered: the reader is expected to recognize the verse as a quotation by its metrical qualities, its familiar content, or both. In many cases the author assumes that the reader will be familiar enough with the original text to supply its precise context - yet another indication of just how deeply the Homeric texts had become engraved upon the corporate psyche. [HI:PATLOS, 272ff]
(2) NT use of the Old Testament
“In other places, Paul quotes biblical texts virtually word-perfect with no indication to his readers that a citation is even present (e.g., Rom 2.6; 1 Cor 5.13, 15.32, 2 Cor 13.1).” [HI:PATLOS, 33]
“This conclusion is obvious if sufficient attention is given to the amount of the OT embedded in the NT. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in bold print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. One Bible that does use bold print for NT passages that explicitly use OT words reveals that there are over 400 such texts. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement. … Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The Book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The Book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images.” [Baker Ency of the Bible]
(3) Other Jewish writings of the Period
“Leroy Hammill, in studying biblical interpretation in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, notes that these books contain almost no exegesis per se (i.e. formal biblical commentary) but that the results of such exegesis can be inferred from their use of the Old Testament, especially in direct quotations. Such quotations are not always easy to detect, since they are 'nearly always filled right in with the author's own words without any mention that Scripture was being quoted'. [OT:SQVP,147]
“(from
“Thirdly, the use of introductory
formulae is apparently a historical development, since they appear only in the
latest apocryphal books and with increasing frequency at
So, the answer to the first part of the question is fairly clear: the ancients in the period only indicated they were using a quotation sometimes, and generally did not even mention the author’s name even when they did.
So, if a Church Father uses gospel-close wording without using the name of one of the Evangelists, it doesn’t mean anything relative to their use/non-use of a synoptic source.
………………………
Now let’s turn to the bigger question: to what extent do the writings of the late-first and early-to-mid second century writers indicate the existence of historical traditions about a historical Jesus (whether written or oral)?
I cannot tell from the question what the skeptic is exactly skeptical about:
1. Are they skeptical about the existence of written traditions about Jesus’ earthly life?
2. Are they skeptical about the specific writer’s USE of written traditions about Jesus’ earthly life?
3. Are they skeptical about the existence of ANY traditions about Jesus’ earthly life?
The reason I make this distinction is ONLY because of apparent allegations by some Christ-mythers that traditions about a ‘historical’ Jesus only originated LATE, as a result of polemical interactions among rival groups.
This was mentioned in one of the original “Mid-plat” questions (“He relegates all four Gospels and Acts to 100-150 CE”), and I pointed out (from a wide range of scholarship) that that date range is WAY TOO LATE for the gospels (at the end of http://www.christian-thinktank.com/muddleplatonismx3.html ).
But I personally didn’t do more than mention the extra-biblical sources which confirm the existence of Markan literature (or at least Markan ‘traditions’ about the historical Jesus), so I will use this question as an ‘excuse’ (‘pretext to a verbose text’…smile) to show just how pervasive the Synoptic tradition is in ALL the literature—not just ‘orthodox’-- of the early 2nd century (and earlier).
Here’s my approach:
I will try to err on the side of ‘conservatism’, using only parallels and passages which do not require much ‘benefit of the doubt’, but the reader should note that many, many more passages could be listed—using ‘softer’ criteria—which would add further weight to the conclusion.
I will start with the non-orthodox groups, since the allegation is apparently made that the historical Jesus was ‘invented’ to combat such groups.
……………………….
But first we have to talk about methodology of identifying ‘references’, ‘citations’, and/or ‘quotations’.
I have dealt with this issue extensively in the series on ‘did the OT/Tanaach just rip-off stories/myths from other ANE myths?’ and a little in the CopyCat series, but in the New Testament case I don’t have to do that myself.
There has been a ton of scholarship on this issue of ‘did XYZ borrow from the gospels?’, so all I need to do is survey the extreme positions and select some point along the spectrum.
As I mentioned, I will err on the side of ‘caution’ and this will be reflected in which ‘authority’ I follow.
As it sits here in 2008, the only point of real scholarly contention in the question of “Did the Apostolic Fathers quote from the written Gospels?” is whether they used a written source or an oral source. So, we shall have on one hand Massaux from decades past (updated by Bellinzoni) who says ‘mostly written sources’ and on the other (men…de) Koester who says ‘mostly oral’. [Although this discussion focuses on the Apostolic Fathers, with some reservations it will also apply to the literature of the ‘non-Fathers’ we will look at.]
Although I will document these positions in a moment, let me quickly point out one major fact: both groups are referring to historical traditions about Jesus’ earthly life. When Koester says ‘not referring to a written gospel’, he is NOT saying ‘he made it up’! Rather, he is saying that the historical tradition received by the Father (whether historically true or not!) either had not been written down yet, or they were just not using it or aware of it.
There is nothing in this scholarly debate that remotely supports a position that the narrative of the historical Jesus’ ministry and life was ‘invented’ by the Fathers (writing in the 75-175 AD time frame) or that this ‘invention’ was only created/written down in the “100-150 AD” time frame. Let us be clear on that.
We are only talking here about how early the gospel/historical traditions had to be, in order to influence the literature we will examine. [This approach is similar to the one I took on dating the book of Daniel (qwhendan3b.html), btw.]
OK.
Here are some extended quotes contrasting the ‘script versus speech’ positions:
“Identifying the Use of the Synoptic Tradition
“Two very different approaches to the question of the possible use of the synoptic tradition in the Apostolic Fathers may be seen in the contrasting studies of Edouard Massaux and Helmut Koster. Whereas Massaux found the use of Matthew in all of the Apostolic Fathers whom he studied (and the use of Luke in 2 Clement, the Didache, and perhaps in Ignatius), Koster found in favour of the preponderance of oral tradition independent of and often earlier than the written gospels. He concluded that Ignatius drew on Matthew once, and that Polycarp, in his postulated second letter, drew on both Matthew and Luke. Each of the Didache and 2 Clement includes sayings of Jesus taken from a sayings-harmony that depends on the synoptic gospels, argued Koster, so neither used Matthew or Luke directly or treated them as authoritative. Not surprisingly, such different results were obtained from the adoption of different methodological approaches. Neirynck describes Massaux as having been guided by a 'principle of simplicity', for 'a source which is "unknown" does not attract him'. Massaux's own initial account of his methodology is quite brief. He notes that he will speak often of 'literary contact', and states that he will use the term in a rather strict sense of the word, requiring, when speaking of contact, sufficiently striking verbal concurrence that puts the discussion in a context that already points towards the gospel of Mt. These literary contacts do not exhaust the literary influence of the gospel; one can expect, without a properly so-called literary contact, the use of typically Matthean vocabulary, themes and ideas.
“Thus Massaux seeks passages that are similar to Matthew, and he evaluates their relationship to Matthew by asking if they are closer to Matthew than to other New Testament writings. This, in effect, is what Neirynck has described as Massaux's principle of simplicity: material that looks like Matthew probably depends on Matthew, and little or no consideration is given to the possibility that it depends on postulated sources such as M or Q, or on the shared vocabulary of a common community (for it could be a specifically Christian or even a Graeco-Roman commonplace), or even on coincidence.
“Massaux assumes the knowledge and use of Matthew in at least some of the Apostolic Fathers, and sets out to determine its extent, whereas Koster sets out to determine whether the use of the synoptic gospels may be established at all. Koster's approach is by far the more subtle and penetrating of the two. He takes proper account of the possibility that Jesus tradition may stem not from the synoptics but from their sources, written or oral; so he formulates a criterion to assess whether or not parallels to the synoptic tradition may be shown, rather than assumed, to depend on the synoptic gospels. This criterion is that literary dependence on the finished form of a text is to be identified only where the later text makes use of an element from the earlier text that can be identified as the redactional work of the earlier author or editor. Koster does not refer to Massaux in his monograph, but his methodology differs from Massaux's in its attempt to deal with the difficulty that the presence of similar or even verbally identical material in two texts is not itself sufficient proof of literary dependence, for two texts might each draw independently on a common source. Yet, if Massaux may be accused of finding dependence on Matthew too readily, Koster's weakness may be that his criterion makes it virtually impossible to demonstrate any dependence on a synoptic gospel except in passages where the redactional activity of an evangelist may be readily identified. The importance of Koster's criterion must be noted, but it is important to emphasize the limitations placed upon it by the nature of the evidence to which it must be applied. [HI:RNTAF:70f]
I will take the moderating position of Kohler in the charts below:
“The history of the New Testament canon involves much more than an examination of the citation of individual books. Yet a study of the citation of individual documents is a useful place to begin any study of the history of the canon. Edouard Massaux's The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus first appeared in French in 1950 and was reprinted with additional bibliographical entries in 1986. In this monumental volume Massaux identified the Gospel of Matthew as the New Testament book that most influenced primitive Christian literature. In spite of the title of this important book, Massaux's study included a discussion not only of the influence of the Gospel of Matthew, but also the influence of Mark, Luke, John, the Pauline letters, and some of the catholic letters on most of the Christian literature written up to the time of Irenaeus and known at the time that Massaux wrote in 1950. The Nag Ham-madi material was, of course, not known to Massaux at the time of his research.
“It is Massaux's contention that the Gospel of Matthew was both known and used by the end of the first or the early part of the second century and with increasing frequency as time passed. Not all scholars have agreed with Massaux's conclusions. As Frans Neirynck has indicated in his introduction to the 1986 edition (…), Massaux's thesis found a strong opponent in the study of Helmut Koster, who argued that the Apostolic Fathers were primarily dependent not on the written gospels but on the church's oral tradition. The differences between the positions of Massaux and Koster are limited principally to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The issue has recently been reexamined by Wolf-Dieter Kohler, whose conclusions are basically compatible with those of Massaux. Kohler tries to develop criteria for determining what constitutes evidence for the status of the Gospel of Matthew in a particular writing and has the advantage of treating some of the Gnostic literature unknown when Massaux wrote in 1950. But Massaux's treatment is much more thorough. [HI:IGSM1,viii-ix, Bellinzoni, 1990 preface]
So, we will be looking first for elements of ‘Matthean redaction’ –elements supposedly added or changed by Matthew, when dealing with Mark or other sources. [This essentially is what Kohler’s criterion was. It is ‘too strong’, for some Matthean references will slip through, but it is ‘cautious’ enough for our purposes.]
……………………………………………………………………………………
So, let’s proceed chronologically through the ‘heretics’, first
1. Simon the Magician.
Simon is known to us from the
encounter with Philip in the Book of Acts, but his story in history is much
wider than that. He settled in
His story is very entertaining, but our first interest is in one of his traveling companions, one Helen an ex-prostitute. Here is the account from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, with the reference to a Lucian tradition:
“She (the ‘soul’ of the travelling companion) was in that Helen because of whom the Trojan war was undertaken [tanknote: a reincarnation thing]. Therefore when Stesichorus vilified her in his poems he was deprived of eyesight; later, when he repented and wrote the Palinodes, in which he praised her, his sight was restored. … Transmigrating from body to body, and always enduring humiliation from the body, she finally became a prostitute; she was the "lost sheep" [Luke 15:6]. For this reason he [=Christ] came, in order to rescue her first and free her from her bonds, then to offer men salvation through his "knowledge." [Irenaeus, Adv Haer 1.23.1-4, in [ECH:19]
And Irenaeus continues with an account of how Simon referenced the humanity and suffering of a historical Jesus:
“For when the angels misgoverned
the world, since each of them desired the primacy, he came for the reformation
of affairs; he descended, transformed and made like the powers and authorities
and angels, so that among men he appeared as a man,
though he was not a man, and he seemed to suffer in
The first passage shows knowledge
by Simon of a Jesus-saying (in Luke), and the second presupposes knowledge of
the historical life (and death, specifically in
In other words, somebody already—in the middle of the first century—had already being teaching the historical, human, earthly Jesus widely enough for it to have been accepted as true. And Simon had to ‘explain that away’ to make progress with his own system. Simon—like most of the heretics we will see—started with what was ‘already out there and believed’ and built on that, or re-interpreted that, to achieve his ends. Simon was NOT ‘there first’ with a heavenly-only Jesus, with the later Church inventing a historical one to counter him! Simon started with a ‘human-first’ Jesus (from the earliest Christian proclamation) and invented a ‘heavenly-mostly’ one.
This is early and this is fairly strong. And the others will follow in the same pattern: start with the basic historical Jesus and re-interpret THAT. And the church will have to fight their re-interpretation.
2. Second, Cerinthus.
Cerinthus is also first-century, and overlaps into our period. He also provides a Gnostic-like reinterpretation of the historical Jesus, but shows evidence of even MORE synoptic-like detail:
“Cerinthus (late first century
and early second century A.D.) was an early gnostic teacher in
Here’s the passage from Irenaeus:
“A certain Cerinthus in
Notice that there are several Synoptic-like elements: virgin birth, Joseph, Mary, baptism, the descending ‘like a dove’, miracles, suffering/death, resurrection.
Later, Epiphanius states that they ONLY used the Gospel of Matthew:
“They (Ebionites) too accept the Gospel of Matthew, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they also use it alone.” [Epiph, Panarion 30.3.7]
Notice that this is a very, very ‘core’ set of historical traditions about the historical Jesus—and in the late first century. [Basilides will do his teaching in the 120-140ad ranges, which makes the ‘fifty years later’ reference by [ECH] mean 70-90AD for Cerinthus.
Again, early and strong data, from ‘opponents’. And the pattern repeats: the opponents use/re-use the historical core of the historical Jesus. They do not start with a ‘heavenly-only Jesus’ and the church then ‘invents’ an ‘earthly-also’ Jesus in response. The ‘earthly/historical’ Jesus was ‘there first’, in the oral proclamation and in the derivative written versions (the Gospels) as they became more and more important in circulation.
3. Next is Basilides.
We have already noted his main teaching career was from 120-140.
Here are the passages which are judged by Kohler to rely upon the Gospel of Matthew (the last column term is the judgment by Kohler).
|
Source |
Reference |
Mt.Loc. |
Matthean Text |
Borrowing? |
|
Clem of Alex, Strom. 3.1.1 |
The sectarians of B say, 'As the apostles wondered whether it was better not to marry,' the Lord, they say, answered, 'Not everyone understands this say: for there are eunuchs, some by birth and others by necessity'" |
19.11-12 |
But He said to them, “ Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuc |
Clear |
|
Epiph., AdvHaer 25.5.2 (sic, 24) |
"But the scum [Basilides!] says, '"We are the 'men' The others are all swine and dogs. And this is why he said, 'Cast not thy pearls before swine, neither give that which is holy unto dogs.'" |
7.6 |
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. |
Clear |
|
Clem of Alex, Strom. 4.82.2 |
For just as he who wishes to commit adultery is an adulterer, even if he did not have the opportunity to commit adultery.. |
5.28 |
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart |
Clear |
Here are references to Synoptic traditions about historical utterances of Jesus, but notice he doesn’t ‘gnostic-ize’ them any—they already fit his purposes with only a minor bit of tweak here and there.
We should also note here that these are not passages/issues which a Church Father would ‘invent’ and put into the mouths of his opponents! A conspiracy position could argue that all of these references to some historical tradition were themselves made up and put into the mouths of the opponents, but one can tell from the passages we are noticing that they are not that important. They are ‘little fish’ when the orthodox dudes really needed ‘bigger fish’ to win the day… We will see this as we go along, also. We should not that we are NOT saying that the Fathers are ‘representing their opponents fairly’ (!), but that the points they pick up to attack are not wholesale fabrications…
4. Next, Marcion.
Marcion (c. 85-160) was the son of
a Christian bishop. He made his way to
“Marcion (second century, died ca.
A.D. 160) was the founder of a major, independent church that rivaled the
Catholic church and continued to exist until at least the middle of the fifth
century. The son of a bishop, Marcion was born at Sinope, a city in
This is an ‘easy’ one—and very strong data, btw—since he is famous for using only the Gospel of Luke (expurgated), and repudiating the OT/Tanaach. Rejecting the other gospels in favor of Luke says a lot about how early the synoptics are (1) floating around; and (2) authoritative enough, so that you have to ‘select among them’ (and expurgate) to defend off-center doctrinal systems.
Compare the general assessment of M’s positions by Frend:
“The new
factor which Marcion introduced was that Scripture could not be understood
allegorically. What was written must be accepted or rejected on its merits.
Taken thus, there were too many occasions in which the New Testament
contradicted the Old, or in which Yahweh's actions fell far short of the
standards preached by Christ. … Marcion, as Tertullian shows in his five books
of refutation, had made a most detailed and thorough study of Scripture to
support his conclusions. These were revolutionary. For a Christian living in the first half of the second century to
argue on the basis of Scripture against the church's attempt to wrest the title
of "
A sampling of the Synoptic detail Marcion knew of (and wrestled with) can be seen in the account of Irenaeus (1.27.2-3):
“Marcion of Pontus succeeded Cerdo and developed his doctrine, shamelessly blaspheming him who was proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets and calling him the creator of evil things [Is. 45:7], desirous of wars, inconstant in purpose [Gen. 6:6], and inconsistent with himself. From the Father, who is above the God who made the world, Jesus came to Judaea in the time of the governor Pontius Pilate, procurator for Tiberius Caesar, and was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea; he destroyed the prophets and the law [cf. Matt. 5:17] and all the works of that God who made the world, whom Marcion calls Cosmocrator [world-ruler]. Furthermore, Marcion circumcises the gospel according to Luke and takes out everything written about the generation of the Lord [Luke 1:1—2:52], as well as many items about the teaching of the Lord's words in which the Lord is most plainly described as acknowledging the Creator of this universe as his Father. He persuaded his disciples that he himself was more trustworthy than the apostles who transmitted the gospel; but he delivered to them not the gospel but a particle of the gospel. Similarly he abridged the epistles of the apostle Paul, taking out whatever was clearly said by the apostle concerning that God who made the world [since this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ] as well as whatever the apostle taught when he mentioned passages from the prophetic writings which foretell the Lord's coming.” [ECH:102f]
And here is Tertullian’s take:
“In short, from among the apostles the faith is introduced to us by John and by Matthew, while from among apostolic men Luke and Mark give it renewal, [all of them] beginning with the same rules [of belief], as far as relates to the one only God, the Creator, and to his Christ, born of a virgin, the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. It matters not that the arrangement of their narratives varies, so long as there is agreement on the essentials of the faith—and on these they show no agreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, attaches to his gospel no author's name,—as though he to whom it was no crime to overturn the whole body, might not assume permission to invent a title for it as well. At this point I might have made a stand, arguing that no recognition is due to a work which cannot lift up its head, which makes no show of courage, which gives no promise of credibility by having a fully descriptive title and the requisite indication of the author's name. But I prefer to join issue on all points, nor am I leaving unmentioned anything that can be taken as being in my favour. For out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to mutilate. [Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.2, cited in [ECH:108]
5. Then, Montanus.
Montanus is not in the general stream of ‘proto-gnosticism’, but still sits in the middle of our period, and has one overt reference to a gospel tradition (from John, no less!):
“His work and teaching can be dated anywhere between AD 135 and 175…It appears that Montanus claimed both to be a unique fulfillment of the work of the Paraclete promised by Jesus in John 14:26, and to be able to pass that power on to his adhearents… “I am the Father and I am the Son and I am the Paraclete (recorded by Didymus, on the Trinity, 3.41.1)” [ECH:127f]
Valentinus lived c.114-165, and is said to have ‘florit’ (smile) in the 140-160ad period.
But by this time the Gnostics are having to REALLY engage with the historical traditions (like they had since mid-FIRST century), so the references are more extensive (all references are from Irenaeus):
|
Source |
Reference |
Mt.Loc. |
Matthean Text |
Borrowing? |
|
1.1.3 |
And for this reason they affirm it was that the “Saviour”—for they do not please to call Him “Lord”—did no work in public during the space of thirty years, thus setting forth the mystery of these Aeons. They maintain also, that these thirty Aeons are most plainly indicated in the parable of the labourers sent into the vineyard. For some are sent about the first hour, others about the third hour, others about the sixth hour, others about the ninth hour, and others about the eleventh hour. Now, if we add up the numbers of the hours here mentioned, the sum total will be thirty: for one, three, six, nine, and eleven, when added together, form thirty. And by the hours, they hold that the Aeons were pointed out; while they maintain that these are great, and wonderful, and hitherto unspeakable mysteries which it is their special function to develop; and so they proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations. |
20.1-6 |
For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 “When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 “And he went out about the third hour |
Clear |
|
1.3.2 |
The production, again, of the Duodecad of the Aeons, is indicated by the fact that the Lord was twelve years of age when He disputed with the teachers of the law, and by the election of the apostles, for of these there were twelve |
10.1 |
When Jesus had finished giving instructions to His twelve disciples, He departed from there to teach and preach in their cities (but notice the link to Luke's 12yo story in the temple!) |
Clear |
|
1.6.1 |
And this they declare to be “the salt” and “the light of the world.” |
5.13-14 |
“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 “You are the light of the world. |
Clear |
|
1.2.5 |
Christ then instructed them…. He also announced among them what related to the knowledge of the Father,— namely, that he cannot be understood or comprehended, nor so much as seen or heard, except in so far as he is known by Monogenes only |
11.27 |
All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him |
Probable |
|
1.3.1 |
They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it. |
13.10-13 |
10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 Jesus answered them, “ To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted |
Probable |
|
1.3.2 |
while, for the same reason, they tell us the Saviour said, “One Iota, or one tittle, shall by no means pass away until all be fulfilled.” |
5.18 |
“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. |
Probable |
|
1.3.3 |
They further maintain that the passion which took place in the case of the twelfth Aeon is pointed at by the apostasy of Judas, who was the twelfth apostle, and also by the fact that Christ suffered in the twelfth month. For their opinion is, that He continued to preach for one year only after His baptism. The same thing is also most clearly indicated by the case of the woman who suffered from an issue of blood. For after she had been thus afflicted during twelve years, she was healed by the advent of the Saviour, when she had touched the border of His garment; and on this account the Saviour said, “Who touched me? ” —teaching his disciples the mystery which had occurred among the Aeons, and the healing of that Aeon who had been involved in suffering. For she who had been afflicted twelve years represented that power whose essence, as they narrate, was stretching itself forth, and flowing into immensity; and unless she had touched the garment of the Son, that is, Aletheia of the first Tetrad, who is denoted by the hem spoken of, she would have been dissolved into the general essence [of which she participated]. She stopped short, however, and ceased any longer to suffer. For the power that went forth from the Son (and this power they term Horos) healed her, and separated the passion from her. |
3.13-17; 9.20-22; 10.4; 26.14-16 |
Then Jesus *arrived
from Galilee at the |
Probable |
|
1.3.5 |
They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, “Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my disciple; ” and again, “Taking up the cross follow me; ” but the separating power when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” They also maintain that John [the Baptist] indicated the same thing when he said, “The fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge the floor, and will gather the wheat into His garner; but the chaff He will burn with fire unquenchable.” |
10.34, 38; 3.12 |
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword… He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. ...His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire |
Probable |
|
1.7.2 |
There are also some who maintain that he also produced Christ as his own proper son, but of an animal nature, and that mention was made of him by the prophets. This Christ passed through Mary just as water flows through a tube; and there descended upon him in the form of a dove it the time of his baptism, that Saviour who belonged to the Pleroma, and was formed by the combined efforts of all its inhabit ants. In him there existed also that spiritual seed which proceeded from Achamoth. They hold, accordingly, that our Lord, while preserving the type of the first-begotten and primary tetrad, was compounded of these four substances,—of that which is spiritual, in so far as He was from Achamoth; of that which is animal, as being from the Demiurge by a special dispensation, inasmuch as He was formed [corporeally] with unspeakable skill; and of the Saviour, as respects that dove which descended upon Him. He also continued free from all suffering, since indeed it was not possible that He should suffer who was at once incomprehensible and invisible. And for this reason the Spirit of Christ, who had been placed within Him, was taken away when He was brought before Pilate... |
3.13-17; 27.2 |
Then Jesus *arrived
from Galilee at the |
Probable |
|
1.7.4 |
But they relate that when the Saviour came, the Demiurge learned all things from Him, and gladly with all, his power joined himself to Him. They maintain that he is the centurion mentioned in the Gospel, who addressed the Saviour in these words: “For I also am one having soldiers and servants under my authority; and whatsoever I command they do.” |
8.9 |
“For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” |
Probable |
|
1.8.2 |
the following are some specimens of what they attempt to accommodate out of the Scriptures to their opinions. They affirm that the Lord came in the last times of the world to endure suffering, for this end, that He might indicate the passion which occurred to the last of the Aeons, and might by His own end announce the cessation of that disturbance which had risen among the Aeons. They maintain, further, that that girl of twelve years old, the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, to whom the Lord approached and raised her from the dead, was a type of Achamoth, to whom their Christ, by extending himself, imparted shape, and whom he led anew to the perception of that light which had forsaken her. ... Again, the coming of the Saviour with His attendants Then, also, they say that the passions which she endured were indicated by the Lord upon the cross. Thus, when He said, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? ” He simply showed that Sophia was deserted by the light, and was restrained by Horos from making any advance forward. Her anguish, again, was indicated when He said, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; ”101 her fear by the words, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; ” |
9.18-26; 26.38-39; 27.46 |
While He was saying
these things to them, a synagogue official came and bowed down before Him,
and said, “My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and
she will live.” 19 Jesus got up and began to follow him, and so did His
disciples. 20 And a woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve
years, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak; 21 for she was
saying to herself, “If I only touch His garment, I will get well.” 22 But
Jesus turning and seeing her said, “Daughter, take courage; your faith has
made you well.” At once the woman was made well. 23 When Jesus came into the
official’s house, and saw the flute-players and the crowd in noisy disorder,
24 He said, “Leave; for the girl has not died, but is asleep.” And they began
laughing at Him. 25 But when the crowd had been sent out, He entered and took
her by the hand, and the girl got up. 26 This news spread throughout all that
land ... Then Jesus *came with them to a place called |
Probable |
|
1.8.3 |
And they teach that He pointed out the three kinds of men as follows: the material, when He said to him that asked Him, “Shall I follow Thee? ”104 “The Son of man hath not where to lay His head; ”—the animal, when He said to him that declared, “I will follow Thee, but suffer me first to bid them farewell that are in my house,” “No man, putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven”105 (for this man they declare to be of the intermediate class, even as they do that other who, though he professed to have wrought a large amount of righteousness, yet refused to follow Him, and was so overcome by [the love of] riches, as never to reach perfection)—this one it pleases them to place in the animal class;—the spiritual, again, when He said, “Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God,”106 and when He said to Zaccheus the publican, “Make haste, and come down, for to-day I must abide in thine house”107 —for these they declared to have belonged to the spiritual class. Also the parable of the leaven which the woman is described as having hid in three measures of meal, they declare to make manifest the three classes. For, according to their teaching, the woman represented Sophia; the three measures of meal, the three kinds of men—spiritual, animal, and material; while the leaven denoted the Saviour Himself. |
19.16-30; 13.33 |
And someone came to
Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal
life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good?
There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the
commandmedments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU
SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL;
YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; 19 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU
SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 20 The young man *said to Him, “All
these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If
you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor,
and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the
young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who
owned much property. 23 And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you,
it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 “Again I say to
you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich man to enter the |
Probable |
|
1.8.4 |
Moreover, that Achamoth wandered beyond the Pleroma, and received form from Christ, and was sought after by the Saviour, they declare that He indicated when He said, that He had come after that sheep which was gone astray |
18.12-14 |
What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? 13 “If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. 14 “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish |
Probable |
You see here a massive amount of material from Mathew—most of it used to ground symbolisms of the 12, the 30, etc. But no dispute over the historicity. If the historical Jesus was ‘invented’ to combat these folks, it was a miserable failure…
7. Then, Carpocrates
Cx is also dated mid-second century, so he overlaps with Valentinus and his disciples.
This group is a bit weird and not your normal ‘pre-Gnostics’ or early-Gnostics of the 130-180 AD period. They are much more speculative (e.g., they can become greater than Jesus, heavy-duty reincarnation) but even here, they have to deal with certain historical facts about a historical Jesus—even though they can explain them away like any good allegorizer…
“Carpocrates
(second century A.D.) was a gnostic teacher in his native city of
Here are excerpts from Irenaeus’ account (AH 1.25.1-6), showing their familiarity with historical and/or Synoptic gospel elements:
“Cx and his disciples say hat the world and what is in it was made by angels, who are much inferior to the unbegotten Father, Jesus was born of Joseph and like the rest of men, but he was distinct from the rest in that, since his soul was strong and pure, it remembered what it had seen in the regions of the unbegotten God: and for this reason power was sent down to him that he might escape the world-creators by it. It passed through them all and was set free in all, and ascended up to him, and likewise the [souls] which embraced the like. They say that the soul of Jesus was lawfully nurtured in the traditions of the Jews, but despised them and thereby obtained powers by which he vanquished the passions which attach to men for punishment. 2. The soul which like the soul of Jesus is able to despise the creator archons likewise receives power to do the same things. Hence they have come to such presumption that some say they are like Jesus, some actually affirm that they are even stronger than he, and some [declare] that they are superior to his disciples, like Peter and Paul and the other Apostles; they are in no way inferior to Jesus himself. Their souls derive from the same surroundings, and therefore likewise despise the creators of the world and are counted worthy of the same power, and return again to the same place. But if anyone despises the things here more than he, he can be greater than he.” [ECH:49f]
Here’s the passage that shows clear dependence on Matthew (or synoptic history):
|
Source |
Reference |
Mt.Loc. |
Matthean Text |
|
Irenaeus A.H.1.25.4 |
They affirm that for this reason Jesus spoke the following parable:—“Whilst thou art with thine adversary in the way, give all diligence, that thou mayest be delivered from him, lest he give thee up to the judge, and the judge surrender thee to the officer, and he cast thee into prison. Verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt not go out thence until thou pay the very last farthing.” |
5.25-26 |
“Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. 25 “ Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 “Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent |
Then, the disciples of Valentinus: Heracleon, Marcus, and Ptolemy
These, of course, have some overlap with Valentinus. We will only give the data for the first two—the third is even more explicit in his use of Matthew, but the first two will suffice. Plus, we are getting later into the second century here.
8. Heracleon.
These are from Fragments from Origen:
|
Source |
Reference |
Mt.Loc. |
Mt.Text |
Borrowing? |
|
35 |
H said: For the proverb is true if we understand that the sower is someone other than the harvester; the Son of Man indeed sows over the place. And the Savior, who is also the Son of Man, harvests and sends as harvesters the angels, portrayed by the disciples, each toward his own soul |
13.37,39,41 |
Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “ Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 “ The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness |
Clear |
|
40 |
As to the demiurge's men, their loss is obvious in the text; the Sons of the kingdom will leave for the outer darkness |
8.12 |
but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness |
Clear |
|
32 |
they [the souls of the believers] are already ripe and ready for the harvest, and suited to be gathered into the barn, that is to say, through faith in rest--for those at least who are ready |
13.30 |
‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.””’ |
Clear |
|
40 |
The following text focuses on the same goal: the soul and the body perish in gehenna |
10.28 |
Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. |
Clear |
|
46 |
…and by merit, in a sense whereby some speak of children of gehenna and of darkness and of iniquity, and some speak of the offspring of serpents and vipers |
23.15, 28, 33 |
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves … So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness... So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness ... You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? |
Clear |
9. Marcus.
These are from Iren. A.H. again:
|
Source |
Reference |
Mt.LOC |
Mt.Text |
Borrowing? |
|
1.14.1 |
The diverse sounds (he adds) are those which give form to that Aeon who is without material substance and unbegotten, and these, again, are the forms which the Lord has called angels, who continually behold the face of the Father |
18.20 (sic)--actually 18.10 |
What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? 13 “If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. 14 “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish (18.10) |
Probable |
|
1.20.2 |