Roland

I've been searching for the answer to this, but so far haven't had much luck finding it. Does anyone know who is the first Christian writer to identify the Acts of the Apostles by name and what would be a rough time frame for it?

Thanks for your help.

Toto

Doherty remarks (in rgard to why Acts cannot be dated to around 62) that I expect that the mentioner in the 170's is Irenaeus.

Iasion

Greetings all,

Yah, Irenaeus is the first I can find, he mentions it once :
Heresies 3, Ch13, 3 -
"... If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that..."

Next is Clement Alex. who refers clearly to Acts many times. As does Cyprian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Tertullian.

This suggests Acts was witten mid 2nd century.

Iasion

Roland

Thanks, guys, for your help.

I also notice that Ireneus is the first writer ever to mention Luke's gospel by name, which makes one wonder how scholars come up with such early dates for the canonical gospels.

Apart from some vague comments about Matthew and Mark allegedly found in the writings of Papias (which may or may not refer to the gospels we know of by those names), there seems to be zero mention of any of them before 170 A.D., fully 100 years after they were supposedly written.

Toto

The usual argument (conventional wisdom?) is that the gospels ciruclated anonymously before they were mentioned by Irenaeus. Better that they be anonymous than non-existent.

The evidence for this consists of some phrases that look like they might have been taken or remembered from the gospels that show up in Justin Martyr (or other writers I am not taking the time to look up). But of course the gospel writers could have appropriated those phrases.

Roland

I agree, Toto..better anonymous than non-existant. It's irritating, though, when Christians declare with such certainty that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels and then use the argument that "there were no competing traditions that other authors wrote them." The problem is there were no traditions AT ALL about these works until the late 2nd Century. What a snowjob!

judge

Really? How do you know there were not?

Itis one thing to say that no evidence of there existence has survived, it is quite another to say they did not exist.
If you beleive the gospels did not exist in the first century then what evidence do you base this on?

Iasion

Greetings,

judge - "If you beleive the gospels did not exist in the first century then what evidence do you base this on?"

Well,
the first dozen or more of Christian writings, covering the first CENTURY of Christian history make no mention of the Gospels or their contents (except perhaps Barnabas) -

(all of Paul)
Hebrews (60s)
Colossians (70s)
James (80s)
1 John (80s)
2 Thessalonians (80s)
Ephesians (90s)
1 Peter (90s)
Revelation (90s)
Clement (90s)
Jude (100s)
Didakhe (100s)
2 John (120s)
3 John (120s)

So,
there are plenty of places where 1st century evidence COULD be found regarding the Gospels. The fact that none of these writers mentions the Gospels argues they did not exist in their day.

How do YOU explain all these lack of references, judge?


Also,
Aristides described the Gospels as having been preached only a "short time" in his day (140s-160s).


Iasion

judge

I can't imagine why we would expect the wrtings you mention to quote from the gospels, to be honest.
These writings were not regarded as "the inerrant word of God" in those days. What was more important I would imagine was not the exact wording of this or that account but the fact the the Christ had finally appeared.

Do you have a reference or an online version of this in context?

thanks

Added in edit:

I found one

"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous." (Aristides 2)

from here

I'm not sure this actually says what you suggest it might. ??

Roland

Judge - I guess I could turn the questions back around on you and ask: if you believe the gospels DID exist in the first century, then what evidence do you base this on?