Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 01-03-2007, 07:48 AM

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ehumm/Re.../apocEzek.html

Not much remains of this work, but has generally been dated to somewhere between 50 BCE and 50 CE.

Much of the reason for the later date is that it mentioned The Lord Jesus Christ, but the question arises, if The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a myth, then dating this work to after the 30s CE on this account is not correct.

Could this be a work that mentions Jesus Christ prior to his supposed lifetime?

S.C.Carlson · 01-03-2007, 09:11 AM

Here's what J. R. Mueller and S. E. Robinson in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (or via: amazon.co.uk), pp. 488, 495, n.4b, have to say about this fragment:

Quote:

The fourth surviving fragment of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel is cited in no fewer than thrity-two secondary sources, which date from the second century A.D. well into the Middle Ages. The earliest and most important of these citations is found in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 47.5, from which the translation below is taken.

...

Quote:

Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ (b) said, "In the things which I find you, in these also I will judge you."

(b) Justin is the only author to attribute this saying to Jesus. K. Holl proposed that this ascription is false; he postulated that the saying was originally attributed to the "prophets" (cf. the citations by Elias of Crete and in Pseudo-Athanasius) and that Justin mistakenly read the kurios, "Lord," of the original as Jesus Christ instead of God (Aus Schrift und Geschichte, p. 95).

The only authors to attribute the agraphon to Ezekiel are Evagrius of Antioch in his Lat. translation of the Life of Antony 16 (c. 375 A.D.; cf. PL 26, col. 869) and John Climacus (c. 649 A.D.). J. Jeremias claims that the ascription to Ezekiel is secondary and is based upon the similarity of the agraphon to Ezek 33:12-20 (cf. above, "Texts").

If Justin is the only of 32 to attribute it to Jesus, I'd say he made a mistake.

Malachi151 · 01-03-2007, 09:13 AM

Ahh, that makes sense. Seems that JM made many such "mistakes". By the way, do we know if this error of JM's made it into copies of the text, or are there any copies of the text?

S.C.Carlson · 01-03-2007, 10:09 AM

As far as I am aware there are no surviving copies of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel. All we have are fragments, portions quoted by others with varying degrees of exactness.

S.C.Carlson · 01-03-2007, 12:16 PM

Got that wrong. There is a small manuscript fragment of the fifth fragment, but none of the fourth that would answer your question.

01-03-2007, 07:48 AM	#1
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Apocryphon of Ezekiel - mention of Jesus before Jesus? http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ehumm/Re.../apocEzek.html Not much remains of this work, but has generally been dated to somewhere between 50 BCE and 50 CE. Much of the reason for the later date is that it mentioned The Lord Jesus Christ, but the question arises, if The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a myth, then dating this work to after the 30s CE on this account is not correct. Could this be a work that mentions Jesus Christ prior to his supposed lifetime?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2007, 09:13 AM	#3
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Ahh, that makes sense. Seems that JM made many such "mistakes". By the way, do we know if this error of JM's made it into copies of the text, or are there any copies of the text?

01-03-2007, 10:09 AM	#4
S.C.Carlson Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,307	As far as I am aware there are no surviving copies of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel. All we have are fragments, portions quoted by others with varying degrees of exactness.

01-03-2007, 12:16 PM	#5
S.C.Carlson Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,307	Got that wrong. There is a small manuscript fragment of the fifth fragment, but none of the fourth that would answer your question.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.