Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles
  • Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 13:13:09 -0400


Fabrizio Palestini says, in a response to John Lupia,

>> ... no one in JHC propose a marcionite authorship of these letters!
They consider 1Clement, Polycarp to the Philippians, Ignatian letters
as catholic second century pseudonimous tractates (absolutely not
letters!).<<

John, I think, was making a rhetorical point, not actually suggesting
that 1 Clement, Polycarp to the Philippians, or the Ignatian letters,
were thought to be late Marcionite writings. It seems you may have
misunderstood him.

Still, John has a point. The core of authors who regularly publish
articles in the JHC do seem to feel a need to downplay the importance
of references to Pauline letters found in these authors (and I use the
term "letters" loosely, without making the technical distinction
between a personal letter and an expository epistle). I too am
troubled that Doughty, Price, et al., seem to dismiss these citations
as bogus all to casually.

To say that van Manen, etc., had definitively proven them bogus is no
better than the opposite assertion that Jurgens, Lightfoot and Harnack
had definitively proven them genuine. I would not want to throw the
whole text out on the basis of troubling internal features unless the
subject matter is entirely impossible to imagine in the context in
which it is supposed to have occurred in. However, their troubling
internal features do have to be accounted for by those who seek to use
them as support for an early Pauline corpus.

A few years ago I tried to familiarize myself with these early
Christian letters and the citations of Pauline letters that they
contain. 1 Clement, for instance, appears to actually quote the
following NT books:

CLEMENT1 Q MATT 06:12-15
CLEMENT1 Q MATT 07:02
CLEMENT1 Q LUKE 06:36-38

CLEMENT1 Q ROM 01:32
CLEMENT1 Q ROM 12:05
CLEMENT1 Q COR 1 02:09
CLEMENT1 Q TIT 03:01
CLEMENT1 Q HEB 01:03-04

CLEMENT1 Q ACTS 20:35
CLEMENT1 Q PET 2 03:03-04
CLEMENT1 Q JAS 01:08
CLEMENT1 Q JAS 02:23

Further, it appears to allude to the following:

CLEMENT1 A MATT 18:06
CLEMENT1 A MATT 26:24
CLEMENT1 A MARK 09:42
CLEMENT1 A LUKE 17:02

CLEMENT1 A COR 1 03:13
CLEMENT1 A COR 1 12:12
CLEMENT1 A COR 1 13:04
CLEMENT1 A COR 1 15:20
CLEMENT1 A PHI 04:15
CLEMENT1 A COL 01:18
CLEMENT1 A THE 1 05:12-13
CLEMENT1 A TIM 1 05:21
CLEMENT1 A HEB 13:17

CLEMENT1 A PET 1 02:17
CLEMENT1 A PET 1 03:20
CLEMENT1 A PET 1 04:08
CLEMENT1 A PET 2 02:05
CLEMENT1 A PET 2 02:06-09
CLEMENT1 A JAS 02:21
CLEMENT1 A JAS 05:20

Are we to take these all as genuine citations or allusions, especially
Hebrews, Acts, 2 Peter and James? Yet, if the Pauline epistles
suffered at the hands of editors (whether orthodox or Marcionite), as
the radicals assert, why not 1 Clement (or Polycarp, or the Ignatian
corpus)? The letter of Polycarp, for instance, seems to quote from (or
allude to) a wider selection of the Pauline corpus than 1 Clement, and
from the same letters that are usually considered late compositions,
even Jude!

POLYCARP Q ACTS 02:24
POLYCARP Q COR 1 06:02
POLYCARP Q COR 1 06:09-10
POLYCARP Q COR 2 05:10
POLYCARP Q COR 2 08:21
POLYCARP Q EPH 02:08-09
POLYCARP Q EPH 04:26
POLYCARP Q EPH 06:14
POLYCARP Q GAL 01:01
POLYCARP Q GAL 04:26
POLYCARP Q GAL 06:07
POLYCARP Q JOH 1 04:03
POLYCARP Q LUKE 06:20
POLYCARP Q LUKE 06:37
POLYCARP Q LUKE 06:38
POLYCARP Q MARK 14:38
POLYCARP Q MATT 05:03,10
POLYCARP Q MATT 06:12,14
POLYCARP Q MATT 06:13
POLYCARP Q MATT 07:01
POLYCARP Q MATT 07:02
POLYCARP Q MATT 26:41
POLYCARP Q PET 1 01:08
POLYCARP Q PET 1 01:21

POLYCARP Q PET 1 02:11
POLYCARP Q PET 1 02:12
POLYCARP Q PET 1 02:22
POLYCARP Q PET 1 02:24
POLYCARP Q PET 1 03:09
POLYCARP Q PET 1 04:07
POLYCARP Q ROM 12:17
POLYCARP Q ROM 14:10-12
POLYCARP Q THE 1 05:22
POLYCARP Q THE 2 03:15
POLYCARP Q TIM 1 06:07
POLYCARP Q TIM 1 06:10
POLYCARP Q TIM 2 02:12
POLYCARP A ACTS 05:41
POLYCARP A COR 1 06:14
POLYCARP A COR 1 12:26
POLYCARP A COR 2 04:14
POLYCARP A EPH 06:11
POLYCARP A GAL 02:02
POLYCARP A JOH 1 04:09
POLYCARP A JUD 00:03
POLYCARP A MATT 05:44
POLYCARP A MATT 20:28
POLYCARP A PET 1 02:21
POLYCARP A PET 1 03:22
POLYCARP A PET 1 04:16
POLYCARP A PET 2 03:15
POLYCARP A PHI 01:05
POLYCARP A PHI 01:05
POLYCARP A PHI 01:27
POLYCARP A PHI 02:10
POLYCARP A PHI 02:16
POLYCARP A ROM 08:11
POLYCARP A TIM 1 02:02

While it is easy to say that these books must, therefore, support an
early dating for the NT books so referenced, do they also display
evidence of editorial interpolations? Yes, I would say. In 1 Clement,
for instance, certain themes (generally, Christological or apologetic)
appear in concentrations (such as chap. 16, 36, 42, 44, 47], which I
consider to be expansions of the original text.

A proper analysis of the characteristics of these apparent citations
would need to consider all the relational possibilities between these
texts equally. They should not be considered *only* entirely genuine
or entirely spurious, as if that exhausts the possibilities. Once the
options are identified, then they can be evaluated against various
reconstructed historical scenarios. Can we say this has been done
satisfactorily? I don't know, but so far I'd say "no."

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page