Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: corpus-paul digest: June 03, 1999

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jon Peter" <jnp AT home.com>
  • To: "Corpus Paulinum" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: corpus-paul digest: June 03, 1999
  • Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 04:28:51 -0700


Dave wrote:

>
> Could you be a bit more specific about where Origin "subscribe[d] to a
Pauline
> inspiration scenario [for Hebrews]?" Or are you citing Origin as a witness
for
> Pauline authorship?

Here I was citing the Catholic Encyclopedia article, which explains the
sense of 'Pauline inspiriation' in both cases. The URL link I gave should
explain this fully.


If so, Origin would have written at least 125 years after
> Paul's death, seriously eroding his value as a witness for Pauline
authorship
> of this book. Are you giving his witness extra weight because he was from
> Alexandria?
>

Just passing along info from the article.

>
> I took Jon's statement above to mean that the author of 1 Clement was a
> contemporary of Paul during the period he was in Rome. I would then
suppose
> that Jon has taken the author of 1 Clement to be the Clement mentioned in
Phil
> 4:3 (although I trust Jon will correct me if I am wrong).
>

I've not explored the intricacies of Clement and his writings, but know the
problems. Here's a clip showing what I was going by (from the Christian
Etherial Classics website at Wheaton College, Intro to IClement to Cor.)

"[a.d. 30-100.] Clement was probably a Gentile and a Roman. He seems to have
been at Philippi with St. Paul (a.d. 57) when that first-born of the Western
churches was passing through great trials of faith. There, with holy women
and others, he ministered to the apostle and to the saints. As this city was
a Roman colony, we need not inquire how a Roman happened to be there. He was
possibly in some public service, and it is not improbable that he had
visited Corinth in those days. From the apostle, and his companion, St.
Luke, he had no doubt learned the use of the Septuagint, in which his
knowledge of the Greek tongue soon rendered him an adept. His copy of that
version, however, does not always agree with the Received Text, as the
reader will perceive.

A co-presbyter with Linus and Cletus, he succeeded them in the government of
the Roman Church..."

[Deletion of Dave's helpful table of scripture cites]


>
> Several of the books quoted (such as 2 Peter, James, Acts and Titus) are
> generally assigned dates of composition in the 2nd century CE.

Here I would quibble with the phrase 'generally assigned'. Dating these
works seems to be notoriously lacking in exactitude or consensus, due to
lack of compelling evidence and to the radically differing assumptions being
made.

The support of Clement and Origen (and of the entire eastern church, says
the article) for Pauline authorship of Hebrew is only as strong as the
reliability of these admittedly flimsy sources, so point taken. The other
points I raised earlier, such as Hebrews' reference to Rome as the writer's
locale, to Timothy the companion, and to imprisonment, are stronger
evidence, as are various other clues.

However, I agree with Frank that the more fruitful question than the
ever-debatable authorship one, is that of Hebrews' theological parallels
with Paul. I will be interested to see what others come up with. (I myself
don't have time to explore it unfortunatel.)

Best regards,

Jon





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page