PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

Thanks for this. The Quartodeciman issue seems to have been raised in the time of Pope Victor (189-199). Victor expelled churches from Asia Minor that celebrated a Christian Holiday on the 14th of Nissan instead of Easter Sunday. Irenaeus' declaration that it had been raised before in the time of Anecitus (c. 155), and a peaceful live-and-let-live attitude had been adopted, should be seen as merely a rhetorical trick designed to get Victor to make peace and stop the schism between the Eastern Churches and Rome.

The text of the epistula Apostolorum is apparently responding to this controversy created by Victor. In the epistula, Jesus himself says in no uncertain terms that Christians must celebrate his death on Passover until his return. Clearly, the author is taking the side of Eastern churches that celebrated Passover against Victor and Rome.

I would take this as more and significant evidence that the text must have been composed in the early years of the Third century.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

andrewcriddle

Hi Jay

I don't myself see the passage as responding to the sort of issues Victor raised. The issue is complicated by differences in the Coptic and Ethiopic text

Coptic And we said unto him: Lord, is it then needful that we should again take the cup and drink? He said unto us: Yea, it is needful, until the day when I come again, with them that have been put to death for my sake.

Ethiopic And we said unto him: Lord, didst not thou thyself fulfil the drinking of the Passover? is it then needful that we should accomplish it again? He said unto us: Yes, until I come from my Father with my wounds.

(MR James clarified using Elliott's Apocryphal New Testament)

Even if the Ethiopic refers to the late 2nd century Paschal controversy (which I doubt) there seems to be no such reference in the Coptic.

Andrew Criddle

tanya

Hi MaryHelena,
Earlier, in this thread, I asked whether you had a link to a Greek version of Ignatius' letter to Magnesians 5:1, to permit comparison with Acts 1:25.

I had asked for a Greek version, because I suspected that the English version, which you have QUOTED, with quotation marks, differs from the Greek version.

Today I received my copy of Michael Holmes excellent book: The Apostolic Fathers, with both English and Greek on adjacent pages.

Wow. Terrific.

So, to answer my own question, then, the situation is just as I imagined. There may well be the IDENTICAL sentiment conveyed, (I wouldn't know, for my knowledge of Greek is somewhere between nil and non-existent), however, the two phrases are definitely NOT IDENTICAL, and in my opinion, it is not correct to employ quotation marks. In addition, the correct English translation is unclear to me.

Acts 1:25 (Codex Sinaiticus)
... ειϲ τον τοπον τον ϊδιον

Ignatius Mag 5:1
.... ειϲ τον ϊδιον τοπον

Yes, not much different, but, not identical either.

Certainly, in terms of 21st century communication, one would not typically claim that IM 5:1 was quoting A 1:25.

Iskander

Was there an Early Christianity or only Eusebian Christianity?


The Jewish View



http://www.myjewishlearning.com/hist...n_Schism.shtml

Duvduv

This is what we should call Jewish anecdotal history. There is nothing in the Talmud at all that indicates that the blessing added to the 18 Benedictions had anything to do with "Christians" infiltrating the Jews, or Christians period. Nothing.

In fact the main concern was holdovers of the Saduccees and possibly Samaritans, and other sects that are never identified. But again, this anecdote has no basis in the Talmud, and as far as I know it is not mentioned by commentators either such as Maimonides in the Laws of Prayer or Rashi.

Duvduv

Is it possible that the citations from the book ascribed to Tertullian do not mention the name Jesus should be considered like what we find in the case of Theophilus and Athenagoras?

Adam

Logical error? You're confusing deduction and induction. Sifting the text for indications of later date is good historical method. The lack of any such indications implies (without proving) that the text was written earlier rather than later. Your point of view has the author deliberately archaizing the text to avoid giving away the game that it was actually written later. Obviously the burden of proof is on your side. It's not enough to contend that some few verses depend on some outside text that is later, as those could be interpolations or just harking back to a common source.
Consensus dates for Luke-Acts have not moved to dates as late as copying from Josephus would require, so this means most scholars are not on the same page as Pervo.

Toto

The text has not been archaized in any meaningful sense. Events that happened beyond its time frame are just not mentioned. That's not so obvious. Christian apologists play the game of shifting the burden of proof onto someone else. We have no record of Acts before the late second century, we have indications that Luke used Josephus.

How convenient. Usually when skeptics raise the possibility of interpolations, the Christian apologists go into denial mode, and claim that anyone alleging an interpolation has a heavy burden of proof on the issue.

I think if you look at the basis for that consensus, it is primarily based on evangelical scholars who have an ideological bent towards an early date. It is not based on an independent review of the evidence.

maryhelena

Great - answering your own question. Way to go!

It was the website I quoted that made the connection between Acts and Ignatius. I simple referenced it. As to it being a legitimate connection - the best that could probably be said is that the question is an open one. As to the translation itself, I did, in post #24, provide one. In that translation the words in question have been set apart. Whether that is an acceptable method of translating the words I don't know. Translating words from old manuscripts into English is not without controversy. Remember how the team translating The Gospel of Judas came under fire for their translation. Not that that's any real comparison here - probably just a suggestion that one might have to consult with various translations...I don't know if this is the case with this specific translation - simply that the translation I have quoted does indicate the specific words have been set apart for some reason.

(from: _Apostolic Fathers_ Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation)

IGNATIUS to the Magnesians

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

tanya

Thanks MaryHelena, for your reply. It is not my intention to criticize you for employing quotation marks, but, I do wish to indicate that Lightfoot's English version of his copy of the Greek manuscript (of origin unknown to me) of Mag 5:1 in the excellent book by Holmes, employs no such method of distinguishing this phrase, either in Greek or in English.

By setting it apart, with quotes, or underline symbols, the writer of the web site above, is drawing a conclusion that remains unclear, at least to me. One requires a thorough linguistic analysis of the two distinct Koine Greek phrases, to assert equality of meaning. I cannot provide that.