Author Topic: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians  (Read 3509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #90 on: January 16, 2017, 11:12:15 PM »
I thought these quotes were interesting from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, quoted by these writers:
Quote
Haimo of Auxerre.
From Haimo, commentary II, On Isaiah 53.12, writing of the words of Jesus on the cross: Father, forgive them (de Santos 40):
    As it has it in the gospel of the Nazarenes, at this voice of the Lord many thousands of Jews standing around the cross came to faith.

Petrus de Riga.
In a copy of the Bible known as the Aurora of Petrus de Riga, century XIII, one of the marginal notes says regarding the temple incident:
    In the books of the gospels that the Nazarenes use it is read that rays issued from his eyes, by which terrified they were put to flight.

Confer Jerome, commentary on Matthew 21.15:
    For a certain fiery and starry [light] radiated from his eyes, and the majesty of divinity shone in his face.

The History of the Passion of the Lord.

Extant in a codex of the fourteenth century.
From the History of the Passion of the Lord, folio 25 verso, concerning the footwashing for the disciples:
    And, just as it is said in the gospel of the Nazaraeans, he had kissed the feet of each.

From the History of the Passion of the Lord, folio 35 recto, concerning the Peter and John in the court of the high priest:
    In the gospel of the Nazaraeans the reason is given for John having been known to the priest. It was because when he was the son of the poor fisherman Zebedee he often ported fishes to the curias of the priests.

From the History of the Passion of the Lord, folio 55 recto, concerning the words of forgiveness from the cross:
Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do. And note that in the gospel of the Nazaraeans it is read that at this virtuous prayer of Christ eight thousand were afterward converted to the faith. There were to be sure three thousand on the day of Pentecost.

http://www.textexcavation.com/nazoraeangospel.html
Is this saying that later on by being told about these words of Jesus an accumulated 8000 Jews converted to Christianity?
Quote
From the History of the Passion of the Lord, folio 65 recto, concerning the signs at the death of the Lord:
    Likewise in the gospel of the Nazaraeans it is read that a lintel of the temple of infinite magnitude was broken at the death of Christ. Josephus says the same thing and adds that horrible voices were heard in the air saying: Let us leave these regions.

This last reference comes up in another source:
Quote
Peter Comestor (century XII) has: "for in the gospel of the Nazarenes it is read that a lintel of the temple of infinite magnitude was broken and voices were heard in the air: Let us go out from these places".

Josephus has a similar story, but he relates it to a later moment:
Quote
Moreover, at that [Jewish] feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).
Didn't one scholar say that these portents and the voices were said by Josephus to have occurred decades after Jesus' death? I don't remember who.

Quote
Tacitus, a Roman historian, also says, "There were many prodigies presignifying their ruin which was not averted by all the sacrifices and vows of that people. Armies were seen fighting in the air with brandished weapons. A fire fell upon the Temple from the clouds. The doors of the Temple were suddenly opened. At the same time there was a loud voice saying that the gods were removing, which was accompanied with a sound as of a multitude going out. All which things were supposed, by some to portend great calamities."
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/c/chariots-in-clouds.html

Interesting claim by one writer that via Jerome, fragments from the Gospel of the Nazarenes are part of the KJV:
Quote
Jerome translated it into the Latin and incorporated it (in his own words, even changing some of them) into the Latin Vulgate from which the English versions (including KJV) are now derived.
...
(in Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 12:13)--"In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use, which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek,..."

...He... tells us here that he translated it from Hebrew to Greek (thus the additions, deletions, etc. that we now have in our New Covenant).

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelnazoreans.html
Do you agree? That writer puts a lot of other strange claims on his page though. And the seeming existence of additions and deletions could just be because Jerome was translating from the Greek G.Matthew into Latin, and the Greek version already had changes. The writer seems to think mistakenly that the Vulgate Matthew was Jerome's translation from Hebrew, doesn't he?

Here is a difference in texts from G.Matthew:
Quote
Matthew 7:5: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

To Matt. 7:5 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel reads here: "If you be in my bosom and do not the will of my Father who is in heaven, I will cast you away from my bosom."
It sounds to me like a later interpolation. Matthew 7 doesn't have Jesus mentioning himself in his discourse directly until 15 verses later. Instead, v. 5 seems to be part of a long list of sayings about what to do or not to do, not a reference to what He will do based on those actions.

Interesting mention by Jerome:
Quote
To Matt. 12:10 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 12:13)--In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use, which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the authentic [Gospel] of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason

Quote
To Matt. 18:21-22 (Luke 17:3-4) cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Against Pelagius, III.2)--He says, "If your brother has sinned by a word, and repented, receive him seven times a day." Simon, his disciple, said to him, "Seven times a day?" The Lord answered, "Yes, I tell you, as much as seventy times seven times! For in the prophets also, after they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, a word of sin was found."
This is an interesting issue. I highly doubt Jesus was implying that some of the prophets' words in the Bible were sinful though. I assume he means they sinned sometimes in their personal lives.

Quote
Matthew 27:65: "Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can."

To Matt. 27:65 cf. Gospel of the Nazaraeans, as recorded in a marginal note of some mss: The Jewish Gospel has: And he delivered armed men to them, that they might sit opposite the cave and guard it day and night.
If Pilate says "You have a watch" like in Jerome's version, I can see how this might mean either "You already have a guard patrol, your temple soldiers", or else "Here, you have this Roman guard patrol that I am giving you". It seems to create some ambiguity about who owned the guards.
But if Pilate "delivered armed men to the high priests" like in the "Jewish gospel", doesn't that mean the armed men were Pilate's own soldiers?
In the Gospel of Peter, a different gospel, it seems that there were both Roman guards and Temple staff at the tomb.

Eusebius writes:
Quote
He (Christ) himself taught the reason for the separations of souls that take place in houses, as we have found somewhere in the Gospel that is spread abroad among the Jews in the Hebrew tongue, in which it is said: "I choose for myself the most worthy: the most worthy are those whom my Father in heaven has given me."
(Eusebius, Theophania 4.12 [on Matthew 10:34-36])
Eusebius was writing in the context of a commentary on Matthew 10:34-36, which says:
Quote
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,855
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #91 on: January 17, 2017, 02:20:48 AM »
***Subscribed***
"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +
http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #92 on: January 17, 2017, 02:38:11 PM »
The Gospel of Matthias may also be known as the Traditions of Matthias. Here is a good attempt at a text excavation of its fragments:
http://www.textexcavation.com/traditionsmatthias.html

According to the Nicolaiatans, a sect mentioned as heretical in the Book of Revelation, this work was ascribed to Matthias the apostle.
Quote
Though the work is lost, Clement of Alexandria[2] records a sentence urging asceticism that the Nicolaitanes ascribe to Matthias: "we must combat our flesh, set no value upon it, and concede to it nothing that can flatter it, but rather increase the growth of our soul by faith and knowledge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthias

It's interesting that Codex Baroccianus lists it as canonical but that Eusebius attributed it to heretics.
Quote
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.25.6) mentions it together with gospels of Thomas and Peter. He describes them as works which were composed by heretics, but which nonethless were known to most writers in the early Church. The Gospel of Matthias is also named in lists of heretical works: the Decretum Gelasianum, the Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books, and a list in the Samaritan Chronicle No. II of false books allegedly used by Nazarene Christians.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/traditionsmatthias.html

There is a confusing issue about the Nicolaiatans:
Quote
The Nicolas of Acts 6:5 was a native of Antioch and a proselyte (convert to Judaism) and then a follower of the way of Christ. When the Church was still confined to Jerusalem, he was chosen by the whole multitude of the disciples to be one of the first seven deacons, and he was ordained by the apostles, c. AD 33. It has been questioned whether this Nicolas was connected with the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation, and if so, how closely.

  •     The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.
        — Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, i. 26, §3[16]

In other writings of the early Church this connection is disputed and the Nicolaitans are said to be "falsely so called" (ψευδώνυμοι).[17] Clement of Alexandria put forward a defense of Nicolas (in Stromata ii. 20, iii. 4) which Eusebius accepts and repeats (in Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 29).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism

Actually, Revelation doesn't specify that the Nicolaiatans are indulgers like Bp. Irenaeus thought:
Quote
Revelation 2
6 But this thou [the church of Ephesus] hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I [Jesus Christ] also hate.
...
14 But I have a few things against thee [the church in Pergamos], because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
In other words, the Church at Pergamos has both groups, the indulgers and the Nicolaiatans.

One lead is brought up in that elsewhere Bp. Irenaeus associated them with Cerinthus, a heretical gnostic of c. 100 AD.
Quote
Augustine of Hippo ascribed to them Cerinthian doctrines concerning the creation of the world (in his De haeresibus ad Quodvultdeum, v).
Epiphanius relates some details of the life of Nicolas the deacon, and describes him as gradually sinking into the grossest impurity, and becoming the originator of the Nicolaitans and other libertine Gnostic sects:

    [Nicolas] had an attractive wife, and had refrained from intercourse as though in imitation of those whom he saw to be devoted to God. He endured this for a while but in the end could not bear to control his incontinence.... But because he was ashamed of his defeat and suspected that he had been found out, he ventured to say, "Unless one copulates every day, he cannot have eternal life."[18]
    — Epiphanius, Panarion, xxv. 1

Hippolytus agreed with Epiphanius in his unfavourable view of Nicolas...
What's confusing about the claim that they were gnostic indulgers of the flesh is that in the quote from the gospel of Matthias, the passage does talk about "knowledge" (gnosis), but it also talks about asceticism.
Clement of Alexandria had a positive view of Nicolas and Theodoret thought the sect was wrongly ascribed to him:
Quote
Clement of Alexandria...  states that Nicolas led a chaste life and brought up his children in purity. He describes a certain occasion when Nicolas had been sharply reproved by the apostles as a jealous husband, and he repelled the charge by offering to allow his wife to become the wife of any other person. Clement also writes that Nicolas was in the habit of repeating a saying which is ascribed to the apostle Matthias, that it is our duty to fight against the flesh and to abuse (παραχρῆσθαι) it. His words were perversely interpreted by the Nicolaitans as authority for their immoral practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism

Clement Alexandrine relates an odd story of Nicholas presenting his wife to the apostles in case they wanted to have sex with her, which Clement A. defends as suppression of his own passions. It's kind of an odd issue. He brings up the quote from the Traditions of Matthias:
Quote
Nicolaus, they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour's ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry her. For, they say, this action was appropriate to the saying: 'One must abuse the flesh.' ...

I am informed, however, that Nicolaus never had relations with any woman other than the wife he married, and that of his children his daughters remained virgins to their old age, and his son remained uncorrupted. In view of this it was an act of suppression of passion when he brought before the apostles the wife on whose account he was jealous. He taught what it meant to 'abuse the flesh' by restraining the distracting passions. For, as the Lord commanded, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and God. It is said that Matthias also taught that one should fight the flesh and abuse it, never allowing it to give way to licentious pleasure, so that the soul might grow by faith and knowledge” (Stromata, iii. 4, §§25-26)

Jon B. Daniels writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 4, p. 644) about the Gospel of Matthias:
Quote
    Clement's citations from it are brief hortatory sentences (Strom. 2.9.45; 3.4.26; 7.13.82). But if Strom. 4.6.35 is derived from the same source, then the work may also have contained some narrative material about Jesus. The quotations are not overtly gnostic, but according to Clement (Strom. 7.17.108) teachings of Matthias were used by Basilideans and perhaps other gnostic groups. According to Hippolytus (Haer. 7.20.1) Basilides and his son Isidore claimed to have learned from Matthias 'secret words,' which he had received in private teaching from the Savior.

With the references to gnosts using Matthias' supposed secret words of Jesus, it reminds me a bit of the Nag Hammadi "Book of Thomas the Contender", since one of the sayings in that book is:
Quote
"The secret words that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas which I, even I, Mathaias, wrote down, while I was walking, listening to them speak with one another."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Thomas_the_Contender
What do you think of this possibility?
An interesting thing there is that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas (although there is no mention of Judas being called Judas Thomas), and that there are gnostic gospels of Judas and of Thomas.

About the Book of Thomas the Contender, Wikipedia says:
Quote
An additional consideration is that, since the scribe writing the text is named as Matthias, this work may actually be the lost Gospel of Matthias. The dialogue can also be read as an internal conversation between Jesus and his lower self, Judas Thomas, the twin (contender for supremacy of the soul). The New Testament's "doubting" Thomas and Judas "the betrayer" could also be symbolic and descriptive of this internal battle between the Christ Self and ego identity.
...
"The Book of Thomas the Contender" and its guidance in overcoming ego "lusts/attachments" differs markedly with Jesus' gentler, more practical psychological approach in the Four Canonical Gospels and The Gospel of Thomas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Thomas_the_Contender
The last part about overcoming lusts also reminds me of the Gospel of Matthias.
A big problem with equating them is that even though Clement A. doesn't cite much at all of g.Matthias, his quotes aren't found in the Book of Thomas the Contender.

It's noteworthy that in g.Hebrews, Matthias is considered to be Levi the tax collector, and that Clement Alexandrine associates Zaccheaus the tax collector with Matthias. In the
Quote
STROMATA written by St Clement of Alexandria, ... after the interface between Jesus and Zacchaeus, and Jesus dined with him at his house, Zacchaeus got transformed totally and followed Jesus in his ministry and that this publican Zacchaeus was surnamed ‘Matthias’ thereafter. The one chosen in place of Judas Iscariot is the same Matthias alias Zacchaeus.
...
Subsequent Apostolic constitutions identify Zacchaeus alias Matthias as the first Bishop of Caesarea.

...
The fact that this is found to have been compiled only in the second century proves that the Apostle Matthias is not the true author.
http://marthoman.tv/georgejosephenchakkattil/mathias.htm
How do we know this was only compiled in the 2nd century?

The Orthodox Apologetics site uses Clement A.'s view of Gospel of Matthias to undermine Protestant ideas of solo scriptura. The Protestants cite to Clement A.'s statement
Quote
    "But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." - St. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 7, 16
The Orthodox Apologetics site notes how different Clement A's idea of holy writings was:
Quote
[Clement A.] quotes many that neither you nor I would consider Scriptural as such; and 2. even though Clement's definition of "Scripture" was a little wider than that used by your or I, he does seem to have attributed more authority to the writings of Apostles than to other writings. Even here, however, his list of books differed significantly from our current 27-book New Testament (the New Testament being, as it is, an attempt at a complete library of Apostolic writings).

St. Clement believed all of the following books were Apostolic writings, in addition to what we have in our New Testament today:

    Gospel of the Egyptians
    Gospel of the Hebrews
    Traditions of Matthias
    Preaching of Peter
    1 Clement
    Epistle of Barnabas
    Didache
    Shepherd of Hermas
    Apocalypse of Peter

The problem all of this presents for the Protestant apologist is obvious. Even if Clement was a Sola Scripturist (we've already seen that he was not), his Scriptura was very different from that of a Protestant. Hence, he couldn't have been Sola Scripturist in the way a Protestant is; from a Protestant perspective, he's including a whole lot of extra-biblical stuff in his theology...

http://orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/2010/03/st-clement-of-alexandria-sola-scriptura.html

Some scholars claim that Innocent I listed another book by Matthias besides the Gospel of Matthias and Traditions of Matthias, but if you check Innocent I's letter ( of 405 AD), he doesn't distinguish this book from them. He writes that besides the canonical NT books:
Quote
the rest of the books, which appear under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (which were written by a certain Leucius), or under the name of Andrew (which were written by the philosophers Xenocharides and Leonidas), or under the name of Thomas, and whatever others there may be, you should know they are not only to be rejected but also condemned.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/innocent.html
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 02:39:28 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #93 on: January 18, 2017, 03:49:49 PM »
One writer says that one of the sayings Clement Alexandrine mentions from Gospel of Matthias is gnostic. Which saying do you think that might be?
Here are two lists (a bit different from each other):
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/traditionsmatthias.html
http://www.textexcavation.com/traditionsmatthias.html

Clement A. lived in the 2nd c. and noted:
Quote
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3.4.26.3

They say that Matthias also taught this: "To fight with the flesh and misuse it, without yielding to it through undisciplined pleasure, so to increase the soul through faith and knowledge."
Could the reference to knowledge here be gnostic, and doesn't abusing the flesh sound strange?
Clement is writing this passage in the context of talking about the gnosts. I don't know if a single saying is enough to conclude that the lost gospel/traditions is gnostic.

Paul was saying something similar to abusing the flesh.
( "I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps when I have preached to others I myself should be castaway" (1 Cor 9:27))

Quote
From Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 4.6:
    So Zaccheus, but they say that it was Matthias, the chief tax-collector, having heard that the Lord had deemed him worthy to be with him, says: Behold, half of my present possessions I give as a mercy-gift, Lord, and if I ever extorted anything from anyone, I give it back fourfold. At which also the savior said: When the son of man came today, he found that which was lost.
I think based on the gospels and early Christian writings, there is a bit of confusion between Matthew, Matthias, Levi, and Zaccheus, who were all tax collectors. One reason is that Matthew and Matthias are the same name in Hebrew. Another is that Christians were given a Christian name in addition to their original one.
Also, note in the story above that Zaccheus became a disciple, as I underlined.


Quote
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7.13.82.1

They say that Matthias the apostle in the Traditions says at every opportunity, "If the neighbor of an elect person sins, the elect person sins. For if he had led himself as the word dictates, the neighbor would have been in awe of his life so that he did not sin."
Are you aware of anything like that in the Bible?
I think there is an Orthodox tradition that priests bear personal responsibility for their flock, and there seem to be things like that in the gospels, but nothing about being responsible for neighbors' sins through negligence.

Clement A. notes that Basilides was using this Gospel/Traditions of Matthias. WIkipedia notes that he was gnostic:
Quote
Basilides (Greek: Βασιλείδης) was an early Gnostic religious teacher in Alexandria, Egypt[1] who taught from 117 to 138 AD,[* 1] and claimed to have inherited his teachings from Matthew.[2] He was a pupil of either Menander,[3] or an interpreter of Peter named Glaucias.[4] The Acts of the Disputation with Manes state that for a time he taught among the Persians.[5] He is believed to have written over two dozen books of commentary on the Christian Gospel (now all lost) entitled Exegetica,[3] making him one of the earliest Gospel commentators. Only fragments of his works are preserved that supplement the knowledge furnished by his opponents.

The followers of Basilides, the Basilidians, formed a movement that persisted for at least two centuries after him[6] – Epiphanius of Salamis, at the end of the 4th century, recognized a persistent Basilidian Gnosis in Egypt. It is probable, however, that the school melded into the mainstream of Gnosticism by the latter half of the 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilides

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #94 on: January 21, 2017, 06:42:11 PM »
Scholars dispute whether there was such a thing as an "Epistle to the Laodiceans", which Paul may be referring to at the end of his letter to Colossians:
Quote
"After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea."
(Col. 4:16)

Here is the Greek:
Quote
καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ παρ’ ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή, ποιήσατε ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῇ, καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε.
Some possibilities:
  • A) It's a letter from Paul to Laodicea that he wants the Laodiceans to forward on to the Colossians. In that case, the letter could have been lost, and the one(s) existing in the 2nd century like the Marcionite and/or Vulgate epistle could be forgeries.

    B) It's an encyclical that is already in the New Testament, and is one that he sent to others (eg. his letter to the Ephesians).

    C) It's a letter by Laodiceans to Colossians.

Wikipedia's page on this Epistle talks about the possibility that the Church passed down a copy that made its way into Latin Bibles:
Quote
The Marcionist Epistle to the Laodiceans
According to the Muratorian fragment, Marcion's canon contained an epistle called the Epistle to the Laodiceans which is commonly thought to be a forgery written to conform to his own point of view. This is not at all clear, however, since none of the text survives.[11] It is not known what this letter might have contained. Some scholars suggest it may have been the Vulgate epistle described below...

The Latin Vulgate Epistle to the Laodiceans
For centuries some Western Latin Bibles used to contain a small Epistle from Paul to the Laodiceans.[14] The oldest known Bible copy of this epistle is in a Fulda manuscript written for Victor of Capua in 546. It is mentioned by various writers from the fourth century onwards, notably by Pope Gregory the Great, to whose influence may ultimately be due the frequent occurrence of it in Bibles written in England; for it is commoner in English Bibles than in others. John Wycliffe included Paul's letter to the Laodiceans in his Bible translation from the Latin to English. However this epistle is not without controversy because there is no evidence of a Greek text.[15] It contains almost no doctrine, teachings, or narrative not found elsewhere, and its exclusion from the Biblical canon has little effect.

The text was almost unanimously considered pseudepigraphal when the Christian Biblical canon was decided upon, and does not appear in any Greek copies of the Bible at all, nor is it known in Syriac or other versions.[16] Jerome, who wrote the Latin Vulgate translation, wrote in the 4th century, "it is rejected by everyone".[17] However, it evidently gained a certain degree of respect. It appeared in over 100 surviving early Latin copies of the Bible. ... The apocryphal epistle is generally considered a transparent attempt to supply this supposed lost sacred document. Some scholars suggest that it was created to offset the popularity of the Marcionite epistle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Laodiceans

Marcion had his own heretical version of the Bible that he changed. He could have either made up a copy of the Epistle to the Laodiceans or have altered it. The Latin Vulgate one is at least 4th c. since Jerome knew of it.

The Early Writings site dates the Vulgate one as:
150-350    Epistle to the Laodiceans

Quote
in the Muratori Canon (cf. vol. I, p. 36) two Marcionite forgeries, an epistle to the Laodiceans and one to the Alexandrians, are mentioned and rejected. Apart from the suggestion that these books were 'forged in Paul's name for the sect of Marcion' (lines 64f.), the passage provides no sort of clue to any closer identification of this epistle. Tertullian reports (adv. Marc. V 11 and 17) that the heretics, i.e. the Marcionites, regarded Ephesians as the Epistle to the Laodiceans and that Marcionite himself had made this change in the title. This note is confirmed to some extent by Epiphanius of Salamis (Haer. 42.9.4 and 42.12.3), who, it is true, gives no clear information as to whether the source which he copies here (Hippolytus) recognised Ephesians as the Epistle to the Laodiceans or whether in addition to Ephesians an Epistle to the Laodiceans also stood in the Marcionite canon.
...
Schneemelcher writes concerning the date of the text, "The dating of the Epistle to the Laodiceans is difficult for the reason that it depends on the question of the identity of this apocryphon with the one mentioned in the Muratori Canon, and this again is closely connected with the problem of its Marcionite derivation. Either the Muratori Canon means the Epistle to the Ephesians, the name of which was changed by Marcion into the Epistle to the Laodiceans (so Tertullian) - that, however, is unlikely, since Ephesians is mentioned in the Muratori Canon - or it had actually in view a separate Epistle to the Laodiceans, and then it must be the Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans that has come down to us, if we are not to assume several pseudo-Pauline letters to Laodicea. Certainly the Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans shows no sort of Marcionite character such as ought to be expected according to the statement of the Muratori Canon." (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, p. 43)

Schneemelcher reviews some arguments made by Harnack and Quispel to attempt to show the Marcionite character of the text known to us from Latin copies as the Epistle to the Laodiceans, "it may be said that the Marcionite origin of the Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans is an hypothesis that can neither be proved nor sustained. It is rather a clumsy forgery, the purpose of which is to have in the Pauline corpus the Epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in Col. 4:16. Whether the Epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in the Muratori Canon is identical with this apocryphon remains unsettled. With that possibility of an accurate dating also falls out. As the time of composition there comes into question the period between the 2nd century and the 4th." (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, p. 44)
http://earlychristianwritings.com/laodiceans.html

Quote
One curious feature of many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate is the inclusion of the apocryphal Epistola ad Laodicenses. There is no extant Greek text for this epistle. It is not listed as a canonical book or cited as Scripture by the Church Fathers, and it was explicitly rejected by Jerome and others in ancient times. 1 Most scholars today think it was first composed in Latin, during the fourth century, although J.B. Lightfoot gives some reasons to suspect that it was translated from a Greek original. It appears to be a patchwork of phrases drawn from Paul’s authentic epistles, put together by someone who wished to provide a plausible text for the Laodicean epistle mentioned in Colossians 4:16.
...
We can only guess at the reason for this fraud. There is nothing of a controversial or polemical nature in it, nor even anything very interesting.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140701154417/http://bible-researcher.com/laodiceans.html

I am open to thinking that the copy we have is actually by Paul or else a forgery by Marcion. Paul does mention a letter to Laodicea and the Muratorion canon and Jerome mention a Marcionite one and rejected one, respectively. Naturally, a Marcionite one would be rejected, so Jerome could be talking about a Marcionite one there. There is no need for Marcion to have forged it so badly that it taught Marcionism, he could have just forged it in the course of making his own Bible.

To posit a third Epistle to the Laodiceans seems to go against Occam's razor, since at most only two are ever clearly mentioned (Paul's and Marcion's), except that the Marcionite one is sometimes called a retitled one to the Ephesians, which the extent Vulgate copy is not. But then again, Marcion's books of the Bible were the same as the original, but mutilated by Marcion. If the Vulgate Epistle to the Laodiceans is really a Marcionite Epistle to the Ephesians, it's no surprise then if Marcion reworked it into its current form that we have. Further, Jerome is known to have translated or used apocryphal, or often-doubted writings like Gospel of Hebrews, Shepherd of Hermas, and 4 Esdras. He could realistically have translated Marcion's one into his own Vulgate, which is where we find the only one we have remaining to us today.
Quote
According to M.R. James, "It exists only in Latin [i.e., not in Greek]: the oldest copy is in the Fulda MS. written for Victor of Capua in 546. It is mentioned by various writers from the fourth century onwards, notably by Gregory the Great, to whose influence may ultimately be due the frequent occurrence of it in Bibles written in England
http://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/laodiceans.html

My guess then is that the Marcionite one and the one Jerome says is rejected are all the same copy. And the only question for me that remains is whether the one we have today was actually the one referred to by Paul or a Marcionite version of Epistle to the Ephesians.

To do this, you might want to see how much E.Laodiceans lines up with E.Ephesians.

It looks like the 6th c. Roman Pope St. Gregory the Great accepted it, it's noncanonical, and Jerome said everyone rejected it, but translated it into the Vulgate anyway.

Lopuhin's comment is that what happened is that people in Pontus got the letter to the Ephesians sent to them from Laodicea, and since Marcion was from Pontus, Marcion considered the letter to the Ephesians to the one from Laodicea. So Lopuhin is going with the first option at the beginning of this message.
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Lopuhin/tolkovaja_biblija_69/4

The Letter to the Ephesians begins:
Quote
Greeting.

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the holy ones who are [in Ephesus]* faithful in Christ Jesus

grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,c who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens,

Footnote:

* [In Ephesus]: the phrase is lacking in important early witnesses such as P46 (3rd cent.), and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (4th cent.), appearing in the latter two as a fifth-century addition. Basil and Origen mention its absence from manuscripts. See Introduction. Without the phrase, the Greek can be rendered, as in Col 1:2, “to the holy ones and faithful brothers in Christ.”
It then talks about The Father’s Plan of Salvation.

This lack of In Ephesus can explain possible confusion that arose. If it lacked that title, it could really have been an encyclical as Lopuhin suggests that then was received in Laodicea too, and forwarded from Laodicea to Pontus from where Marcion came, thus creating confusing in the mind of Marcion.

Here is the opening of the Vulgate Ep. Laodiceans:
Quote
1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea.
2. Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. I thank Christ in every prayer of mine, that you may continue and persevere in good works, looking for that which is promised in the day of judgment.
Looking briefly over the rest of it, it looks very different from E. Ephesians, even though the first two verses are similar.

This Orthodox site instead matches its verses up with E.Philippians throughout:
http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/laodicea.htm

I also notice there is not much reference to the Old Testament, and the silence there seems Marcionite. Its talk about "good works" twice and lack of mention of "faith" seems un-Pauline. It's also quite short for a Pauline epistle.

The Holy Trinity Mission takes an opposite view from Lopuhin on whether the E.Laodiceans was the same as E.Ephesians:
Quote
One thing, however, is certain, once the authenticity of the Epistles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians is admitted, and that is that they were written at the same time. They both show fundamentally and formally a very close connection of which we shall speak later on. Tychicus was appointed to convey both Epistles to those to whom they were respectively addressed and to fulfil the same mission in behalf of them (Col. 4:7 sq; Eph. 6:21 sq.). Verse 16 of chapter 4 of Colossians does not seem to allude to the letter to the Ephisians, which would need to have been written first; besides, the Epistle here mentioned is scarcely an encyclical, the context leading us to look upon it as a special letter of the same nature as that sent to the Colossians. If, moreover, Paul knew that, before reaching Colossae, Tychicus would deliver the Epistle to the Ephesians to the Christians at Laodicea, there was no reason why he should insert greetings for the Laodiceans in his Epistle to the Colossians (Col. 4:15). It is more probable that the Epistle to the Ephesians was written in the second place. It would be less easy to understand why, in repeating to the Colossians the same exhortations that he had made to the Ephesians, for instance, on remarriage (Eph. 5:22 sqq.), the author should have completely suppressed the sublime dogmatic considerations upon which these exhortations had been based. Moreover we believe with Godet that: It is more natural to think that, of these two mutually complemental letters, the one provoked by a positive request and a definite need [Col.] came first, and that the other [Eph.] was due to the greater solicitude evoked by the composition of the former."

Pseudo-epistle to the Laodiceans

In the genuine Epistle to the Colossians, Paul, after instructing them to send their Epistle to Laodicea, adds: "read that which is from the Laodiceans." This most probably regards a circular letter, the canonical "Ephesians"; but it has been held to be a lost letter to the Laodicean Christians. The apocryphal epistle is a transparent attempt to supply this supposed lost sacred document. It consists of twenty short lines and is mainly made of matter taken from Philippians and other Epistles, and pieced together without sequence or logical aim. Our apocryphon exists only in Latin and translations from the Latin, though it gives signs of a Greek original. It can hardly be the pseudo-Laodicean letter said by the Muratorian Fragment to have been invented by the heresiarch Marcion. Despite its insipid and suspicious character, this compilation was frequently copied in the Middle Ages, and enjoyed a certain degree of respect, although St. Jerome had written of it: ab omnibus exploditur.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/bible_books_new_1.htm

I have no idea why it says the part I put in bold.


Quaker translation:
http://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/laodiceans.html
Orthodox.cn translation with commentary:
http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/laodicea.htm
Bible Researcher Translation:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140701154417/http://bible-researcher.com/laodiceans.html

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #95 on: Yesterday at 01:40:54 PM »
The Epistle to the Laodiceans starts out this way:
Quote
1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea.
Did Paul ever write this way, saying "not by man but by Jesus Christ", as if the latter wasn't a man?

Another verse says:
Quote
5. And now may God grant that my converts may attain to a perfect knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, be beneficent, and doing good works which accompany salvation.
Is this gnostic or unusual for the NT?
The only place in the NT the phrase appears is:
Quote
Acts 24:22
And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter.


Online Mor Ephrem

  • "Mor has a huge ego"
  • Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,089
  • Abp Yeznik Petrosian Defender of the Faith
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #96 on: Yesterday at 07:47:13 PM »
The Epistle to the Laodiceans starts out this way:
Quote
1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea.
Did Paul ever write this way, saying "not by man but by Jesus Christ", as if the latter wasn't a man?

That's not what that sort of expression would mean. 
Mor has spoken through George... this is the faith of the fathers!

The Church's bridegroom was never the Byzantine Empire.

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,200
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #97 on: Yesterday at 08:25:45 PM »
Galatians starts the same way.
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #98 on: Yesterday at 10:55:35 PM »
Galatians starts the same way.
Good catch.

Not sure why there are just parentheses here, but I agree with you:
Quote
Gal. 1

1. Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),

2. and all the brethren who are with me,

Lopuhin writes He was chosen not by men, ie by other apostles or faithful gathering, like the churches of Titus. He wasn't called through a man, ie Christ not through some means put him in apostolic service, but directly called him. The first responsible one for his calling Paul calls God the Father, who raised Christ from the dead. Paul says to show that God the Father and Christ are on his side. ... But the apostle nonetheless was at the same time fully convinced that Christ, as God, raised Himself. (Rom. 4:25, 8:34)
Lopuhin here in Russian:
Quote
Он, во-первых, избран на свое служение «не человеками», т. е. или другими Апостолами, или собранием верующих, как избраны были напр. церквами Тит и Епафродит (2Кор.8:23; Фил.2:25). Во-вторых, он призван и «не через человека», т. е. Христос не через чье-нибудь посредство поставил его на апостольское служение, а Сам непосредственно призвал его. Впрочем, первым виновником своего призвания Павел называет «Бога Отца, Который воскресил Христа из мертвых».  О последнем факте Ап. упоминает в тех видах, чтобы показать, что на его стороне стоит и Христос, и Бог Отец... Но Ап., тем не менее, был в тоже время вполне убежден, что Христос, как Бог, воскрес Сам (Рим.4:25, 8:34).
SOURCE: NT Commentary

That raises the possibility for me Epistle of Barnabas wasn't implying any docetism when it talks about Christ not being man, as I highlighted earlier in the thread. It seems like sometimes these early writers could use phrases in some ways that might seem to some to be contradictory.

« Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:57:31 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #99 on: Today at 04:22:44 PM »
Quote
The Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text amongst the New Testament apocrypha, mentioned in several early sources. It may be identical to either the Questions of Bartholomew, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (by Bartholomew), or neither.

The author of the Decretum Gelasianum includes "the Gospels in the name of Bartholomew" in a list of condemned or unacceptable scriptures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Bartholomew

Questions of Bartholomew
Quote
appears to have been quite popular, judging by how well it survived, perhaps due to lavish and carnal depictions of the supernatural. For example, the text implies that The Fall of Man was caused by Eve having sex with Satan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questions_of_Bartholomew
Quote
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (by Bartholomew) is not to be confused with the Questions of Bartholomew, although either text may be the missing Gospel of Bartholomew (or neither may be), a lost work from the New Testament apocrypha.

The text is known from three partial manuscripts, and additional fragments, all of which are in Coptic. The text contains visions by Bartholomew, and acts of Thomas, but is predominantly about The Passion, and the Eucharist. The text seems to have no semblance of gnostic interpretations, and instead appears to be a text aiming to fill in the supernatural details of the Passion, and to emphasise the value and meaning of church liturgy.
...
Thomas is busy resurrecting Siophanes (possibly a transcription error and meant to read Theophanes), his son. On returning to life, Siophanes describes what the afterlife was like, while Thomas proceeds to baptise all of the amazed townsfolk, who number some 12,000. Finally, in order to witness the ascension of Jesus, Thomas is brought to the others via a cloud. At this point Thomas is surprised to see Jesus resurrected (despite having just brought his own son back to life),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ_(by_Bartholomew)

OK, I see how the Questions of Bartholomew is definitely not Resurrection of J.C. by Bartholomew and that either one can be G. Bartholomew.

Quote
The Coptic Book of the resurrection of Jesus Christ took on its present basic form in the fifth or sixth c. It is difficult to date the Questions of Bartholomew; dates from the second to the 6th c. have been proposed.  At any rate, the version of the harrowing of hell in this text is probably older than in Ev Nic, indicating that it was composed in the 2nd c, on the other hand this text borrows from Protev 8:1 at 2:15, and from IGTh 2 at 2:11 and this suggests a third c date.  The mariology in the QUestions reflects a phase of dogmatic development anterior to the Council of EPhesus, but it is improbable that it should be dated earlier than parallel statements in Ephiphanius (4th c.)

Bartholomew's][ role is the result of his identification with the Nathanael ... whom Jesus [tells] he will see greater things than these. (Jn 1:50)
...
Chapter 5 is a brief discussion of detailed questions about various categories of sin; it is obviously a subsequent addition.

The Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction, By Hans-Josef Klauck

The entry in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on Bartholomew says:
Quote
One of the Twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:3 Mark 3:18 Luke 6:14 Acts 1:13). There is no further reference to him in the New Testament. According to the "Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles" (Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, II, 50) "Bartholomew was of the house of Naphtali. Now his name was formerly John, but our Lord changed it because of John the son of Zebedee, His beloved." A "Gospel of Bartholomew" is mentioned by Hieronymus (Comm. Proem ad Matth.), and Gelasius gives the tradition that Bartholomew brought the Hebrew gospel of Matthew to India. In the "Preaching of Bartholomew in the Oasis" (compare Budge, II, 90) he is referred to as preaching probably in the oasis of Al Bahnasa, and according to the "Preaching of Andrew and Bartholomew" he labored among the Parthians (Budge, II, 183). ... From the 9th century onward, Bartholomew has generally been identified with Nathanael, but this view has not been conclusively established.
http://biblehub.com/topical/b/bartholomew.htm

I like how the Early Writings site has a brief write-up for different early Christian writings. Some other websites do too, like Text Excavations, Orthodox Wiki, NT Canon. It is hard to find them for G.Bartholomew, Questions of Bartholomew, and Resurrection of J.C. by Bartholomew.

Quote
The apostle was also valued in Egypt, the place of composition of two works bearing his name: the Questions of Bartholomew and the Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew. ....Questions of Bartholomew (composed ca second to fifth c. CE) ...Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (composed ca fifth to seixth c.) also contains traditions about the descent to hell, perhaps predating those in the Acta Pilati

Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religions, edited by Eric Orlin
Quote
Other references [in Church literature] were made to Acts of Bartholomew and Apocalypse of Bartholomew, both otherwise unknown.

Tyndale Bible Dictionary
Quote
The QUestions were originally composed in Greek, possibly in Egypt, but the date of the work is not certain, being estimated between the second and sixth c.

The Apocryphal New Testament:

edited by J. K. Elliott

Lost Books of the Bible For Dummies by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Stephen J. Spignesi looks good:
Quote
"Whosoever shall decree against any man who has served my holy Father has blasphemed against the Holy Ghost. Every man who serves God with reverence is worthy of the Holy Ghost and he who speaks anything evil against him shall not be forgiven!"[~Questions of Bartholomew]
It seems that persecution of Christians is what's [meant] here: Because every Christian is worthy of the Holy Spirit, attacking Christians is also attacking the Spirit within them.

It sounds like Resurrection of J.C. by Bartholomew is a Coptic writing of the 5th to 6th c. that may have earlier traditions in it.

Looks like there is a pretty long list of apocryphal literature about Bartholomew:
Quote
387. The Arabic Acts of Andrew and Bartholomew

388. The Ethiopic Acts of Saints Andrew and Bartholomew Among the Parthians

415. The Gospel of Bartholomew

416. The Questions of Bartholomew

417. The Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle

418. The Life of Saint Bartholomew, after the Ethiopian Synaxarion

419. The Greek Martyrdom of Bartholomew

420. The Latin Martyrdom of Bartholomew

421. The Coptic Preaching of Bartholomew

422. The Armenian Martyrdom of Bartholomew

423. The Arabic Preaching of Bartholomew

424. The Arabic Martyrdom of Bartholomew

425. The Ethiopic Preaching of Saint Bartholomew in the Oasis

426. The Ethiopic Martyrdom of Saint Bartholomew in Naidas
http://rejectedscriptures.weebly.com/

Of course, a lot of that is going to be post-second c.

One modern Russian writing proposes that the Coptic "Resurrection of J.C." is a reworked Questions of Bartholomew. That makes sense, considering how Apocalypse of Peter in its Coptic form is a reworked version of the Greek one, and there are basic similarities between these two extant Bartholomew writings.
(http://откровенные.рф/dialogi-iisusa-hrista-nekanonicheskie)

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #100 on: Today at 05:09:35 PM »
Fr. K. Parhomenko looks at Questions of Bartholomew and suggests it as a source for where the Orthodox Church entered into its hymnography discussions between people in Hades in connection with Christ's descent there. He also sees it as a source for the idea of Jesus' omnipresence in the theologians and hymnography. Great Saturday's hymn he quotes: "In the grave the fleshly, in hades with soul like God, and in paradise with the thief, and on the throne is Christ..."
https://azbyka.ru/forum/xfa-blog-entry/tajna-pasxi-4.1545/

Quote
Among the later (3 c. and later) nongnostic essays of this kind [apocalypses] QUestions of Bartholomew, Syrian Testament of our Lord and the Ethiopian Testament of Our Lord in Galilee
http://krotov.info/spravki/4_faith_bible/varia/apokri.htm
Quote
Book of the Resurrection of J.C. of the apostle Bartholomew in Coptic is a homiletic reworking of Questions of Bartholomew. Preserved lists, the oldest dated to the 5th to 7th c. reflect various editions
https://www.sedmitza.ru/text/717232.html

Bartholomew just means Son of Tolmai (a "name by father"), opening up the possibility he is called another name elsewhere (Nathanael, a "first name").
Quote
Bartholomew and Nathanael are identified with eachother based on how the name Bartholomew is used in lists of apostles in the synotpic gospels while John the evangelist Associates Nathanael with the apostles, which the synoptics don't mention. ... In the gospels the apostles' names are coupled, allowing one to propose a relationship between [Philip and Bartholomew] In John's gospel, Philip tells Nathanael about Jesus.
...
Byzantine hagiographic tradition considered Nathanel as separate or else associated him with Simon the Zealot, reflected in the Greek Church service books. In the latestworks of greek hagiopgraphy, Bartholomew is identified with Nathanael or all versions are used - ie Nathanael both with Simon the Zealot and with Batholomew.
http://www.pritiska.org/load/zhitija_svjatikh/den_pamjati_svjatogo_apostola_varfolomeja/4-1-0-370
Quote
In the pseudo-Dionysian writings two sentences are quoted from 'the divine Bartholomew,' and a third has just been brought to light from the kindred 'book of Hierotheus'. But one cannot be sure that these writers are quoting real books.
http://gnosis.org/library/gosbart.htm
Question: What did pseudo-Dionysian writings say about the Gospel of Bartholomew?

The book of Hierotheus' quote is found here:
http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/os-XXIII/92/400.extract

The Book of Hieratheus is often attributed to Stephen Bar Sudhaile, a 5th c. Syrian monastic:
Quote
His two main theses which they attacked were (1) the limited duration of the future punishment of sinners, (2) the pantheistic doctrine that all nature is consubstantial with the Divine essence that the whole universe has emanated from God, and will in the end return to and be absorbed in him.
...
The fame of Stephen as a writer rests on his identification with the author of a treatise which survives in a single Syriac manuscript (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 7189, written mainly in the 13th century), The book of Hierotheus on the hidden mysteries of the house of God. The work claims to have been composed in the 1st century AD, by a certain Hierotheus who was the disciple of Saint Paul and the teacher of Dionysius the Areopagite. But, like the works which pass under the name of Dionysius, it is undoubtedly pseudonymous, and most Syriac writers who mention it attribute it to Stephen.
So: Stephen S who taught that all nature is consubstantial with the Divine essence probably wrote the Book of Hierotheus, which in turn briefly quotes Bartholomew as saying:
Quote
As for me I glorify the Cross of mysteries (or of sufferings) and I know that it is the first gate of the house of God.

I see an interesting connection to the Questions of Bartholomew, in that Fr. Parhomenko ascribed that to ideas of panentheism, that Jesus is everywhere. But pantheism and panentheism are not quite the same.
« Last Edit: Today at 05:42:22 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #101 on: Today at 05:52:48 PM »
This is the quote by Pseudo-Dionysius about Bartholomew:
Quote
Thus the blessed Bartholomew asserts that the divine science is both vast and minute, and that the Gospel is great and broad, yet concise and short;

signifying by this, that the beneficent Cause of all is most eloquent, yet utters few words, or rather is altogether silent, as having neither (human) speech nor (human) understanding, because He is super-essentially exalted above created things, and reveals Himself in His naked Truth to those alone who pass beyond all that is pure or impure, and ascend above the topmost altitudes of holy things, and who, leaving behind them all divine light and sound and heavenly utterances, plunge into the Darkness where truly dwells, as the Oracles declare, that ONE who is beyond all.
http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/dionys1.htm

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite was a "Christian Neoplatonist who wrote in the late fifth or early sixth century CE", according to Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagite

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #102 on: Today at 05:56:04 PM »
I quoted this above, but didn't leave the source:
The Book of Hieratheus is often attributed to Stephen Bar Sudhaile, a 5th c. Syrian monastic:
Quote
His two main theses which they attacked were (1) the limited duration of the future punishment of sinners, (2) the pantheistic doctrine that all nature is consubstantial with the Divine essence that the whole universe has emanated from God, and will in the end return to and be absorbed in him.
...
The fame of Stephen as a writer rests on his identification with the author of a treatise which survives in a single Syriac manuscript (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 7189, written mainly in the 13th century), The book of Hierotheus on the hidden mysteries of the house of God. The work claims to have been composed in the 1st century AD, by a certain Hierotheus who was the disciple of Saint Paul and the teacher of Dionysius the Areopagite. But, like the works which pass under the name of Dionysius, it is undoubtedly pseudonymous, and most Syriac writers who mention it attribute it to Stephen.

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Bar_Sudhaile
« Last Edit: Today at 05:57:24 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,607
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: List of 1st century writings by or about Christians
« Reply #103 on: Today at 07:48:59 PM »
The Questions of Bartholomew's text:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/gosbart.htm
http://www.ricter.com/wordline/barth.htm
(about 15 web browser pages, listed as 6 chapters long above, but that must be a misprint because I see no chapter 5 and I heard it was 5 chapters long, and the 5th chapter is a sermon on sin, which this one's chapter 6 is.)
« Last Edit: Today at 07:56:54 PM by rakovsky »