Roger Pearse

The argument does not seem a safe one to me, since we are relying on the survival of earlier versions, and arguing from their non-survival. I seem to recall that the mss. of Thucydides (ca. 450 BC) are 11th century AD.

Polybius (ca.200-118 BC) must have published his history in stages, book by book. The proemium to book 11 tells us that he prefixed the first six books with tables of contents (prographai) but that he found that copyists just ignored them and they tended not to be copied (and indeed have not reached us). So he was going to add introductions in the text (proektheses) instead, starting with book 11.

But I'm not sure whether the work of Thucydides was divided into books originally at all. I have a feeling this was a habit of the Alexandrian age.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Well done for getting access to Nutton's edition and translation!

Does Nutton make use of Arabic versions of the text?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I think the context of my comment has got lost. By "fringe" I meant that the idea that Acts uses Josephus was fringe **among scholars**. The Christian argument is a sensible one, tho. Revelation is a post 64 AD text, and is a very different animal in its attitude to Rome -- "the whore of Babylon" -- to Acts, with its attitude of approval of the Romans.

Now there is certainly no reason not to seek for sources in principle, although what used to be called source criticism is rather discredited these days, or so I am told by one of the chronographic scholars I was reading.

The difficulty with simple similarities is that they are not actually proof of anything. They give false positives, you see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

I wasn't able to borrow the book just photocopy a few pages. However there are mentions of the Latin and Arabic readings in the critical apparatus.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Just to play Devil's Advocate - why is 177 CE an impossibly late date for Luke-Acts? The evidence of Ignatius or Polycarp is easily discounted (if there is such evidence). What makes 177 CE so problematic? Against Heresies hasn't been published yet and if you accept Kuhn's suggestion that Theophilus is Theophilus of Antioch the Antiochene interest in the text seems to be explained.

I am not saying I accept the evidence of Galen but I have an open mind to arguments made by all sides on the issue. What makes 177 CE makes a dependence on Galen implausible?

Even the citation of Luke in Book One of Against Heresies comes after chapter 21 which is mostly regarded as an addition from other sources including Justin's Syntagma. The account of Carpocrates comes from hypomnemata of Hegesippus which is dated to the reign of Eleutherius so around the same time as Galen. Also the reference to Luke in the Marcion section also appears side by side with a reference to Pilate as "the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar' when we all agree that the real Irenaeus identified Pilate in the Proof as 'the governor of Claudius.'

If Grant is right that the various books were written one after another (I prefer to think they were assembled from lectures after his death) why doesn't a date of 177 CE for Acts work when various parts of Against Heresies were dependent on Hegesippus which is from a similar period?

mountainman

The very central and important, one might even say "transcendental", name of the "Chrestians" would then not be known to the disciples first in Antioch, but instead first to the Roman senator and historian Tacitus (c.117 CE). But wait, this could be good for the prestige value alone.

andrewcriddle

My earlier post explained why the 'evidence from Galen' seems textually dubious.
Irenaeus presumably held that Pilate became governor under Tiberius and continued until Claudius. In any case the statement about Pilate in the Marcion section is an expression of Marcion's views not necessarily those of Irenaeus.
IF book 1 of Against Heresies (which clearly knows Acts) was only assembled after the death of Irenaeus then this would weaken the arguments against a late date of Acts. Grant's (and others) late date for the later books of Against Heresies would not weaken the arguments in this way because book 1 (and probably 2) remain early.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
If Christianity believed this there would be no need for FRDB. Greed for your religious beliefs is not good.

As usual, the lack of quality sources prevents any individual dating scenario for Acts being probable. The Relationship though of our known major sources to each other makes a date of post 1st half of second century the best one:

1) C. 50 = Paul = Claimed source = Revelation. Denies historical witness.

2) C. 75 = Fake Paul = Expands on Paul.

3) C. 100 = "Mark" = Claimed source = Revelation. Expands Paul's basics into a Jesus narrative. Accepts historical witness but not as source for Jesus knowledge. That source is the Gospel (Revelation). Note that when I say "Revelation" this is Paul's "spiritual knowledge".

4) C. 125 = Marcion, the first attributed user of any Gospel (by the orthodox!) = Claimed source = Revelation. Accepts all of "Mark's" assertions above. Connects the Gospel to Paul as the source (not author, just source).

5) C. 150 = Justin = the orthodox claimed source = historical witness. Justin makes a general claim that some disciples documented their historical witness implying that this orthodox claim is relatively new as individual names have not yet been attributed to these Gospels. Justin makes no mention of Paul. Presumably, at this time, Paul is associated with the Gnostics and Marcion who share the source of Revelation, while Justin and the orthodox want historical witness. Justin also shows no knowledge of Acts. Either it has not yet been written or he does not consider it authoritative. The weakness of other evidence for Acts before Justin makes it more likely that Justin does not refer to Acts because it does not exist.

6) C. 175 = Irenaeus = the orthodox claimed source = historical witness. Now the Gospels are attributed to individual disciples. Further, the former primary witness of the Gnostics, Paul, has now been converted to the orthodox through Acts, which has a primary purpose of reconciling Paul to the supposed historical witness disciples.

This suggests that Acts is created after Justin and before Irenaeus and is the best explanation. But it is possible that Acts already existed but was just accepted by the orthodox at this time.

Note the game of leapfaithfrogging Christianity plays above. By the next generation the orthodox assertian advances one level.

I showed you how the game is played Pals. Now go to work!



Joerdon.

ErrancyWiki

stephan huller

Andrew

I think you have done a good job with my questions. Everything you said is quite reasonable. I have tried to treat the question of whether or not Acts used Galen from whether or not a date of 177 CE for Acts is unlikely because Irenaeus used Acts.

The only question that is left unanswered by you is how and why Irenaeus's use of an alleged Acts from 177 CE should be treated as any more or less unreasonable than his use of a hypomnemata which makes explicit reference to its having been written during the reign of Eleutherius. Perhaps one could argue that he difference is that Hegesippus was a Christian and must have known Irenaeus. But Irenaeus also mentions many Christians in the Imperial court where Galen had worked in Commodus's father's administration. If Irenaeus wrote from Rome (I have never understood how people can possibly argue that he was as influential as he was writing from some backwater see like Lyons) it seems that Galen would have been almost as 'at hand' as Hegesippus.

Thanks again.

DCHindley

Stephen,

Actually, Lyons (Lugdunnem) in Gaul was the seat for the Roman military supply chain into eastern Gaul and Germany, and for communications coming out of those regions. My guess would be that works produced there could fairly easily find their way back to Rome & Greece, and from there to Egypt and the Mediterranean region in general.

DCH