aa5874

But, John Chrysostom's statement is supposed to be late 4th century and it tends to indicate that Acts of the Apostles was a recent work.

The Church writers presented information that there was a Canon which included Acts of the Apostles, available and distributed throughout the Roman Empire for over 300 years. They also propagated that it was established since the 1st century, that a character called Luke wrote Acts and was a close companion of Paul travelling and preaching all over the Empire with him, and that this Luke also wrote the Gospel according to Luke.

Luke, the proposed author of Acts, should have been a household name within the Church.

This is Chrysostom in his Homilies of Acts. See www.newadvent.org

Chrysostom claimed the opposite.
1. The author called Luke was very little known.
2. Acts of the Apostles was not known to have existed.

It can be deduced from Chrysostom that there was no Canon which included Acts of the Apostles and an author called Luke, since Acts of the Apostles should have been physically bound to the other books of the Canon or was permanently listed as part of the Canon at least 200 years before Chrysostom.

Based on Chrysostom, Montanus is not the likely author of Acts, but probably the 4th century Roman Church.

RParvus

Hi Jay,

Clement's Rich Man quote contains the phrase "with persecutions." The parallel passage in Mark (Mk. 10:29-30) also has "with persecutions," but the parallel passage in Luke (Lk. 18:29) doesn't have it. So, I'm wondering why you see the Rich Man quote as derived from Luke 18:29 rather than Mk. 10:30?

Best regards,

Roger

RParvus

Hi Jay,

Rhodon described Apelles as an ‘old man’ when he met with him around 180 CE. So, if we can take ‘old’ to be 70 to 80 years old, Apelles would have been born at the beginning of the second century. Thus whether we accept 144 CE to be the date of Marcion’s break with the Roman church (Harnack’s position) or as the date of Marcion’s death (Barnikol’s position), Apelles could have been Marcion’s disciple as early as the 130s CE.

Moreover, I think it can be determined that Apelles had already broken with Marcion by about the mid 140s CE. In my book I present arguments to the effect that the original author of the Ignatian letters was Peregrinus and that he was a follower of Apelles. The letters were written while Peregrinus was being led under Roman military escort from his hometown, Parium in the Hellespont, back to Antioch to be executed for some offense committed at Antioch. The route was by way of Troas, Smyrna, and Ephesus; then by ship to Antioch. Around 180 CE, as part of a conversion of the letters by a proto-orthodox editor/interpolator into letters of Ignatius, the itinerary was inverted, and Antioch to Ephesus to Smyrna to Troas became the first part of a journey that was to end supposedly at Rome.

Similarities between "Ignatius" and Peregrinus have long been noticed. Ignatius and Peregrinus were both Christian leaders in the 2nd century Antiochene church. Both either claimed prophetic ability or were reputed to possess such. Both wrote Christian literature. When arrested, both loudly professed their desire for martyrdom. Both conferred titles on their errand-runners: Ignatius called them "God's Ambassadors" and "Couriers of God," while Peregrinus called his "Death's Messengers" and "Couriers of the Grave." Both figures went by more than one name: Ignatius is careful in all seven letters to refer to himself as "Ignatius who is also Theophorus"; while Peregrinus, who is known to have adopted the names Proteus and Phoenix, probably used other names as well since Lucian of Samosata mockingly calls him "He with the most names of all the Cynics" (Lucian’s “On the Death of Peregrinus").

Peregrinus’ letters, even if inspiring Christian literature, would have required touching-up by the proto-orthodox before being of any use by their community. First, Peregrinus did not actually die a martyr’s death. He was released by the governor of Syria. The editor of the letters wanted to present them as having been written by a martyr ---not just by someone who was almost a martyr. Second, at some point after his release from prison Peregrinus was expelled by the Christians, allegedly for having eaten something forbidden. He then went to Egypt where, under the tutelage of a certain Agathobulus, he embraced Cynicism. The Christian editor of the letters no doubt realized that Peregrinus’ apostasy made them damaged goods. Finally, at the time Peregrinus wrote the letters he was an Apellean Christian, i.e. a follower of Apelles, the ex-disciple of Marcion. Without going into all the indications of this in the letters, I will just point out the most obvious instance. In Magnesians 8:1 “Ignatius” writes: “Do not be deceived by false doctrines or by old fables that are worthless. For if we still live according to Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.” This reference to Judaism as false doctrines and old, worthless fables is obviously not of proto-orthodox provenance. It is Apellean. Origen describes Apelles as “that disciple of Marcion’s, who became the founder of a certain sect, and treated the writings of the Jews as fables.” ("Against Celsus" 5:54). Hippolytus writes: “He (Apelles) composed his treatises against the Law and the Prophets and attempts to abolish them as if they had spoken falsehoods.” ("Refutation of All Heresies," 10:16) And Pseudo-Tertullian has this to say: He (Apelles) “has his own books, which he has entitled Syllogisms, in which he seeks to prove that whatever Moses has written about God is not true, but is false” ("Against All Heresies" 6).

If “Ignatius” was in reality Peregrinus, we have an important date marker. It is known that Peregrinus self-immolated himself (he was never quite able to shake off that death-wish of his, even after he became a Cynic!) in 165 CE. Moreover, he had already been a Cynic for at least several years when he criticized Herodes Atticus for building an aqueduct at the site of the Olympian games. Most classicists think the games in question were those held in 153 CE, but they were possibly either the previous ones in 149, or the following ones in 157. That would seem to indicate that Peregrinus’ Christian period was in the late 140s. From the letters we can tell that Peregrinus’ Apellean church was still in limbo. Most of the animosity is directed towards his docetic opponents (Marcionites) whom he mockingly calls an “alien stain” (making fun of Marcion’s ‘Alien’ god). He directs his readers to not even speak with the docetists. On the other hand, he is on speaking terms with his other group of opponents that he refers to as Judaizers. Apelleans considered the proto-orthodox to be Judaizers because of their misguided acceptance of the whole Old Testament (what Peregrinus calls “the ancient archives”).

So, to get back to your original thread, I would keep open the possibility that the Spirit-emphasis in Acts has Apelleans in view rather than the Montanists.

Best regards,

Roger

jakejonesiv

Hi All,

I have read Roger's book and found it to be very well researched and persuasive. I would recommend that anyone who is interested in the subjects of Ignatius, Apelles, or Marcion should by all means read A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings by Roger Petit. It is available on Amazon.com.

But to the question, "Was Acts Written by a Montanist?" The answer is quite possible that the carnalized Christ of the proto-orthodox was based on a new revelation in the second century. Acts would be a small but significant part of that grander movement.

It appears as if the proto-orthodox of Irenaeus’ time took the gospels of the so-called heretics and
modified them to reflect the emerging doctrines of the Roman church. It is precisely in this text (Adversus Haereses 3.11, about 185 CE) that we find for the first time the four gospels called by their current names, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the ludicrous reasons (3.11.8) why only these four were chosen out of the many others extant at that time.

So the question arises, were Irenaeus and his cohorts committing outright forgery, or did they have some justification for expanding the texts and attributing the expansion to the disciples? The answer may be contained in the peculiar text of 1.11.9.

In a supposed comment about the Montanists, Irenaeus writes “Others, again, that they may set at naught the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete; (John 14:16) but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit..”

It is not clear that Montanism was a heresy at this time. Tertullian was a Montanist in good standing a
generation later, and he was only judged a heretic by the 6th Century Decretum Gelasianum. What if Irenaeus was not here disputing Montanism, but giving justification for the proto-orthodox expansion of the gospels?

Irenaeus invokes the Paraclete, which is a “prophetic spirit.”
“But when the Paraclete is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify concerning me.” John 15:26.


Even more blatantly,
“But the Paraclete, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all
things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” John 14:26.

Omigod! The Spirit was going to tell them deeds and sayings of Jesus that were otherwise unknown or
forgotten.

This amounts to a new and direct revelation of the Spirit to the proto-orthodox compilers of the gospels. The cohorts of Irenaeus believed they were writing inspired truth, but they didn’t get it from history; they were hearing voices. And as imaginary voices are prone to do, they told them what they wanted to hear.


Jake Jones IV

]

Toto

Roger Parvus' book can be downloaded as an e-book here or is available on Amazon:

A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings (or via: amazon.co.uk)

PhilosopherJay

Hi RParvus and jakejonesiv,

I agree we should keep on open mind on all this stuff. There is not enough evidence to make definitive statements, just tantalizing clues that can be seen pointing in one or several directions.

I am happy that more people are seeing the writings of Acts and proto-orthodox texts as happening in the second half of the Second century. Mainstream apologists usually put them in the Second half of the First century, or the early Second century. To me, The late second half of the Second century is something the evidence really overwhelmingly points to and I suspect that the first proto-orthodox doctrines (holy trinity, four gospels, Peter and Paul in Rome, historical Jesus of Nazareth, etc.) do not exist before the 180's or later.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

jakejonesiv

Yes, of course I agree with these obsevations as stated in the quote. I enjoy you thoughts very much.

Best,
Jake