Redrawing the Boundaries: The Date of Early Christian Literature (Bibleworld)

BihleWorld Series Editors: Philip R. Davies and James G. Crossley, University of Sheffield Bible World shares the fruits of modern (and postmodern) biblical scholarship not only among practitioners and students, but also with anyone interested in what acadelnic study of the Bible means in the twenty-first century. It explores our ever-increasing knowledge and understanding of the social world that produced the biblical texts, but also analyses aspects of the bible's role in the history of our civilization and the many perspectives - not just religious and theological, but also cultural, political and aesthetic - which drive modern biblical scholarship.

Published:

Sodomy A History of a Christian Biblical Myth Michael Carden Yours Faithfully: Virtual Letters from the Bible Edited by Philip R. Davies Israets History and the History of Israel Mario Liverani The Apostle Paul and His Letters Edwin D. Freed The Origins of the 'Second' Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem Diana Edelman An Introduction to the Bible (Revised edition) John Rogerson

The Morality of Paul's Converts Edwin D. Freed The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature Nick Wyatt History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles Ehud Ben Zvi Women Healing/Healing Women: The Genderization of Healing in Early Christianity Elaine M. Wainwright

Vive Memor Mortis Thomas Bolin The Bible Says So! From Simple Answers to Insightful Understanding Edwin D. Freed Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition Edited by James G. Crossley

The Date ofEarly Christian Literature

]. v. M. Sturdy

Symposia: Dialogues Concerning the History of Biblical Interpretation Roland Boer

Edited by

Jonathan I
Forthcoming:

Sectarianism in Early Judaism Edited by David J. Chalcraft Jonah's World: Social Sciences and the Reading of Prophetic Story Lowell K. Handy Mark and its Subalterns: A Hermaneutical Paradigm for a Postcolonial Context David Joy Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems Ian Young and Robert Rezetko

REDRAWING THE

BOUNDARIES

The joy of Kierkegaard: Essays on Kierkegaard as a Biblical Reader Hugh Pyper From Babylon to Eternity: The Exile Remembered and Constructed in Text and Tradition Bob Becking, Alex Cannegieter, Wilfred van der Poll and Anne-Mareike Wetter Charismatic Killers: Reading the Hebrew Bible's Violent Rhetoric in Film Eric Christianson The Ontology of Space in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: The Determinate Function of Narrative 'Space' within the Biblical Hebrew Aesthetic Luke Gartner-Brereton

lJNIVERSrlY LIBRARY tJNJVERSrlY OF NORlll CAROLINA AT CHAPFl. HILL

•

e~ulnox

LONDON

OAKVILLE

CONTENTS

Published by Equinox Publishing Ltd. UK: Unit 6, The Village, 101 Amies St., London SW11 2JW USA: DBBC, 28 Main Street, Oakville, CT 06779

Preface

vii

Abbreviations

xi

www.equinoxpub.com

1.

The Problem Posed

1

First published 2007

2.

1 Clement

4

3.

The Letters of Ignatius

8

4.

Polycarp

14

5.

Early Christian Literature: Some Parameters of Date

21

6.

The Relationship of the Synoptic Gospels

31

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

7.

Mark

35

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

8.

Luke

42

9.

Matthew

45

©

The executors of J. V. M. Sturdy 2007

Introductory material and editorial apparatus

©

Jonathan Knight 2007

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

ISBN -13 978 1 84553 301 4 (hardback) 978 1 84553 302 1 (paperback) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sturdy, John. Redrawing the boundaries: the date of early Christian literature / J.V.M. Sturdy; edited by Jonathan Knight. p. cm. - (BibleWorld)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-84553-301-4 (hb) - ISBN 978-1-84553-302-1 (pbk.) 1.

Bible. N.T.-Authorship-Date of authorship. 2. Christian literature,

Early-History and criticism. 3. Manuscript dating. 4. Robinson, John

A. T. (John Arthur Thomas), 1919- Redating the New Testament. I. Knight, Jonathan. II. Title.

BS2315.5.S78 2007

225.6'6-dc22

2006039429 Typeset by S.J.I. Services, New Delhi Printed and bound in Great Britain by Lightning Source UK Ltd, Milton Keynes, and Lightning Source Inc., La Vergne, TN

10. Acts

49

11. The Pauline Corpus: Its Growth and Development

54

12. The Catholic Epistles

72

13. Johannine Literature

75

14. Summary and Conclusions

83

Appendix

87

Notes

95

Bibliography

113

Index of Names

147

Index of References

157

I

PREFACE

The untimely death of John Sturdy in summer 1996 robbed the scholarly world of its opportunity to engage with a scholar who for most of his career swam against the tide. In 1976 John Robinson produced his Redating the New Testament in which he argued for a first-century date for the New Testament documents. Sturdy was more than once heard to observe on this book, "This is simply mischiefl" Sturdy himself dates the New Testament (and the sub-apostolic) documents considerably later than Robinson ­ many of them in the second century CEo This is the distinctive feature of his book, and why (although I do not always agree with his conclusions) I feel it should be made the subject of careful consideration in today's scholarly climate. Dissenters are not always made welcome; but that is why the guild of New Testament scholarship needs them all the more. Sturdy and Robinson disagreed throughout their, both sadly truncated, lives. Sturdy made available to Robinson an early version of his material on Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. This is mentioned by Robinson on pp. 334-35 of his Redating, with generous disagreement. Sturdy himself reviewed Robinson's book in 1979; a copy of that review is printed as an Appendix to this volume. Sturdy left an incomplete and, in places, a rather patchy manuscript. Jill Sturdy asked me, after his death, if I would prepare it for publication in such a way that would be faithful to the mindset and pen of the author himself. This is what I have tried to do in this book. Readers will find in consequence that the argument is in places somewhat undeveloped. I have ventured to fill in the gaps where it is evident from the manuscript what Sturdy himself would have said. In other places, where there is no such indication, I have allowed the silence to speak for itself. For this reason, I must ask as editor for a patient reading of this text and for understanding in those places where inevitable frustration comes to the surface. Since this is not precisely the book that Sturdy would have written, what appears here should be regarded as the outline of an argument and not a finished text in itself. I do, however, think that the book has integrity and overall comprehensibility as it now stands. I hope that readers will feel compelled to ponder Sturdy's arguments and apply them to their own work on the basis ofmy reconstruction. As I said, we need our dissenters ifNew Testament scholarship is to be faithful to its goal.

II

viii

Redrawing the Boundaries

Briefly to introduce what follows, I should say that Sturdy begins with 1 Clement, Polycarp and the Ignatian correspondence, all of which he holds

pseudonymous and not from the late first or early second centuries CEo This argument allows him to upush back" the date for those New Testament writings (e.g. Matthew, Hebrews) which it is commonly agreed were known by the authors of these texts. Sturdy has a distinctive theory about the compilation of the Synoptic Gospels; he draws attention to the Trajanic persecution (second decade of the second century CE) as a significant event for the composition of texts such as 1 Peter and Revelation. Some ofwhat Sturdy says will not be accepted by other scholars (notably, perhaps, his date for John's Gospel c.140 CE). But his hypothesis oflgnatian pseudonymity is certainly an important one, and by no means a personal eccentricity - as his detailed research into nineteenth-century German scholarship shows. If it is accepted, it will require careful re-evaluation of the dates of the entire New Testament literature. This is the real challenge of engaging with the work of John Sturdy. I have adopted the footnote convention of citing secondary literature with reference to the author and date of publication. In every case, the full details are given in the bibliography. Thus for instance R. P. Martin's 2 Corinthians (Word Biblical Commentary, 40; Dallas: Word Books, 1986) is cited in the footnote as uMartin 1986" followed by the relevant page number (e.g. Martin 1986: 125). Where more than one work is published by an author in the same year, I have listed this in the text under the convention Martin 1986a, 1986b and so on. Again, the bibliography notes the reference designated by the abbreviation. On occasion, I have not been able to trace the books to which Sturdy refers. This is generally indicated in the text and bibliography. I am grateful to Professor William Horbury for his helpful comments on the final draft; and to James Barrett of Selwyn College for his help in the compilation of the bibliography. This book has been a long time - no doubt too long - in the making. I am deeply sorry to say that, not long before this book was finished, Jill Sturdy herself died. This volume is therefore dedicated in duas memorias, with affection. I note also the concern felt by Dr Harriet Sturdy to see her Father's work published, and hope that it will serve as a memorial to his passing, ten years on. Those who knew John and Jill will know further that, in terms of family monuments, the great work of Sancton Wood School continues apace, offering a form of education that is quite distinctive in Cambridge. A radical book and a radical school. In the editor's opinion, both are truly Christian achievements.

Preface

ix

A final word about the footnotes. There was indeed a delay between my completion of the manuscript and its publication. This was caused by a variety of reasons, not least my own personal circumstances. I am acutely aware that some readers will note that the most recent literature on the texts discussed is missing from the footnotes; in many cases, literature published since the turn of the millennium. The extent to which this is a serious problem depends on the judgment of each reader. Yet, given the nature of the book, it cannot affect Sturdy's argument; and I venture to think that the real value of the book depends on Sturdy's encyclopaedic knowledge of nineteenth-century literature, some of it obscure and under­ valued in today's scholarship, as well as his approach to the primary sources. In apologizing for the omissions, I draw attention to what I hope will be the abiding value of this book. Jonathan I
r

ABBREVIATIONS

ACW AGJU AnBib ATANT ATD ATR BETL BHT BIRL BNTC BZ BZNW CBQ CCSA CNT CP CPG CQR Diet. Sp.

ET ET EvTh FRLANT GAP HTI
Ancient Christian Writers; ed. J. Quasten et al. (Westminster, MD and London, 1949-67) Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und der Urchristentums Analecta Biblica Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Acta Theologica Danica Anglican Theological Review Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensum Beitrage zur historischen Theologie Bulletin ofthelohn Rylands Library Black's New Testament Commentaries Biblische ZeitschriJt Beihefte zur ZNW Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum

Commentaire du Nouveau Testament

Classical Philology

Clavis Patrorum Graecorum, ed. M. Geerard and F. Glorie (5

vols.; Turnhout, 1974-87)

Catholic Quarterly Review

Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, ed. M. Viller et al. (16 vols. +

index; Paris, 1937-95)

English translation

Expository Times Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Herders theologischer I
I xii

Innsbrucker Theologische Studien Journal ofthe American Academy ofReligion Journal ofBiblical Literature Journal ofBible and Religion Jahrbuch fur protestantische Theologie Journal ofRoman Studies Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement series Journal of Theological Studies

I(ritisch-exegetischer ](ommentar uber das Neue Testament;

ed. H. A. W. Meyer (16 vols.; G6ttingen, 1832-52) I(erygma und Dogma I(uD Library of Early Christianity LEC Munster theologische Zeitschrift MThZ New International Critical Commentary on the New NICNT Testament Novum Testamentum NovT NovTSuppl Supplement to Novum Testamentum Das Neue Testament deutsch NTD New Testament Studies NTS New Testament Theology NTT Orientalia Christiana Periodica OCP Patrologia cursus completa... Series graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne PG (166 vols.; Paris, 1857-83) Patrologia orientalis PO Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum QVC Reallexikonfur Antike und Christentum; ed. T. I(lauser (10 RAC vols., Stuttgart, 1950-78) Revue Biblique RB Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. 1(. Galling RGG 3 (3rd edn; 6 vols. + Register; 1957-65) Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuse

RHPR Rivista di archeologia cristiana

Riv.A.C. Society of Biblical Literature, Septuagint and Cognate Series SBLSCS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SBS Sources chretiennes SC Studien zum Neuen Testament SNT Society for New Testament Studies monograph series SNTSMS Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments SUNT Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha SVTP

ITS JAAR JBL JBR JPTh JRS JSNT JSOTSS JTS I(EI(

I

Abbreviations

Redrawing the Boundaries SVTR

Tb.Z TCL TEH ThT ThViat TLZ TQ TS TU TZTH VC WBC WMANT WUNT WZlena

ZAC Z](G ZNTW ZTK ZWT

xiii

Sammlung gemeinsverstandlicher Vortrage und Schriften aus den Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Tubinger Zeitschrift Translations of Christian literature Theologie und Existenz heute

Theologisch Tijdschrift

Theologia Viatorum Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Quartalschrift Texts and Studies Texte und Untersuchungen Tubinger Zeitschriftfur Theologie Vigiliae Christianae Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zu Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller Universitiits lena Zum Antike Christentum Zeitschriftfur Kirchengeschichte Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschriftfur Theologie und Kirche Zeitschriftfur Wissenschaftliche Theologie

Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM POSED

This book has been written in the conviction that the current tendency of scholars to give the bulk of the New Testament material an early date is wrong. Although it is true to say that New Testament scholarship has moved in recent years towards a greater acceptance of pseudonymity and of relatively late datings, l I have been prompted to write by the conviction that this broadening of horizons does not go far enough. Twenty years ago it would have been acceptable to suggest that, as well as the Pastorals, Ephesians is post-Pauline; but it would have needed apology and argument (at least in the English-speaking tradition) to add to these "disputed writings" Colossians and 2 Thessalonians. It is now more widely acceptable to place 1 Peter in 115 CE; and it is beginning to be acceptable to suggest that there are passages in the Pauline epistles which are later additions (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:24-35; 2 Cor. 6:14-7.1; Rom. 13:1-7).2 It is interesting to note in the second edition of the Jerome Bible Commentary a remarkable shift from the first edition on just these points (although Jerome is still conservative in insisting on an apostolic authorship for 1 Peter!).3 We must be clear that scholarship moves in cycles and follows trends. This creates the need for critical voices to be raised against the dominant trends, so that the strengths and weaknesses of a particular position (and thus of a particular generation) can be given appropriate consideration. I have written this book initially for those who have some sympathy with a radical position, but I hope that its merits lie in the fact that it argues a case and does not merely rehearse party convictions. I am myself a Christian - an Anglican priest - and I am convinced that an honest approach to this topic (even though some of its conclusions may initially prove disconcerting) can only be to the benefit of faith. My starting-point for the enquiry is the recognition that the fully conservative position which sets everything before the fall ofJerusalem in 70 CE (to which John Robinson returned in his later years) is very definitelywrong. 4 Once the implausibility of this position is acknowledged, it becomes a much more open (and less

Redrawing the Boundaries

The Problem Posed

easy) question to decide when the different documents were written. This matter must be approached with integrity, so that the question of honest probability is placed at the top of the agenda. There are many other important questions about the New Testament besides the questions of the origin and date of the literature. But these are significant, if perhaps rather dry questions. They need to be answered (at least provisionally) before we can consider all the other matters that are connected with this body of literature. In what follows, I shall try to present the overall scheme of my argument as concisely as possible. I hope that my readers will understand that there are areas where my ideas are not yet fully developed and where I think that dialogue with other scholars is needed. But it will do no harm to ttgo public" on the research that I have undertaken so far and to demonstrate what I regard as the ttplanks" of my argument which hold the case together. This will allow the less certain areas to be tested in what I hope will prove to be an amicable and profitable debate. I am primarily an Old Testament scholar but I have tried to keep up my reading and teaching in the New Testament area. I have discussed several of my ideas with patristic scholars, although I accept that some of what I say - not least about Ignatius - will produce more dissent than agreement among those who work in that field. I hope once again, however, that my readers will at least consider my arguments and acknowledge that many of the issues surrounding the date of primitive Christian literature are actually less certain than we would like them to be. This is an inevitable reflection of our relatively scarce knowledge of the period, and of the ambiguities of some of the texts themselves.

This chain of events (which I mention as only one instance) seems to me almost impossibly tight. It suggests there is a case for demanding a longer period of development. I came to this view through a more subjective route, initially by the strong feeling that Hebrews must be late with its concern about post-baptismal sin, the abandonment of worship and the formal character of its references to the Spirit. Hebrews, like Ephesians, is generally confined to c.85 CE on the hypothesis that the author of 1 Clement knew and used it. To me it feels rather later - say about 110 CE - which means that we must re-examine the date of 1 Clement if it is true that that document knows and uses both Ephesians and Hebrews. To examine the date of 1 Clement demands consideration of the Epistle ofPolycarp; and, since Polycarp is closely tied in with the Ignatian epistles, we must examine these as well. The conclusion I have reached is that 1 Clement is from roughly 130 to 140 CE; that both the Ignatian epistles and Polycarp are pseudepigraphal; the Ignatian epistles from about 170 to 180, Polycarp from a different writer and later again; and that, in consequence of this, the restraints on a later dating of much of the New Testament material are removed. This is the thesis I shall argue in this book. Let me repeat that what I say goes against the grain of current New Testament scholarship. It is no doubt natural that those for whom the historicity of the sacred texts has a crucial significance should argue in favour of an early dating in order to bring them as near as possible to the events they record. There is something of a theological necessity in this. On the other hand, such is the tenacity of ttestablished" scholarly positions (especially in today's academic world) that a majority consensus is difficult to challenge except by the (most unlikely) discovery of new documentary evidence. This book is designed to mount a challenge to the established scholarly consensus. All that I ask is that my reader charitably follows my argument with care and that he or she engages with the material as I have presented it. I hope at least to communicate that ambiguity is the byword of this area, and that final certainty can hardly be provided in one direction or the other. This alone casts suspicion on the adequacy of ttconsensus models:' and suggests that there may yet be room for a radical in a common-room of more conservative scholars.

2

The Basis of the Argument I shall begin by summarizing my case in brief compass, and develop it more fully in the chapters that follow. Regarding the commonly-accepted view on the dates of certain books, there are some very tight links which suggest that we should raise the question of how sure we are of the limits that give a terminus ante quem to the different New Testament documents. In particular, it is supposed that Colossians is post- Pauline, with a definite development of thought from Paul, and so say 70-75 CE; that Ephesians knows Colossians by heart and quotes it verbally at times and out ofcontext; and that this development must take place quickly enough for Ephesians to be written by 85 CE, since Ephesians in turn is well enough established for 1 Clement (96 CE) to quote it as if Ephesians has meaningful echoes for the author and readers.

3

1 Clement

Chapter 2 1 CLEMENT

First of all, let us consider the date of 1 Clement. 1 Clement 1: 1 rtbecause of the sudden and successive misfortunes and accidents we have encountered") long used to point us to 96 CEo But these words do not obviously refer to persecution; and if they do suggest persecution, it takes us away from the time of Domitian because it is now widely accepted that there was no Domitianic persecution of the Christians in the last decade of the first century CEo Nor is there a bishop of Rome, secure in the episcopal lists, called Clement to keep us within a few years of 96. 1 Clement may therefore be quite a bit later than 96, so long as we remember that it is quoted by Polycarp.l So far as a proposed Domitianic persecution is concerned, the theory that Domitian persecuted the Christians towards the end of his reign has been very firmly criticized by L. L. Thompson and other scholars. 2 There is a little evidence that Domitian harassed people of Jewish descent at this time, but no evidence at all that these Jews were Christians (see Dio Cassius 67.14.2). Nor did Domitian apparently promote the imperial cult with any more fervour than his predecessors and successors. This evidence casts doubt on the possibility that Revelation comes from the end of the first century if-as seems likely - the letter reflects an authentic experience of martyrdom. 3 The attribution of 1 Clement to Clement would still give an approximate date c.96 CE ifhe were, as tradition says, a bishop of Rome who died about 104 CEo But there are problems in this claim to which insufficient attention has been paid in the past. 1 Clement itself is usually understood to contain no indication that monepiscopacy as such was established in Rome when the letter was written. The tradition that the author was the monarchical bishop of Rome has no support in the letter and cannot be true. The list of Roman bishops was composed - not taken over - by Hegesippus in about 165 CE and it is unlikely to be reliable for more than a few names back. It seems certain that no earlier list existed and that

5

monepiscopacy itself does not go very far back in Rome. 4 The earlier names on the list were no doubt remembered as leading figures of the Roman church and are not simply fictitious; but there is no reason to believe that they functioned as monarchical bishops, still less that the dates assigned to them have real value. One is entitled to a measure of scepticism in this matter given the date and nature of Hegesippus as the primary source. 5 Many different facets must be examined in a fresh attempt at dating 1 Clement. These include its extensive use of the books in the New Testament; its concept of ministry with a pattern of succession emerging; and the identity of the author to whom the text is assigned. My initial feeling is that this combination of themes was not made in the first century CEo This feeling is substantiated by external evidence. External Attestation Such evidence as there is to determine the date and authorship of 1 Clement takes us to a period beyond 96 CEo The letter does not say that it comes from Clement, the bishop of Rome. If it is felt proper to identify this Clement with a known figure in the Roman church, the best candidate by far is the Clement who is mentioned by the Shepherd of Hermas as the foreign correspondent of that church: "You are to write out two booklets and send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Clement then is to send it to the cities outside, for that is his function" (Vis. 2.8). The date of Hermas is also uncertain. The earliest direct evidence is that of the Muratorian Canon (c.180-200 CE) which says that "Hermas wrote the Shepherd quite lately in our time in the city of Rome when on the throne of the city of Rome his brother Pius was seated:' The date generally assigned to Pius is c.140-154 CEo This would suggest that the Clement whom Hermas mentions wrote not too long before these dates - say between 130 and 150 CEo It remains possible that the Muratorian canon displays a tendentious concern to devalue Hermas by suggesting that it is only a recent text; but the nature of the text makes it difficult to place it much earlier, and most scholars still date it in the time of Pius. The external attestation of 1 Clement sets a limit to a late dating. The first substantial allusions to it are in the Letter of Polycarp. Polycarp is traditionally dated to 115 CEo But ~ N. Harrison has argued that chapters 1-12 and possibly 14 of Polycarp are to be dated c.135 CE. 6 It is not clear whether, if they are authentic, there are strong reasons to date them much before the death of Polycarp. The date of this in turn is disputed. It is usually put c.156 CE, but a date as late as 177 has been held to be possible. 7

r

Redrawing the Boundaries

1 Clement

I shall discuss this matter further in Chapter 4. For the moment it can be said that if, on other grounds, 1 Clement seems late then all the relevant parts of the Letter ofPolycarp can be placed after a date for 1 Clement even

can see this phenomenon developing in the deutero- Pauline corpus, especially in Ephesians). It is a much more obvious conclusion that 1 Clement has been dated too early by scholars and that it better suits a date towards 130-140 CEo In this connection we should observe that 1 Clement does not read convincingly as a letter. 9 It is more obviously a treatise produced by the church in Rome, with biblical allusions and exhortation to fellow Christians. There are substantial differences, say, from the letters of Cicero or the letters that have been unearthed in Egypt. lO It is different also from Philemon which most closely adheres to the letter form in all of primitive Christian literature. ll It may be concluded that there is no good reason to maintain the traditional connection of 1 Clement with 96 CEo Such evidence as there is points towards a substantially later date. The reference in Hermas to Clement suggests that this date is c.130-140 CEo The only evidence that might turn in a different direction is that of the allusions in Polycarp. We must therefore examine the date and status of that letter. But while it would be natural to proceed directly to this, the status of the Ignatian letters is tied up with Polycarp; and since the view to be proposed about them affects very directly the evaluation of Polycarp, it is to the Ignatian letters that we now turn.

6

as late as 140 CEo If so, the first reference to a letter which is clearly Clement's is in Hegesippus.

A Second Century Air The evidence for the theological character of 1 Clement needs to be handled with caution since we must allow for development at different speeds in different parts of the church. But despite this it can still be said that the picture of a well-developed church with a formal structure and understanding of succession, and a more developed understanding of "Catholicism" than is found in any other New Testament writing, fits in much more happily with a date after 100 CE and even one well on the way to 150 CEo The absence of a reference to monepiscopacy is one feature that is not strikingly late; but the emergence of monepiscopacy itself (as will be argued below) is to be placed well on in the second century. One feature of 1 Clement is particularly telling for this later date; this is Clement's use of New Testament quotations and allusions. If we follow Hagner,S whose treatment of the issue is the fullest and most careful, it appears that 1 Clement quite certainly knows Hebrews, 1 Corinthians and Romans and probably 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians (or Colossians), 1 Timothy, Titus, James, 1 Peter and Acts; possibly one or more of the Synoptics and 2 Timothy; but probably not John, 1 John and the Apocalypse. This means that 1 Clement knows and alludes to a remarkably large part of the New Testament literature. This includes works which are generally dated to after 96 (1 Timothy and Titus). Clement does not quote these books as scripture as he does the Old Testament, but his allusive use of such an extensive cross-section of the New Testament writers suggests that he writes at a time when there was a developing awareness of the importance of the New Testament books as a group. Perhaps some were familiar to his readers because they regularly heard them in the context of worship; and it is clearly significant that Clement thinks such allusion helps his argument as having resonances for his readers as well for himself. Hagner concludes that we must place the emergence of a distinctive status for the New Testament writings as early as 96 CEo But this is astonishingly and implausibly early for such a development. No work of the New Testament itself, however late, contains so extensive a range of references and allusions to the books of the New Testament (although we

7

~

L'

The Letters ofIgnatius

9

The Letters Are Pseudonymous

Chapter 3 THE LETTERS OF IGNATIUS

The major question to be considered concerning Ignatius is whether a date for him in the early second century can really be accepted. We have no firm knowledge of the date of his death. It is generally set around 107-10 CE (the date that Eusebius apparently holds).l If there was no persecution under Domitian, it looks less easy to have a persecution ofIgnatius as such, particularly when we consider that the literary Ignatius has persecution as part of his mindset. A date before 115 makes it impossible to refer it to Trajan's persecution; and even this is hard to do. I take it as agreed, in dealing with the Ignatian correspondence, that the shorter (or middle) recension of seven letters is the more original and that this goes back to the second century; and that the Syrian (shortest) text is not a serious competitor for authenticity but simply a shortened form of text. 2 The reason that one might want, from a New Testament point of view, to move Ignatius from 107 is not so much the fact that he quotes New Testament writers whom it is awkward to put before him, but that his understanding of church order is so much more advanced than that of 1 Clement that we would have to put 1 Clement back to 96 to explain this. This revives the problems that made us want to put 1 Clement later than this. There are two ways of dealing with this dilemma. One is to claim that the evidence linking Ignatius with the reign of Trajan is late and thin and to argue for an Ignatius who wrote the letters under a Hadrianic martyrdom perhaps twenty years later. This was the view of the younger Harnack. 3 The other is to argue that the Ignatian letters are pseudepigraphal and so do not offer evidence for either 110 or 130 CE at all. This is the view I prefer. There is a range of arguments to support it. In what follows I shall present merely the strongest of them. I hope they will lead my reader to consider the possibility that this approach to Ignatius, which is generally supposed to have been conclusively dismissed a century ago, is by no means so implausible as has recently been thought. 4

The most obvious way in which pseudepigraphal works reveal their true character is in setting out the proposed situation in heavy detail rather than assuming a common knowledge. There is an example of this in the Pastorals: "You are aware that all in Asia turned away from me... But when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me...and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus" (2 Tim. 1:15-18). The scene­ setting is deliberate and it seems quite artificial for that reason. With this passage should be compared the beginning of Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians: "For you were all zeal to visit me when you heard that I was being shipped as a prisoner from Syria for the sake of our common name and hope. I hope, indeed, by your prayers, to have the good fortune to fight with wild beasts in Rome" (1.2). A glaring example of scene-setting follows almost immediately: "I received your large congregation in the person of Onesimus, your bishop in this world"; and again in 2.1: "My fellow slave Burrhus, your godly deacon, who has been richly blessed:' The situation could not be described more clearly. The Ignatian corpus contains several more examples of this (I think, quite suspicious) precision. The author takes great care to make sure that Ignatius' exact position can always be deduced from the text. Although this spelling out of what must be already known to the actual recipient of a letter is not found in all pseudonymous letters (e.g. Ephesians; 2 Thessalonians if inauthentic), when it does occur it must be regarded as strong evidence of inauthenticity. The other main argument is from the style of the Ignatian letters. The letters, so Perler has established and Riesenfeld confirms,s are written in a very elaborate rhetorical style which is sometimes called Asianism. They demonstrate a poetic colour, an accumulation of rare and poetic words and knowledge of, and a number of allusions to, the text of 4 Maccabees. 6 Perler summarizes Eduard Norden's characterization of their style in the following words: Vehemence, a strong power of imagination, and a straining after poetic colouring are the characteristic marks of [it). The last point explains the accumulation of rare and poetic words, and has led to the dissolution of the periodic structure of the sentence into small, chopped up, symmetrically arranged sub-sentences, so far as possible of equal length (parison, paromoiosis). The three- or four-member parallelism which is preferred is heightened by anaphora, and more frequently by similar sounding endings (homoioteleuton). Antitheses are much favoured. The rhythm is monotonous, limp and flabby. A striking feature is the use of more than two successive short syllables (avoided by Demosthenes), and in clausulae the

10

Redrawing the Boundaries

The Letters ofIgnatius

accumulation of resolutions of the long syllables. Vehemence and an extravagant imagination explode in a fine spray of audacious images, similes, descriptions (ecphrasis), oxymora, anaphoras, paronomasias, hyperboles and a range of other rhetorical figures. Ingenious brief maxims are a further feature of this style.;

century as reflected by the apologists as a significant stylistic feature. 14 Three expressions in particular are puzzling if they are placed as early as 115. Two are Christian terms: "the Catholic church" (Ignatius Smyrn. 8.2) and "Christianity" (Ignatius, Magn. 10.1; Rom. 3.3; Philad. 6.1). Neither is found anywhere else in the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers or the ApologistsY The third term is "leopard" (Ignatius, Rom. 5.1) which is Latin in form and which, it is argued, did not exist in Greek as early as 115. 16 Other words are also found for the first time in a technical sense in Ignatius such as "eucharist" (Ignatius, Smyrn. 7.1), kyriake without hemera as an indication of Sunday (Ignatius, Magn. 9.1), and "apostolic:' Care is needed in shaping this part of the argument. It is not the first occurrences of these terms which is suspicious but the fact that these first occurrences are then followed by a lengthy period of silence when we should expect them to have been used much more often had Ignatius genuinely written and used them in the early second century. Thirdly, Ignatius' use of scripture reflects a date later than 115. As with 1 Clement there is no explicit recognition of a canonical New Testament, but there are quotations from or allusions to very large parts of it. Ignatius definitely knows Matthew and he probably knows Luke. He also knows 1 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians; probably 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon, the Pastorals, Hebrews, 1 Peter; possibly Acts and pretty certainly John. This use of the different New Testament writings indicates that the Canon was well on the way to formation when this author wrote. The books are beginning to form a collection. Again, a date nearer 150 (or even later) than 110 is suggested. Finally, the theology of the Ignatian letters seems impossibly advanced for 115. I may mention several points here. I? First of all, there is the extensive use of terminology which is characteristic of the Valentinian and other Gnostic systems and which even Lightfoot is prepared to admit is Gnostic in character. Lightfoot claims that Ignatius

Lightfoot commented on the Ignatian letters: "They bear all the marks of having been written at two or three sittings ofa few hours each:,g Ignatius himself says: "All the way from Syria to Rome I am fighting with wild beasts, by land and sea, night and day, chained as I am to ten leopards; I mean a detachment of soldiers, who only get worse the better you treat them" (Ignatius Rom. 5.1). But if Ignatius said this it cannot be true. The author ofthe letters, however familiar he was with the rhetoric of his day, cannot have dashed them off throwing in quotations from 4 Maccabees from memory. One commentator who pointed to the sharp contrast between the style of Ignatius and the bare simplicity of the letter written by Captain Scott in the Antarctic in the face of his death has, without realizing it, put his finger on a real difficulty.9 These two points - heavy overindication ofsituation and a style at odds with the supposed setting - open up to serious investigation the case that the Ignatian letters are late and pseudepigraphal. I would be inclined to put considerable weight on them both. What they suggest is supported by the internal evidence of the Ignatian epistles.

Pointers to a Later Date The more we know about the historical development of the Christian ministry, the more the Ignatian monepiscopacy is seen to stand in total isolation from the other evidence. Lightfoot claimed that "the testimony in favour of this spread of the episcopate is more abundant and more varied than for any other institution or event during this period, so far as I recoliect."lo P. N. Harrison commented much more cautiously on this assessment "that he [i.e. Lightfoot] overestimated much of the evidence produced by him at this point has been admitted from the first by some who nevertheless agree in the main with his conclusion:'ll Professor Reinhard Hubner found this point so strong that it single-handedly led him to consider the Ignatian letters pseudepigraphalY We might add to this the observation that the title "Bishop of Syria" (Ignatius, Rom. 2.2) is scarcely conceivable for the historical Ignatius in the early second century.13 Secondly, the language ofIgnatius seems to come from a later date. M. P. Brown writes of his affinity for the language of the middle and late second

11

could use this language and indulge these thoughts, because they had not yet, at least in any marked way, been abused to heretical ends... no writer, careful for his orthodoxy as our author plainly is, would allow himself the use of such suspicious language, which seemed to favour the false position then rife. 18

This solution to the problem is ingenious but forced. A further point, noted also by Hubner,19 is that some of the language reflects the Monarchianism of the late second century and can only be understood in this light.

-Redrawing the Boundaries

The Letters ofIgnatius

We should also consider the oddity of Ignatius' route and the circumstances of his captivity; the apparent total absence of danger which the letters mention to his old flock; the unreality of his expectation of what the church in Rome could do to secure his release; the strange moral flavour of his attitude to martyrdom which perhaps reflects the desk and not real life. All of these strengthen the case that is emerging even if they do not bear its full weight. They accumulate in a striking fashion and suggest that pseudepigraphy is a hypothesis that is certainly worthy of consideration. I conclude, therefore, that my unease about the Ignatian correspondence, which was based initially on the self-presentation of the author and the artificial nature of his style, is supported by other features of the letters. This evidence suggests that the Ignatian letters come from a significantly later date and that they are pseudepigraphal. I revive this view which, I note with some comfort, has in the past been held by a considerable number

Appendix

12

ofscholars.

13

By way of an appendix to this chapter, I reproduce the list of scholars (in alphabetical order) whom I have discovered support the theory ofIgnatian inauthenticity. These include Albertinus (1654: 283-84); Anonymous (1885);20 Barnes (1947: 260-64); Basnage (1706: II, 20); Baumgarten-Crusius (1832: I, 83);21 Baur (1836a; 1838: III, 61-73; 1848; 1858: 82; 1865-67: I, 252); Bergh van Eysinga (1907: 258-68, 301-11; 1912: 107-11; 1915: 203-69; 1926: 185-96; 1927: 144-51; 1946: 183-93); Blondellus (1646: 16); Bochart (1663: I, 803-804); Bohmer (1729: 356f.); Cartwright (1575: 517); Cassels (1874: I, 263-79; 1874b; 1875; 1876; 1879: 1, 258-74 [and also Preface, xxiii­ Ixxx]; 1889: 57-114; 1902: 158-75);22 Dallaeus (1654: 412-28; 1666: Book II); Davidson (1868: I, 19; II, 368; 1882: I, 9, II, 327f.; 1894: I, 13; II, 403f.); Delafosse (1922: 303-37,477-533; 1927); Donaldson (1864: 81f.); Drseke (1902: 1388-96; 1914: 438-40); Duker and van Manen (1869-71: II, 40); Eichhorn (1810-27: I, 142-50); Ernesti (1760: II, 489); Gregoire et at. (1950: 102ff.: 1964); Hagenbach (1880: I, 273-75; 1885: 111-15); Hausrath (1868­ 74: III, 392-94); Havet (1873-84: IV, 432); Henke (1818: I, 96); Heumann (1710: 196-200; 1718; 1726; 1732; 1735: 491-94; 1746; 1753; 1763); Heussi (1955: 30-35); Hilgenfeld (1853: 187ff.; 1860: 199; 1874: 96-121; 1875: 72f.; 1902; 1903a: 171-94; 1903b: 499-505); Holtzmann (1877: 187-214; 1880: 259f.; 1885: 119-22; 1892: 102-104); Hubner (1989); Jenkins (1890); Johnson (1887: 59, 66, 153f., 209f.); Joly (1979); Kastlin (1853: 126f.); Keim (1878: 114f.); Killen (1859: 389-428; 1871: 8, 397-440; 1886; 1890); Kortholt (1708);23 Krabbe (1829: 263f. ["probably later"]); Lampe (1724: I, 14, 184); Larroque (1670: I, 26; 1674); Lechler (1857: 521f.); Le Sueur (1674: I, 391­ 93); Lipsius (1873: 7; 1874: 210-14:; Loisy (1933: 33f., 363-67; 1948: 32f., 291-94); van Loon (1886; 1888; 1893); LUdemann (1899); van Manen (1892; 1900: 80-82); Merrill (1924: 13,285); Merx (1861: 7, 9);24 Osiander (1607: 131); Oudin (1722: I, 71-142); Overbeck (1874); Owen (in Harnack [1895: cv-cxv]); Parker (1616: 222-27); Pfleiderer (1873: 482-94; 1877: II, 214-27; 1887: 823-35; 1890: 487-500);25 Reville (1856); Rossler (1776-86: I, 68); Rumpf (1867: III, v, 8); Saumaise (1641: 251-59; 1645: 55); Schim van der Loeff (1906); Schmidt (1795);26 Scholten (1866; 1867: 40, 50-55); Schwegler (1841: 208, 260f., 292; 1846: II, 159-79); Semler (1767: I, 25; 1784: Preface); Slichtingius (1656: I, 1b); Spanheim (1689: 88); Steck (1888: 378); Steenmeyer (1859); Strauss (1864: 56; 1865: I, 69); Toland (1699: 39, 44, 46); Vaucher (1856); Volkmar (1857a: 479, 491f.; 1860: I, 121f.; 1866: 51-53; 1870: 636,1876: 28; 1886: 99-111); Weingarten (1875: I, 82; 1881: 441-67, esp. 464); Zeller (1845: 585f.; 1854: 52f.; 1875: I, 140; 1876: 31-56, esp. 33); Ziegler (1798: 16).

r

Polycarp

Chapter 4 POLYCARP

We come now to the little letter of Polycarp. Ignatius and Polycarp are closely tied up in tradition, and the external evidence of Polycarp is often held to be the strongest support for Ignatian authenticity. But this view can only be held if Polycarp is authentic and uninterpolated. There are, in fact, good reasons for holding that Polycarp, like the Ignatian letters, is pseudepigraphal. The historical Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor. He devoted great energy to combating false teachers such as the Marcionites and Valentinians. Towards the end of his life he paid a visit to Rome where he discussed, among other matters, the date of the Easter festival with Bishop Anicetus. It was agreed on that occasion that Asia should continue the Quartodeciman practice. The date of Polycarp's death is disputed.! It is generally held to be 155 CE, but Eusebius puts it in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-80}.2 The later date makes it perhaps rather difficult to see Polycarp as a bishop already in 115, especially if Eusebius' chronology is adopted; and still more so in 107 CE (which is when Eusebius says that Ignatius was martyred). I agree with Marrou that Polycarp's death should be placed between 161 and 169, but that it cannot now be determined precisely.3 The attempt of Gregoire and others to place it as late as 177 CE is generally rejected by the scholarly community. 4 The Case Considered 1 Clement is quoted several times in Polycarp which professes to be from shortly after the death of Ignatius and, as it were, authenticates his letters. Polycarp quotes an extraordinarily wide range of New Testament writers, including quite certainly 1 Peter (which an increasing number of scholars attribute to lIS) and the Pastorals. In fact, the most striking feature of Polycarp is that it is a cento of biblical material, with very little at all that is

15

not dependent on other literature. This is impossible for c.115 CEo I quote F. C. Burkitt on this point: "Polycarp, on general considerations, is later than 130. His attitude to the NT is that of 130-140, and it worried me that we should be obliged to date it in Trajan's reign:'s If we accept this, and say that Polycarp cannot be a unitary work of c.115, we could say with P. N. Harrison that it is a combination of two letters, a brief note of 115 and a longer letter of 135 or even later;6 or we could say that the major part of the letter is authentic, whether earlier or later, and that the references to Ignatius are interpolated to authenticate the Ignatian correspondence; or that the whole letter is pseudepigraphal. A Pseudepigraphal Letter Harrison is trying to find a solution to a real problem, but there are big difficulties in turn in his two letter solution. The other view, that the Ignatius material alone is inauthentic, is again not out of the question; but it seems to be part of the fabric of the letter, and what is left without it has no point at all. I go without hesitation for the last view, that the whole letter is pseudepigraphal. The argument for inauthenticity rests mainly on the character of the material in Polycarp rather than in the weaknesses of the two alternative views. But one or two weaknesses may be noted first. The heavy dependence ofPolycarp on the whole New Testament and 1 Clement, if it were consistent with authenticity at all, would not be consistent with a date as early as 115 CEo I have cite4}3urkitt on this point already. Harrison's view, attractive as it is in avoiding this problem, has the difficulty of finding a plausible Sitz im Leben for the preservation of the insignificant material of chapter 13, or chapters 13-14 until it could be appended to the later letter (chapters 1-12); while the view that Polycarp is to a greater or lesser degree interpolated has the (perhaps not insuperable) difficulty that there is no clearly detectable difference in style between Polycarp and his interpolations. The positive case for the inauthenticity of Polycarp, though it is more subjective than the case for the inauthenticity of Ignatius, is not a weak one. The kind of total dependence that Polycarp shows is extraordinary. We do indeed find some dependence in early Christian literature: for example, ofEphesians on Colossians, of2 Thessalonians on 1 Thessalonians and of2 Peter on Jude. But the only near parallel to Polycarp is the Epistle to the Laodiceans; and that seems to me very telling. Schwegler, who was one of the first to treat Polycarp as pseudepigraphal, calls it "an

17

Redrawing the Boundaries

Polycarp

extraordinarily inadequate, weak and incoherent compilation of Old and New Testament quotations, a silly collection of commonplaces, liturgical formulas and moral exhortations, a letter without occasion or purpose, without individuality or distinguishing character:'? I think this is nearer the mark than the delightful commendation of W D. Killen in 1886: "It is exactly such a piece of correspondence as we might expect from a pious and sensible Christian minister, well acquainted with the scriptures, and living on the confines of the apostolic age:'8 Polycarp's very distinctive dependence on quoted material is itself the strongest evidence against authenticity, but the case can be strengthened by another observation. Polycarp speaks in chapter 3 of "the blessed and glorious Paul" and of his letters, from which he quotes. These quotations include several from the Pastorals which were written at some point between 100 and 130 CEo They were, in any case, first promulgated in Polycarp's lifetime. It seems likely that, when they were first read, the Pastorals were understood to be using Paul's name but not to be by Paul. Only later generations will have taken them at their face value. Polycarp's straightforward acceptance of them as Pauline suggests that his letter is written substantially later. One odd fact can be taken as supporting evidence. Polycarp shows Polycarp calling the man who says there is neither resurrection nor judgment "the first-born ofSatan" (7.1). Irenaeus, however, quotes Polycarp as saying this to Marcion, answering his question "do you recognise us?" by saying "I recognise the first-born of Satan" (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4). Lightfoot's claim that this is a form of speech frequently used by Polycarp,9 indeed an idiosyncrasy of his, is strained; and it would be strange ifIrenaeus, knowing the letter as we have it, could quote the phrase in a quite different context with no cross-reference to his use of the letter. But it would fit the evidence exactly if the composer of the letter borrowed the phrase as characteristic of Polycarp from the same section in Irenaeus, from which he knew of the one-time existence of the letter which he intended to supply. There is much less of a coincidence in this view than in Lightfoot's explanation. One small point mentioned by Harrison might help to date Polycarp later than the 130s. 1O This is the word gronthos ("fisticuffs") in the expression gronthon anti gronthou. It is a favoured word of Aquila's, found in him in Judges 3:6; Exodus 21:18; and Isaiah 58:4. But it does not occur in the LXX or in earlier writings. It is at least possible that Polycarp has taken it from Aquila and that Polycarp is later than the 130s. A further argument is that Polycarp has no obvious purpose. There are one or two specific references such as that to Valens in chapter 11; but both

in its very general character and its occasional particularity it is reminiscent of the Pastorals, which are pseudonymous, but not of Paul's acknowledged letters. It does indeed seem certain that there was a letter written by Polycarp and that this was known in the time of Irenaeus (c.185 CE), for Irenaeus refers to it: "There is also a most adequate epistle, written by Polycarp to the Philippians, from which those who are willing, and care for their own salvation, can learn both the character of the faith and the preaching of the truth" (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4). This statement is usually taken as conclusive evidence of the authenticity of Polycarp. But the description ofour Polycarp as "most adequate" rings false. While it would not be impossible that an authentic letter had already been supplied, and had reached Irenaeus, this would for reasons of style and literary competence have to be attributed to a different person from the writer of the Ignatian corpus. It seems much more reasonable to suppose that there was a real letter of Polycarp to the Philippians which was known to Irenaeus and subsequently lost; and that a later writer, perhaps of the third or early fourth century, knowing the reference in Irenaeus, and also knowing the Ignatian corpus, sewed together an unimaginative string of biblical and other quotations. All the indications are that Polycarp is not authentic and that it cannot serve either to date 1 Clement or to authenticate the Ignatian correspondence. So far as the date of Polycarp is concerned, it comes from the third century CEo Such a date is needed to explain its knowledge of the New Testament literature and the other considerations I have mentioned here.

16

The Martyrdom ofPolycarp It must be added, by way of conclusion, that the Martyrdom ofPolycarp is not, as is generally supposed, a contemporary account of the event. ll It is specific, detailed and circumstantial. It is not a bare account but a work of very considerable literary skill and sympathetic appeal. It contains miracles

(anticipations by dreams, the voice from heaven and the miraculous protection from fire) which are generally taken as a warning sign in accounts of martyrdoms; it has detailed dialogue, which is obviously a literary construction, and a liturgical prayer which would be more in place a hundred years later. And, it will be remembered, it contains the phrases "the catholic church" and "Christianity" which are not otherwise attested until about 200 CEo If it were contemporary it must be regarded in view of the miracles as untrustworthy in detail. All the signs are that it is not contemporary but a fine later writing-up of the tradition about Polycarp.

Redrawing the Boundaries

Polycarp

This carries the consequence that we can no longer take the great phrase "eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me any wrong" as reliable tradition. It is a dramatic set piece. Polycarp may well have been an old man when he died; but we have no strong reason to think that he was as old as eighty-six, nor that the Martyrdom contains indisputable evidence for his death.

Appendix I: The Date ofPolycarp's Death in Critical Scholarship

18

19

The following scholars have a discussion of the date of Polycarp's death: Hilgenfeld (1860: 245f.; 1861: 304f.; 1874: 305-45; 1875: 72 [156]; 1879: 145-70 [156 or 157]); Waddington (1867: 203-68 [155]); Renan [155]; Cassels (1874: I, 275 [167]); Lipsius (1874: 188f.; 1878: 751-68 [155-56]); Zahn (1876: xlviii-Iii); Keirn (1878: I, 90-170 [166]); Wieseler (1878: 34­ 101 [166]); Reville (1880: 51; 1881: 369-81); Lightfoot (1885: II, I, 629-95 [Feb. 23: 155]); Killen (1886: 33-52 [169]); Pfleiderer (1887: 824 [155]); Turner (1890: 105-55 [Feb. 23: 155 or 156]); Harnack (1897: II, 33;1:ff. [155]); Funk (1901: II, I, xciv-cv [prob. for 155]); Corssen (1902: 61-82.); Schwartz (1905a: 3 [156]; 1905b: 375 [Feb. 22: 156]); Turmel (1905: 149 [166]); Westberg (1910: 42, 75 [ingenious defence of 167]); Volter (1910a: 1-4 [167]); Preuschen (1922: [167]); Reunung (1917); Delehaye (1921: 11 [156]); Delafosse (1927: 35-36 [166]); Lawlor and Oulton (1927-28: II, 131-33); Ramsay (1931: 245-48 [155]); Loisy (1935: 151 [166]); Quasten (1950: I, 76-82 [155]); Gregoire and Orgels (1951; 1964: 1-38 [Feb. 23: 177]); Griffe (1951: 170-77 [155]; 1952: 178-81 [not 177]); von Campenhausen (1951; 1957: 31); Telfer (1952: 79-83 [168]); Marrou (1953: 1-20); Bardy (1953: 175); Simonetti (1956: 328-44); Vogt (RAC 2: 1175 [167]); Syme (1959: 310-11); Sordi (1961: 277-85 [155]); Gregoire, Orgels, Moreau, Maricq (1951; 1964: 26,108-12 [177]); Frend (1964: 499-506; [165-68, prob.166]); Barnes (1967: 433-37 [towards 153-54]; 1968: 509-31 [towards 157]); Schoedel (1967: 47-85); Behr (1968: 98-100); Schwartz (1972: 332); Brind'Amour (1980: 456-62 [167]); Camelot (1988: 595-97).

...­

~

20

Redrawing the Boundaries Appendix II: List ofScholars Who Have Argued That Polycarp Is Inaunthentic

Centuriators of Magdeburg (1559-74: II, x, 173f.); Osiander (1592: II, i, 3, 7); Rivetus (1642: II, iii, 187-90); Ussher (1644); Dannhawerus (1646; 1696: 274, 909); Semler (1763: II, 366ff., esp. 37; 1771: 1, 171); Rossler (1776: 93-100); Baur (1838: 169; 1848: 96, 129; 1858: 82); Schwegler (1846: II, 154-59); Hilgenfeld (1853: V, 271-74; 1858; 1874: 96-121);12 Zeller (1854: 52); Holtzmann (1880: 261; 1892: 102ff.); Keirn (1881: 532ff.); van Manen (1900: 82-84); Bergh van Eysinga (1907: 185ff.; 1915: 253-69; 1926: 151£.; 1946: 192-93); Loisy (1921: 460-80);13 Delafosse (1922: 303-37, 447-553).

Chapter 5 EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE: SOME PARAMETERS OF DATE I

One value of finding new and later dates for 1 Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp (as I have done) is that New Testament scholarship can again consider the dates and interrelationships of the books of the New Testament more on the basis of internal evidence, and without having to take into account the surprisingly early limits which these other texts provide for the New Testament works they cite. Many scholars have started to do this already, and simply ignored or denied the evidence of the Fathers. If one dates 1 Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp significantly later than is done by conservative scholars, this does not of itself require a later dating of any of the New Testament books, although it does potentially set wider limits for the dating ofsome of these books. One could still say that Ephesians is c.85, but the actual terminus ante quem moves from 96 (the date we have rejected for 1 Clement) to 115 (the date of 1 Peter). Many people date 2 Peter c.150 CEo This is likely to remain the approximate latest date for the New Testament material, so we will have at most a movement of some of the material within the boundaries that continue to exist. But I think that more critical scholars, if they accept this later dating of 1 Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, will more readily associate 1 Peter with 115; that they will take seriously the possibility that the Pastorals refer to Marcionism and come from the 140s; and that they will want to push John to a date later than 100 CEo My work so far encourages me to be radical in terms of the dating of primitive Christian literature. I proceed now to mention some of the redatings and reinterpretations I propose to argue for. I am conscious, as I said before, that my work still has some way to go, particularly on the question ofsignificant cross-references within the New Testament itself.2 Quite different arrangements may be assembled in the minds of my readers. The dates which I propose are none of them precise. But I hope that what I say will serve as a stimulus for thought in the wake of what I have said

r

Redrawing the Boundaries

Early Christian Literature

already about 1 Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. I begin with a suggestion about the Greek-speaking Gentile tradition of the church.

Scholarly Trends Again

22

Gentile Christianity It is customary to treat the New Testament as delimiting the whole history

of the earliest church. In my view, this assessment demands qualification. I would urge that there are four broadly different blocks in the first and second century church and that we have first-hand evidence for only two of them. Although we are theoretically aware of greater complexities, in practice we often write as if what the New Testament attests is the whole story. We must recognize that there were Jewish Christians speaking Hebrew and Aramaic; Jewish Christians speaking Greek; Gentile Christians speaking Greek; and (the block most often ignored) Gentile Christians speaking Semitic and other non-Greek languages. The New Testament is entirely the product of Greek speakers, and gives a much better picture of Gentile than ofJewish Christian thought, although there is a little evidence of that as well. The relationship of Acts 15 to Galatians 2 is of some importance since it describes an "Apostolic Decree" that was certainly not promulgated in the lifetime of Paul nor accepted by him, but which seems almost certainly to be a real decree that was accepted at some later point. It is most probably a testimony to a development in the primitive church after Paul, when Gentile churches close to him accepted rules for their conduct which made them acceptable to Jewish Christians in a way that Paul would never have agreed to (and did not agree to). This in turn implies that for a generation or two after the death of Paul Gentile Christianity was weak and Jewish Christianity strong. The latter imposed its minimum requirements on what survived of Gentile Christianity. We should not think, then, of a single movement in which Gentile Christianity got stronger and stronger and Jewish Christianity steadily declined, but consider a period when this relationship was reversed. This lasted perhaps until 130 CEo That would explain the relative eclipse for a while of the Pauline tradition. 3 The alternative is to see the Apostolic Decree as historical and accepted by Paul, and then to see the evidence in his letters of a radical rejection as later and tendentious. But can we consider so much reconstruction of Galatians? This seems to me by far the less likely alternative.

23

This twofold observation leads me, in the rest of this book, to review the date and tendencies of the New Testament literature. I want to preface that discussion by mentioning briefly some of the "defences" that scholars erect to argue for the early date and integrity of the New Testament material. Examples of this tendency include the tendency to make everything as Hebrew as possible; to deny that John knew the Synoptics;4 to insist that kyrios ("Lord") is the precise equivalent of the Aramaic marais the reluctance to see interpolations in the central epistles of Paul; the reluctance by scholars to acknowledge textual errors (e.g. in Mt. 6:28; Lk. 14:5); the insistence on the Hebraic character of the whole New Testament; and the argument that advanced theology can be early.6 The present scholarly position contains a curious mixture of the open and the closed mind. Many scholars who are happy to see Ephesians (and even Colossians) as pseudonymous are strangely unhappy to acknowledge the possibility, for instance, of interpolation in the other Pauline epistles. 7 There are sound reasons for going for later dates as I do in this book. The possibility is there, given what we have seen about 1 Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. This means that we should do our best to attempt an honest dating of the literature in question. In particular, it seems that some redress may be needed against the obviously defensive attempts of some scholars to grasp early dates, as it were, instinctively. It ought to be said at least that the recent consensus that there was no Domitianic persecution forces 1 Peter and Revelation to significantly later dates. s This defensiveness and "selective reading" suggests we are right to examine the date of the New Testament literature afresh. I shall now go on to propose later dates than is customary for many of the New Testament books. To form a judgment on these, it will be necessary to refer to other primitive Christian works which are not in the New Testament and which provide the first citation of a work or which indicate that it exists by then. With many of these books, as with the New Testament books themselves, there has been a strong tendency, which we may suspect has subconsciously been adopted for apologetic and defensive reasons, to place such works as early as possible (e.g. Papias, the Didache). I will now go through some of these works to introduce them before I consider the New Testament material itself.

24

Redrawing the Boundaries

Early Christian Literature

The Date ofEarly Christian Writings

Aristides is another early Christian Apologist who lived in Athens and worked in the reign of Hadrian. 20 The Syriac translation in which his work survives is addressed to Antoninus Pius. Athenagoras is a somewhat later Apologist who addressed his work to Marcus Aurelius around the year 177 CEo21 Melito of Sardis wrote a famous homily called On the Pasch. He died in the late second century CE. 22 The Muratorian Canon is the oldest extant list of New Testament writings. 23 It was discovered by L.A. Muratori in an eighth-century manuscript. It has been dated to both the late second and the fourth centuries CEo In my view, the earlier date is preferable. Papias of Hierapolis is an important source for early traditions. 24

I have argued that 1 Clement is c.125-40; Ignatius c.180; and Polycarp from the third century (it is perhaps as late as 250 CE). Hermas is an apocalypse which was produced by the Roman church somewhere around the middle of the second centurycE. 9 The reference to it in the Muratorian Canon suggests that it was written at this time. Justin Martyr produced two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho. lO The two Apologies are in reality one work. 1 Apology 1 says that Urbicus was prefect when the text was written. Urbicus did not become prefect until 144 CE and he remained in office until about 160 CEo The Apology was written in the time of the full co-regency of Marcus Aurelius (l Apol. 1; 2 Apol. 2,3). Justin's works can be dated after 147 and hardly before 150 CEo Justin was martyred between 163 and 167 CEo The Martyrdom ofPolycarp was written in all probability in the third century CEY Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyons. His principal text, the Adversus Omnes Haereses ("Against all Heresies"), is a major attack on the different varieties of Gnosticism. The dates of Irenaeus are generally given as c.130-c.200 CE. 12 The Didache is a manual of church discipline which some scholars set as early as the first century.13 In my view it is nearer 150 CE given that the Didache and Hermas Mandate 2 use a common source. Barnabas cites Matthew with the words "it is written:'14 My view is that it must be well into the second century, especially when we consider that there is a reference to the Second Jewish Revolt (132-35 CE) in chapter 16. Even if this is denied to chapter 16, Barnabas is clearly a late work and would in any case be better towards 150 CEo Barnabas is first mentioned by Clement of Alexandria and then by Origen. 15 Clement of Alexandria was the first head of the famous catechetical school in that city. 16 He lived between c.150 and c.215 CEo He was succeeded by Origen (c.185-c.254 CE) who was the author of many biblical commentaries and other writings. 17 The Gospel of Thomas is an infancy Gospel (i.e. it describes miracles performed by Christ in his childhood) which lacks any sure indication of its date. But it is in any event hardly an early work. 18 Quadratus, the first Christian Apologist, wrote in Asia Minor in the reign of Hadrian (c.124 CE).19 One sentence of his work is preserved in Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 4.3.2.

25

Irenaeus says that he was a disciple of"John" and a friend of Polycarp. He is now dated by many to c.130 CE, but this is a quite recent development and not long ago c.150 was a commoner date. In any case it is only afloruit. My date for him is between 140 and 160 CEo 2 Clement is also not by Clement and presupposes knowledge of Matthew and Luke, so it must be somewhat later than both these Gospels. 25 Basileides is a Gnostic theologian who is dated to the reign of Hadrian by Eusebius. 26 Valentinus is mentioned by Irenaeus in his Adv. Haer. (c.185 CE).27 He apparently died in Rome c.165 CEo None of the Gnostic literature can successfully be dated before about 150 CE. 28 The Acts ofJohn come from the second century. The second century also saw the production of a variety of Christian apocryphal works. The Gospel ofthe Hebrews was written at the beginning of the second century in Egypt. 29 The Gospel ofthe Nazarenes was in use in the first half of the second century CE. 30 It was written in Palestinian Aramaic. The Gospel ofthe Ebionites was written around the same time in Greek. 31 The Gospel of the Egyptians was written in the middle of the second century in Egypt. 32 The Protevangelium ofJames comes from the second half of the second century.33 The Epistula Apostolorum comes from the third quarter of the second century (Asia Minor or Egypt).34 The Ascension ofIsaiah comes from the second century.35 The Preaching of Peter is from the first half of the second century.36 The Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs are perhaps a Christian text, incorporating traditional Jewish material, and come from the end of the second century CE. 37 The Sibylline Oracles were written over a range of time, the Jewish substratum of the work coming probably from the second century CE and the Christian additions from the second century CE. 38 2 Esdras is generally set between the fall ofJerusalem (70 CE) and the end of

Redrawing the Boundaries

Early Christian Literature

the reign of Hadrian (138 CE).39 The Odes ofSolomon probably come from the second centurycE. 40 The so-called "Book of Elchesai" was written a few years after 101 CE. 41

following passage from Pernveden's study of the ecclesiology of Hermas (mid second century CE):

26

The Argument from Christian Doctrine On consideration of the problem of the development of key Christian institutions such as baptism and the Eucharist, my view is that considerable caution is needed not to bow to pressure to date these various institutions implausibly early. On the question of baptism I direct my reader to an article by Colin Hickling. 42 Hickling argues that Christian baptism is certainly found in second century sources (e.g. Justin 1 Apol. 66) but he questions the assumption of more conservative scholars that the origin of the practice lies in the earliest days of the Christian movement. Hickling considers evidence which indicates that, however exceptionally, persons (presumably Jewish-Christians) who had not been baptized might have been regarded as admissible to the local Christian assembly. Into this category fall Acts 18:24-28 and Didache 5.5 ("Let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord"). Hickling notes (with the exception of Jn 3:22) the fact that Jesus did not baptize and he cites Lohfink's identification of "the remarkable, enigmatic phenomenon: Jesus himself did not baptize, yet the early community practised baptism as something ecclesiastically and theologically to be taken for granted" to ask whether, in the first decades, this really was so completely taken for granted. 43 He also considers texts which leave it as a matter for legitimate doubt whether their authors shared the view that baptism was the invariable requirement for membership. In this category he places Matthew 28: 19 (on the assumption that this refers to the evangelization of the Gentiles), Hebrews 6:2 and John 3:5. Hickling's conclusion is that "our picture of the diversity of the Christian movement in its early years should be elastic enough to admit, as a plausible conjecture, that baptism, at least in some places, only slowly came to be seen as defining the boundary between membership and non-membership:'44 We must give careful consideration to this conclusion in our wider study of the New Testament literature. I have argued that monepiscopacy sticks out like a sore thumb in the Ignatian letters if these are held to come from the early second century CEo The evidence of Hermas is bound to be significant in this context. I cite the

27

As a member of the community he himself pays reverence to the leading members of the Church, something that is apparent from a detail in the introduction to the first vision of the tower. For when the Church bids Hermas to sit down beside her he says to her, "Lady, let the elders sit first" (Vis. 3.1.8). Thus he has noted a distinction between them and himself indicating that he subordinated himselfto them. The members ofthe Church are not equals amongst themselves... Canon Muratori mentions Pius, Hermas' brother, as the bishop of Rome at the time when The Shepherd was written, and if that information is reliable, it looks as if there was a monepiscopacy in Hermas' time. There are no noticeable traces ofit, however, in The Shepherd. Both times that Hermas mentions the episcopacy it is in the plural.4s

This evidence should not be under-estimated. The Muratorian Canon was not composed much before the end of the second century and it is to Hermas that we must turn for first-hand evidence of Christian practices in the middle of the second century. Hermas offers no evidence for monepiscopacy. Indeed, the text itself suggests a different position. This evidence must be allowed to reflect back on the Ignatian epistles, and it casts further doubt on their authentic origin at the beginning of the second century. Their evidence would, however, suit a position towards the end of the second century when the Muratorian Canon is beginning to acknowledge the monarchical episcopate (albeit in a context which is significantly unsupported by Hermas who, according to the Canon, was the brother of a monarchical bishop). The contact which at least some of the New Testament texts show with Gnosticism is significant too. "Gnosticism" is the generic title given to a synthetic religious movement which came into prominence in the second century CE and which was characterized by the offer of revealed knowledge about the lost human condition in the world and the possibility of post­ mortem salvation of the spiritual element in humankind through esoteric "knowledge:'46 Gnosticism is clearly reflected in New Testament texts such as Ephesians, Colossians, and John. The problem which New Testament scholars have always faced is that of explaining how this contact can have occurred when Gnosticism is rightly viewed as a second-century phenomenon but these texts are regarded as products of the first century. The answer, surely, is to consider the date of the New Testament writings and to see whether the commonly accepted early date is the correct one. If

Redrawing the Boundaries

Early Christian Literature

writings like John are pushed back into the second century, the problem is definitely alleviated. A fourth area of enquiry is that of the mystery religions. There is scope for a renewed enquiry, post-Reitzenstein, into what this strand of ancient religion contributed to the development of the early Christian movementY The extent of its influence on the development of the early Christian understanding of baptism is ripe for investigation. The possibility that Jesus and the first disciples had an annual Passover and/or a fellowship meal and that, really quite later and perhaps under the influence of the mystery religions, this was developed into the Eucharist, also demands consideration.

century.48 This consideration is the lynch-pin of the argument that will be articulated in the remaining chapters of this book.

28

The Consequences of This Approach for New Testament Study There are, so it appears, strong reasons to date] Clement to c.130-40; very strong reasons to hold that the 19natian epistles are pseudepigraphal and of c.170-80; and more subjective, but still powerful, reasons to hold that Polycarp is pseudepigraphal and of a date probably after 200 CEo The consequences of this redating, if it is accepted, are far-reaching but so far as I can see they are entirely healthy.] Clement, and still more Ignatius, posed massive problems for the history of Christian origins. Their pictures of the ministry and the development of the New Testament canon fit into a date after all the books of the New Testament. If they are dated later, it can be allowed that they use New Testament books such as the Pastorals and 1 Peter, which they clearly do use, but which in any case were being dated later than they were; and the Didache becomes much more intelligible without having to be pushed back to an artificially early date because of its primitive character when compared to Ignatius. The most attractive consequence perhaps is that it is no longer necessary to see an extensive overlap in time between the "early catholic" books like ] Clement and Ignatius. There is a more natural and evolutionary movement forward in time from one group to the other. But it is our understanding of the ministry above all that is eased when the embarrassment ofIgnatius' early monepiscopacy is removed. One further and intriguing consequence is that the strongest external check on the dating of the books of the New Testament is removed. While nothing in what has been said is at all an argument for such a later dating, it will be seen now that Ephesians and Hebrews, Matthew and Luke, Acts, 1 Peter and the Pastorals, can if one wishes be placed well into the second

29

Who Knows What? Finally in this chapter I want to consider the question of which of the early Christian writings know others of the early Christian writings. Matthew evidently knows Mark. Mark is known by Matthew, Luke and John. Luke knows Mark and is probably known by John. It may also be known by 1 Corinthians and conceivably by Ephesians. John knows Mark and Luke and possibly some of the Paulines. Acts knows Luke. There is no obvious links with any of the genuine Pauline epistles but possibly links with Ephesians. Romans 13:1-7 may presuppose knowledge of 1 Peter. Ephesians knows Colossians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians and probably Luke and Acts. It may in turn be known by 1 Peter. Philippians may know the Corinthian correspondence. Colossians is known to Ephesians and it knows the Paulines. 1 Thessalonians is known to 2 Thessalonians. 2 Timothy knows the Pauline tradition. Hebrews is known to ] Clement. James knows 1 Peter and the Pauline tradition. It may be known to Jude. 1 Peter knows Ephesians and is known to James. 2 Peter knows Jude and 1 Peter. Its nearest affinities with the Synoptic tradition are apparently with Matthew. 49 Jude is known to 2 Peter. Revelation knows Matthew and possibly Ephesians. The case for the knowledge of the New Testament writings by the sub­ apostolic sources falls into different classes which I have annotated (a) to (d) in a descending order of probability: Barnabas: (b) Romans; (c) Ephesians, Hebrews; (d) Matthew, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter. ] Clement: (a) Romans, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews; (c) Acts, Titus; (d) 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation. Ignatius: (a) 1 Corinthians; (b) Matthew, John, Ephesians; (c) Romans, possibly 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, TItus;

30

Redrawing the Boundaries

(d) possibly ~ark, Luk~, Acts,. Colossians, possibly 1 Thessalonians, possibly 2 Thessalomans, possibly Philemon, Hebrews. Polycarp: (a) 1 Corinthians, 1 Peter; (b) Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy; (c) John, Acts, Hebrews, 1 John.

t'r'.

• "

.: Chapter 6 THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

I I

I J

In the rest of this book, we shall examine the date and integrity of the New Testament literature. There is clearly a close relationship between the three Synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke. The precise form of this relationship has been a topic of constant discussion and argument; but a clear majority of scholars still subscribes to what has been the consensus theory for almost the whole of the twentieth century.l This is that Mark is the oldest Gospel, written between 65 and 75 CE, and that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark but independently combine Mark with other material which they drew in all probability from a written source known as "Q:' Both Matthew and Luke are dated to about 80-95 CEo They are independent of one another. Both have also introduced their own special material known as M (Matthew's) and L (Luke's). This may have existed in written form but it is more often thought to consist of material which circulated only orally. The alternative to this view is the Griesbach Hypothesis, according to which Mark was the third Gospel in the chronological sequence and its author wrote with knowledge of Matthew and Luke. 2 My own research has indicated that this view was first held by Owen and not by Griesbach himself. 3 Marcan priority was first argued for by J. B. Koppe in 1782 (and not by Lachmann or Holtzmann as is usually suggested).4 It is now widely agreed that this is a correct solution to one part of the Synoptic Problem. The hypothesis that Matthew was the first Gospel claims a few supporters (e.g. Butler, Farmer) but does not command wide acceptance. s In our own generation, the case for Marcan priority has been stated with great care by G. M. Styler. 6 Styler identifies a number of places in Matthew and Luke which suggest that Mark is prior logically and that the particular reading in Matthew and Luke can only be explained on the basis that they have used Mark as a source.

32

Redrawing the Boundaries

The Synoptic Gospels

Luke and Matthew

Luke cannot simply use Matthew's version ofQ, which is a conflation, and produce a Gospel which is much closer to the order of Q without firsthand knowledge of Q itself.

For a long time now the most popular view of the relationship between Matthew and Luke, given that Mark is the first Gospel, has been that they both draw on Mark and on another common source which has not survived. This has come to be called "Q:' from the German QueUe which means source. The rest of the material in Matthew and Luke which is not common to the other evangelists is generally called M (for Matthew) and L (for Luke). Belief in the existence of Q is one of the most hotly contested aspects of New Testament scholarship. Q today claims both defenders (Tuckett) and detractors (Sanders and Davies).7 The reason that one body of scholars believes in Q can be stated concisely. It is because there is the need, given the amount of common material in Matthew and Luke, to account for the overlap between them. This is true whether we hold that Matthew used Luke, Luke used Matthew, or that both of these used the common source independently of the other. Those who deny the existence of Q generally hold that either Matthew or Luke used the other and that the second evangelist in the chronological sequence used both oral tradition and his own creativity. The complexity of the relationships between the Synoptic Gospels is such that no single explanation of the Synoptic Problem is able to escape some form of criticism. This explains why Q has both supporters and detractors today. The matter cannot be reduced to a simple and convenient argument. It is, however, probably true to say that, despite the problems which the Q hypothesis raises, it can never finally be ruled out. If we do allow that Q exists, it must be a first-century source. It may be as early as 60 CE or as late as 80 CEo A related question is the status of the Gospel of Thomas. My view of this text is that it is late and dependent on a continuing oral tradition. Although it is not infrequently put forward, I think we can rule out the view that Matthew is known by Luke and drawn upon by him for the material which both Gospels hold in common. s This is because there are a number of places where the Lukan form seems clearly more primitive. Not the least of these is the Lord's Prayer. The Lukan form is sparser and not as obviously developed as Matthew's version. 9 I cite also Vincent Taylor's assessment of "The Original Order of Q" which concludes that Luke preserves the order ofQ and follows it with great fidelity but that Matthew knew this order and made editorial adjustments, conflating Q with Mark and M. On my view it is difficult to suggest that Luke has used Matthew for the common material when this assessment is given due consideration.

33

Matthew Used Luke The hypothesis that Luke knew Matthew is stated increasingly often today but my view is the precise opposite of this one. I think that Matthew knew and used Luke. lO I propose this as a position for the future discussion of Synoptic relationships, and I shall work through this idea in the rest of the chapter. ll What follows now is an abstract from the work of A. Schlager who has argued forcefully in favour of this position.1 2 Schlager finds a number of passages which indicate that Matthew wrote with knowledge of Luke. The first is John's preaching of repentance (Lk. 3:7-9 = Mt. 3:7-10). The verb hupedeixen ("warned") which is common to both occurs only here in Matthew but it is found in Luke 6:47,12:5 (cf. Acts 9:16, 20:35) as if it is Matthew who has borrowed it. The phrase "father Abraham" (or similar) is a characteristic of Luke and occurs elsewhere in his Gospel in 13:16, 16:22 and 19:1 (cf. Rev. 7:2, 13:26). In the saying about thespeck(Lk. 6:41 = Mt. 7:3) Matthew uses the verb, uniquely in his Gospel, kakopoiein ("to do evil"). Luke uses it here and also in 12:14,27; 20:23 (cf. Rev. 7:31, 32; 11:6). The question ofthe Baptist (Lk. 7:19 = Mt. 11:2) uses the verb prosdokan ("to expect"). The only other occurrence of this word­ group in Matthew is in 24:50 which is held in parallel with Luke 12:46. Luke, however, uses the group elsewhere in 1:21, 3:15, 8:40 and 21:26. Herod's awareness ofJesus is reported in all three Synoptists (Mk 6:14; Mt. 14:1; Lk. 9:7). Mark calls Herod basileus ("king") but Matthew and Luke call him "tetrarch:' Again, this is a unique Matthaean usage but Luke uses the word "tetrarch" again in 3:1, 19. Jesus' rebuke ofhis own generation is again reported in all three Gospels (Mk 9:19; Mt. 17:17; Lk. 9:41). The phrase genea apistos ("faithless generation") is supplemented by kai diestrammene ("and perverse") in Matthew and Luke. This word again is unique in Matthew but Luke has it also in 23:2 (cf. Acts 13:8, 10; 20:30). In Matthew 22:35 the word nomikos ("a lawyer") occurs uniquely in the Gospel in parallel with Luke 10:25. Luke uses this word elsewhere in 7:30, 11:45,46, 52 and 14:3. The point here is that Matthew generally shows Jesus as well disposed to the lawyers (see 5:18, 19) and that the quite exceptional portrait of the apparently hostile lawyer in Matthew 22:35 derives from the Lukan tradition where similar material is found also in the other passages cited.

34

Redrawing the Boundaries

The so-called ]ohannine boltfrom the Synoptic blue (Lk. 10:21- 22; Mt. 11:25-27) contains important evidence for my theory. The first part of the proclamation is in close agreement between the two versions. Specifically Lukan is the use of "Father" to address God which is found also in Luke 11:2, 22; 42 and 23:34, 46. The phrase "Lord of heaven and earth" finds a precise parallel in Acts 4:24. In the comparison ofthe day ofthe Son ofMan with the time ofNoah (Lk. 17:26-27; Mt. 24:37-39) Matthew uses the preposition acri, as does Luke. But Matthew more often uses heos and the fact that he uses acri at this point suggests a dependence on Luke. Acri is a characteristic Lukan word and occurs many times in the Gospel and Acts. These arguments (which Schlager presents in more detail) have a certain cumulative effect. They suggest that Luke is prior to Matthew and that the traditional solution to the Synoptic Problem is not correct. We must now go on to see what my reconstruction of the evidence says about the date of the literature in question.

Chapter 7 MARK

We have seen the general scope ofopinion is that Mark was written between 65 and 75 CL I In my view, it was written nearer to 80 than to 65 CEo I think that, despite this, it was still the first Gospel to be written. There is in any event a strong presumption that Mark was not written before 70 CE for the reasons I will explain in this chapter. Mark's Gospel was not written by the person called John Mark, the son of Mary and the companion of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 12:12; 12:25; 13:5, 13; 15:37,39).2 The Gospel is in fact anonymous. This point is accepted by a whole tradition of reputable scholarship. With the rejection of this supposed but fictitious authorship, the case for dating Mark later rather than earlier gains ground. Mark 16:9-20 is generally, and in my view rightly, denied to the original Mark. 3 It is a secondary addition whose terminus ad quem is the second quarter of the second century. 4 A Post-70 Date Mark has generally been dated either just before or after the fall ofJerusalem (70 CE). With the appearance of Hooker's commentary, there is now an increasing move towards acceptance of the later date. s I certainly agree that Mark was not written before 70 CEo I want to argue that it should be placed just a little later still. My case for this later date begins with a consideration of Mark 13. This part of the Gospel is generally called the "Synoptic Eschatological Discourse:' If Mark 13 shows knowledge of the fall ofJerusalem, which it probably does,6 it also includes reflection on it. It is not an immediate reaction to the disaster. So a date nearer to 80 than 70 CE is indicated. But for two reasons, the date must not be allowed to go much later than this. The first is the reference in Mark 9:1 to "some standing here who will not taste death before they have seen the kingdom of God come with power:' This passage must have been written at a time when at

37

Redrawing the Boundaries

Mark

least some of the original disciples were still alive. The death of Jesus round about 30 CE, and the likely ages of the disciples after the fall of Jerusalem, provides us with the hard evidence to undertake this calculation. The second reason, which is not so often recognized, is that there is a great difference in atmosphere between Mark and both Matthew or Luke which suggests a much longer gap between them than the ten or so years which is generally held to separate Mark from the other Synoptists. This means that Mark cannot be set too late in respect of Luke which I hold to be the second Gospel in the chronological sequence (c.110 CE). We must also refute the testimony ofPapias that Mark was the "disciple and interpreter of Peter:'7 This appears more than anything else to be a defensive statement which has been made in the interests of asserting the authenticity of Mark and the tradition which the Gospel records. Mark's Gospel shows no signs of a special connection with Peter. The proposed Roman origin of Mark's Gospel which has been held to support this point is a matter of conjecture and is not supported by hard evidence.

of how Jesus said to him (v.11), "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home:' In the present version this original core has been expanded by the inclusion of material describing the forgiveness of sins. As the story now stands, Jesus first forgives the man's sins and then heals him as proof that "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (2:10). Mark 3:7-12 is an editorial survey which explains how the crowds press upon Jesus and how he heals them from different afflictions. 3:11 is particularly suggestive oflater development: "Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, 'You are the Son of God!'" Mark then reports in 3:12 that "he sternly ordered them not to make him known:' This story demonstrates a strongly reverential attitude towards Jesus which is matched by the Markan device of the messianic secret. The saying about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Mark 3:28-30 has the character of an official church pronouncement which limits the possibility of divine forgiveness in dogmatic fashion. to It represents the agreed mind of a group and not the pronouncement of a prophet from Galilee. The reason given for the parables in 4:10-12 is similarly an accretion, as is the interpretation of the parable of the Sower in 4:13-20. Other accretions in the early chapters of Mark are the stilling of the storm (4:35-41); the Gadarene swine (5:1-20; at least in part); the raising of Jairus' daughter (5:21-43, at least in part); the death of John the Baptist, which has the character of a folktale (6: 17-29); the feeding of the five thousand (6:30-44); the walking on the water (6:45-52); the tradition of the elders (7:1-23; for the most part at least); the feeding of the four thousand (8:1-10); the leaven of the Pharisees (8:13-21; this is the work of a commentator, not a narrator). 11 Peter's confession in 8:27-30 is a further piece of dramatized dogma which registers in dialogue the resurrection faith of the Christian community. It is what Bultmann called a Glaubenslegende. The first passion prediction (8:31) is similarly an accretion. 8:38 (the reaction to the words of Jesus and the future judgment of the Son of Man) is a piece of early Christian dogma - the solemn pronouncement of the believing group. The Transfiguration (9:2-8) is a legendary development. The second passion prediction (9:31), like the first, demonstrates the faith of the early church. The strange exorcist (9:38-49) dramatizes a post-Jesus issueY 9.41 ("whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward") is a saying of the Christian community which betrays a Pauline influence (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 1:12,3:23; 2 Cor. 10:7). It expresses fellowship and solidarity within the Christian community and imposes a sectarian restriction. If the italicized words are

36

Legendary Elements in Mark The strong legendary elements in Mark confirm that the date is later than 65 CE. 8 Perhaps as much as half the material is regarded by most modern commentators, and has to be regarded, either as legendary development or else as the creation of the evangelist himself. Time must be allowed for the development of this material which I shall briefly describe here. First of all there is the temptation in Mark 1: 12-13. The figure of "forty days" derives from the Hebrew Bible. This short passage reveals the desire to make Jesus emulate Israel's wilderness wandering and to emerge triumphant for the commencement of his preaching ministry. Similarly, Mark 1:14-15 is an editorial summary which demonstrates considerable theological reflection on the ministry of Jesus and is paralleled in certain respects by the summaries of the early Christian preaching in Acts. Markan editorial activity is evident in the later part of chapter 1. The healing of the demon-possessed man in 1:23-28 shows strong legendary qualities. It is a piece of dramatized dogma. 9 It is possible that 1:39 gives us the original form of the tradition ("And he went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons") and that much of the additional material is secondary. We find further signs of expansion in Mark 2: 1-12 in the story of the paralyzed man. The original form of this story is found in Mark 2:3-5a, 11-12. This tells the story of how the paralytic was lowered through the roofby his friends and

Redrawing the Boundaries

Mark

omitted the phrase might, however, be authentic because it has an underlying Jewish basis. Other later elements from the middle of the Gospel include the statement about having salt in yourselves (9:50b); the third passion prediction (10:32-34); the episode of the colt (11: 1b-7); the cursing of the fig tree (11:12-14, 20-21); and the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1­ 12; this is a piece of Christian creative writing which presupposes the death ofJesus, the Jewish rejection and the Gentile mission). 12:18-27 (the question about the resurrection) is an example oflater Christian dialectics; 13 other later material in this section includes at least some of the "Synoptic Apocalypse" (13:5-37); the designation of the betrayer (14:18-21); and the prediction of Peter's denial (14:32-52). Turning to the passion narrative, the Gethsemane story (14:32-52) is hagiography and not history, given that there were no witnesses to the event;14 the predictions in the passion narrative as a whole are suspect as vaticinia ex eventu; the whole of the night trial looks suspicious; Peter's denial (14:66-72) may be only a personal legend; the Barabbas episode (15:6­ 10) is suspect; as is the drink and the parting of the garments (15:22-25); the mocking on the cross (15:26-32; the two mockings are probably legendary); 15:33 (darkness over the whole land); 15:34-36 (the cry from the cross); 15:38 (the tearing of the veil of the temple); 15:39 (the centurion at the cross; this demonstrates "the dogma of the Son of God"); 15:40-41 (the Galilean women; this is an editorial, not an historical, notice); and 15:47 (the Galilean women as witnesses). This reading of the Gospels prompts me to ask which parts of the Markan material may safely be regarded as authentic (i.e. elements which go back in some way to Jesus or are early and reliable tradition about him). In this category I include the parable of the seed and the sower (4:1-9); the parable of the lamp on the stand (4:21); the parable of the seed growing by itself (4:26-29; it is odd that this is not found in Matthew and Luke); the parable of the mustard seed (4:30-32); Peter's rebuke and rebuff (8:22-23); the prediction of the kingdom within the present generation (9: 1); the question of tribute to Caesar (12:13-17); the Great Commandment (12:28-34); the crucifixion ofJesus (15:24a); and the death ofJesus (15:37).

The question of whether Paul influenced Mark has been debated in the course of the twentieth century. In 1923 Martin Werner denied any direct influence from the apostle on the Gospel. 1S Werner was answered by Marxsen who criticized him for not comparing Paul with Mark's distinctive contribution to the tradition that the Gospel incorporates as revealed by redaction criticism. 16 Marxsen claims that "Mark ties together the two 'strands' of primitive Christian preaching: the Pauline kerygma and the (so-called) synoptic tradition:'I? This conclusion seems to me a correct one. In the explanation of the parable of the Sower much of the language has a Pauline character (cf. esp. Rom. 5:8-20; 1 Cor. 6:20, 7.23; Gal. 1:4). The list of vices in 7:21-23 is not simply Christian in general but Pauline in particular. Of the 13 vices mentioned here, 10 are in Paul's catalogue in Romans 1:28-31. This, however, is post-Pauline and not Pauline, so that a relationship with Pauline tradition rather than with Paul is suggested. This raises the question of whether it is possible that Mark may have influenced the development of the Pauline tradition, so that our discussion of this issue must allow for a potential cross-fertilization between the two traditions

38

Pauline Influence on Mark We must also consider the extent of Pauline influence on Mark. The demonstration of Pauline influence strengthens the case for supposing that Mark was written nearer to 80 than to 65 or 70 CEo

39

Interpolations in the Text ofMark At places we find evidence of interpolations in the text of Mark. These interpolations fall into two different categories. The first category is those places where there is textual evidence for interpolation. These are 14:65 ("and to strike him") which is omitted in Matthew and in some manuscripts of Mark. 15:28 is likewise found only in some manuscripts and seems to be a learned gloss like Matthew 27:35b. The second category is those places which are secondary additions to the text of Mark where this is not indicated by any manuscript evidence. These include 1:2b where the citation from Malachi contradicts the heading and is probably a late addition. 1s 1:6 looks suspicious. 19 1:7 kypsas is not in Matthew or Luke and may be an insertion. 20 In 1:15 Mark's plusses in relation to Matthew 4:17 could be from the hand of the redactor. In 1:29 the singular exelthon elthon may be more origina1.21 The references to Andrew, James and John in this verse are not in Matthew or Luke and may be redactional insertions. 22 1:35 is redactional. In 1:39 the phrase kai ta daimonia ekballon is not in Luke and is a redactional insertion as in 6: 13. 23 In 2:4 apestagasan ten stegen anticipates at greater length what is given more concretely in exoryxantes. It is not in the Matthaean parallel and Luke is blank; it comes from the evangelist or the redactor. 24 In 5: 1-20 the

I

Ii

Redrawing the Boundaries

Mark

story of the Gersasene demoniac is much fuller in Mark than in either Luke or Matthew, who is puzzlingly short at this point. It is not certain how far the story should be attributed to a redactor. 25 In 5:20 the phrase en te Dekapolei is not in Matthew and may be redactional. In 5:22 the phrase onomati Jaeiros is suspect. The name is not found in some manuscripts; later legend has a tendency to name people unnamed in the primitive tradition. 26 In 6:14 basileus comes from the redactor. Matthew and Luke have "tetrarch" at this pointY In 6:17-23 Weiss wonders whether this is entirely Matthew's tradition which has been inserted by a redactor who expands and decorates it. In 6:31 the provision of a motivation of need comes from the redactor. In 6:33 peze is in Matthew and Mark and may be redactional in Mark. 6:35-44, a series of lively details, is absent from Mark and Luke, and is redactional. The phrase denarion diakosion has probably been introduced from John 6:7, as have other phrases here. In 6:45 pros Bethsaidan is not in Matthew and is possibly redactional. In 7:1 the main emphasis on scribes and Pharisees is perhaps introduced from Matthew. In 7: 19b the phrase katharizon panta ta bromata is probably a later addition. 28 It is a piece of religious reflection, far from Jesus' understanding of keeping the Mosaic regulations. In 7:31 ana meson to orion Dekapoleos is not in Matthew and could possibly come from the redactor. In 7:32-35 the healing of the deaf-mute may be redactionaJ.29 In 8:14 kai epelathonto labein artous, kai ei me hena arton ouk eichon meth' heauton en to ploio is not in Matthew and comes perhaps from the redactor, refleCting Johannine thought. In 8:22-26 the blind man of Bethsaida may be redactional.30 In 9:1 elelythuian en dunamei is inserted by the redactor. 31

it in their copies of Mark. This is a sign of Johannine influence on the synoptic text. 11:16 is not in the parallels and is perhaps an addition of the redactor. In 12:41-44 the story of the widow's mite has no intrinsic connection with its context. It is not found in Matthew and has a strongly Lukan character. It may have been inserted by a redactor on the basis of Luke. 38 In 14:5 the phrase epano denarion triakosion is possibly a secondary numerical estimate. 39 14:8 is a doublet of 12:44, perhaps from the redactor. In 14:18 ho eschen epoiesen emou, and heis ton dodeka in 14:20, are a sympathetic addition of the redactor in the style of John. 40 14:28 (alla meta to egerthenai me proaxo humas eis ten Galilaian) is an irrelevant insertion, wholly out of place here. It breaks the natural connection between 27a and 29 and predicts what is never fulfilled in the GospelY In the light of this judgment, 14:27b seems to be a later insertion as well, although both 14:27b and 14:28 are paralleled in Matthew. In 14:30 dis is inserted by the redactor. In 14:43 euthus probably also comes from the redactor. In 14:51-52 the flight of the young man is possibly secondaryY In 14:58 ton cheiropoieton, allon acheiropoieton is added by the redactor. 43 In 14:59 kai oute houtos ise en he martyria is added as a second explanation to 14:61. In 14:65 kai hoi hyperetai rhapismasin auton elabon is inserted by the redactor, perhaps in reminiscence of a Johannine expression. 44 In 14:68 the phrase kai alektor ephonesen is not in critical maunscripts (a B Wand others) and is inserted by the redactor, although the text is corrected by most witnesses on the basis of the other Gospels. 45 In 14:72 ek deuterou is inserted by the redactor. In 15:15 boulomenos to ochlo to hikanon poein is missing in Matthew and in certain manuscripts and is the addition of the redactor. It is not improbable that 15:23 comes from the redactor. In 15:25 en de hora trite kai estaurosan auton is a later editorial insertion. 15:34-37 is a subsidiary tradition. The status of 15:38 is disputed among the commentators. 46 15:42 contains the only instance of epei in MarkY 15:44­ 45 is commonly regarded as a later addition to Mark. It is not in the version of Mark that was known to Matthew and Luke because it is not paralleled in either. The story has strong redactional elements. 48 Finally, 16:7 may be a redactional addition. I mention, finally, the possibility, which is discussed by several commentators, that there are two distinct styles of narration in Mark which are conflated by a final editor who makes extensive contributions of his own which are unoriginal. 49

40

In 9: 14 the original text had only ochlos and not pros tous mathetas, kai grammateis syzetountas pros autous. 32 In 9:20-26 the healing is painted more broadly than in parallels and so may be the work of a redactor. 33 In 9:28-29 the brief conversation of Jesus about driving out the demons is lacking in Luke and different in Matthew, so an addition in the manner of the redactor. 9:35 is "generally regarded as an insert:'34 In 9:38-41 Pfleiderer thinks that the alien exorcist was not in the original version of the Gospel. 35 9:41 is certainly redactional on the basis of Matthew 10:42. In 9:43, 45 Weiss thinks the phrase to pur asbeston an addition of the redactor on the basis of Matthew. 36 9:48 is taken from Isaiah 66:24 and cannot be original. 9:50b offers a new understanding of salt, not found in Matthew and Luke, and is a gloss. 10:12 is an addition of the redactor with reference to the Roman situationY There are many variant textual forms. In 11:1 Origen D it Vg have eis Bethanaian but the other witnesses eis Bethphage kai Bethanaian. Matthew and Luke both have Bethphage and must have read

I

41

Luke

43

of the Pharisee and Publican and the Prodigal Son) but that Luke shows no trace of such distinctively Pauline ideas as the theology of the cross. New Elements in Luke2 Chapter 8 LUKE

Luke's Gospel is, according to many commentators, the most attractive of the Synoptics. Luke shows an obvious interest in the Gentiles (it is to this extent much less "exclusive" than Matthew), and is concerned also with women and underdogs. This makes the Gospel for the most part a pleasure to read. Luke is the second Gospel in the chronological sequence. In terms of its relations with other New Testament literature, Luke knows Mark and is itself known by John and by Acts in its present form. I think that Luke is known also by Matthew, for which it serves as the source. A major feature of my research in this book is to disconnect Luke from Acts in terms of their authorship. Luke was certainly written after 70 CEo This point is acknowledged even by conservative commentators. Crucial evidence for this view is provided by 21:20: "But when you see Jerusalem encircled by armies, then you may be sure that her devastation is near:' This is such a clear reference to 70 CE that it is impossible to set the Gospel before that date. Luke's use of Mark can hardly be denied, and I do not think that Mark was written until c.80-85 CE.

In terms of a terminus ante quem, Luke is said to have been used by Basileides at Alexandria (c.135) as the basis of his Exegetica. Marcion used Luke in Rome c.140 as the primary form of Gospel. Clearly, Luke must have been written by this time. As with Matthew, however, Luke stands at quite some distance from Mark. Time must be allowed for the substantial change of outlook and place which has taken place from the first Gospel. My view is that Luke was written c.110 CE , although I can find no absolutely compelling reason why it should not have been written later than 90. It is extremely likely that Luke was used by John. l The question arises of how far Luke betrays a Pauline influence (given that Acts incorporates purportedly eyewitness testimony of Paul in action). The answer must be that there are superficial similarities (e.g. the parables

Luke contains some elements which are not historical and do not go back to Jesus. In this category I include the following passages: 1:1-4 (the prologue); 1:5-25 the promise of the birth of the Baptist; 1:26-28 the annunciation to Mary; 1:39-56 the visitation. with the Magnificat; 1:57-80 the birth of the Baptist, with the Benedictus; 2:1-7 the birth oEJesus (not in Matthew); 2:8-20 the visit of the shepherds (not in Matthew); 2:21-40, the eighth and forty days (not in Matthew); 2:41-52 Jesus at twelve years (not in Matthew); 7:11-17, the raising of the widow's son at Nain (not in Matthew); 7:31-35, the children at play (Mt. 11:16-19); 10:21, Christ's gratitude to his Father (Mt. 11:25-26; same source of inspiration as in the birth stories of Luke); 10:22, the Father and the Son (= Mt. 11:27; a christological confession of the apostolic church in the solemn language of a hymn); 10:29-37, the parable of the Good Samaritan; 10:38-42, Jesus in the house of Martha and Mary (a pious legend not in Matthew); 11:27-28, a woman extols Jesus' mother (idea scene, modelled from Mk 3:31-35); 17:11-19, cure of the ten lepers (not in Matthew); 18:9-14, the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (highly Pauline in theology and not in Matthew); 22:31-32, special supplication for Simon; 22:15b, the healing of the severed ear (not in Matthew); 23:6-13. Christ before Herod; 23:34a, the word oEJesus on the cross; 23:40-43, the malefactor on the cross. Elements in Matthew and Luke which probably go back in some significant sense to Jesus or preserve traditions going back to his time include Luke 6:41-42 = Matthew 7:3-5, the parable of the mote and the beam; Luke 10:2 = Matthew 9:37-38, the harvest plenteous but the labourers few; Luke 11:1-4, Matthew 6:9-15 (altered), the Lord's Prayer; Luke 13:20­ 21 = Matthew 13:33, the parable of the leaven; 16:16 = Matthew 11:12-13, stormers of the kingdom of God (so enigmatic that it is likely to be authentic). Interpolations in Luke There are a number of references which suggest that our present text of Luke has been interpolated at some point. Again, these fall into two categories: those where there is textual evidence and those where the evidence is lacking.

-

44

Redrawing the Boundaries

In the first category I place especially 22:43-44 (the angel and sweat). This is found in some manuscripts (notably a and D) but not in others (notably A and B). It seems to intrude into its present context and has a legendary if not an apocryphal character. Also in this category is 23:34: ho de lesous elegen, Patel; aphes autois; au gar oidasin ti poiousin. Again, this is found in some manuscripts (notably A, D) but not in others (a Cand A, DC). This too breaks a natural connection and occurs on the lips of Stephen in Acts 7:60, from where it may have been borrowed. Bundy concludes that it is "commonly regarded as inauthentic and as a later addition:'3 In the second category I place the whole of the birth narrative, 1:5-2:52. This is argued to be post-Lukan by a veritable tradition of scholarship.4 Even if it is true to say, with Bundy, that they "have a definite Hebraic quality and colour...are written in the Biblical style of the Greek version of the Old Testament;'5 Luke is nevertheless in factual error about the presentation in the temple. Certainly, the census is fictional. More limited passages in the second category include 1:27 parthenan;6 1:34-35;7 3:23 hos enomizeto;8 7:27; and 22:32b.

Chapter 9 MATTHEW

In my view Matthew is chronologically the third of the Gospels. I think it was based on Luke, or perhaps on an earlier form of Luke, and written c.130 CL I

I am aware that, in saying this, I am going against a commonly-accepted trend. The Gospel of Matthew has. for most of the history of the Church, been thought of as the first (and even as the most authoritative) of the Gospels. One of the biggest upheavals brought to the understanding of the Bible by critical scholarship was the realization that Matthew was later than Mark and dependent on it. This theory had become common currency by the second half of the nineteenth century. It is very widely held today, and can certainly be described as the "consensus view:' Matthew is considerably longer than Mark. We must see it as revisionist anti- Markan and not simply as a longer version of Mark. Much of the non­ Markan material in Matthew is found also in Luke in often very similar language. The common explanation of this observation is that Matthew was combining with Mark another Gospel-like book to which he had access but which has failed to survive except for the portions that are used by Matthew and Luke. This is commonly called "Q:' Matthew's Gospel is traditionally associated with Antioch. Kilpatrick disagreed with this view because of Matthew's failure to overlap with Ignatian Christianity. But Matthew must have originated in a place where Peter's memory was kept warm. I take this as a possible indication in favour of Antioch, but I accept that a measure of uncertainty attaches to the identification of the provenance. The Date ofMatthew

I shall now give my reasons for dating Matthew in the first third of the second century CL The external attestation is important. Matthew is used by Ignatius; Revelation (possibly, but possibly also vice versa); Papias; the

Redrawing the Boundaries

Matthew

Didache (c.150 CE?); the Jewish Christian Gospels; and probably by James (in which case James must be even later). Barnabas 4.14 appears to cite Matthew ("many are called but few are chosen") but the fact that it uses the formula, "as is written;' suggests that its author is not citing from Matthew but from an unknown work. 2 There is clearly a relationship between Matthew and Revelation, but it is not perhaps completely certain which of the two served as the source for the other. If Matthew is used by Revelation, this makes the date of the two texts very tight. Perhaps there were two editions of Matthew (as there were ofother Gospels) so that the author of Revelation knew a version ofMatthew that was different to the Gospel we have. 3 The links between Matthew and Revelation are evident from a number of passages. Some these have been listed by Pfleiderer. 4 In the first place, there is an obvious relationship between Matthew 2 and Revelation 12. Revelation 12 describes the appearance of a portentous woman who is pregnant and gives birth to a male child who is clearly the Messiah. The language of the apocalyptic tradition is to the fore in this chapter, especially the statement that the woman flees into the wilderness to escape her demonic oppressor (12:14). There are clear similarities (in the midst of perceptible differences) with the story of the birth ofJesus in the Matthaean infancy narrative, the basis of which clearly undergirds the mythology of this part of Revelation. Matthew 17:6 ("when the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear") can be compared with Revelation 1:17 ("When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead"); Matthew 22:12 ("Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe") with Revelation 19:8 ("for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints"); and Matthew 24:30 ("Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory") with Revelation 1:7 ("Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail"). Matthew shows some marked theological developments which place his Gospel in the second and not the first century. We must certainly treat Matthew as later than Luke, whether or not the Gospel actually derives from him. The later that Matthew is put, the more likely it is that 28:19-20 was actually written by him and is not a later insertion. s

Matthew and Jewish Christianity

46

47

It is often said that Matthew is a "Jewish Christian" text. [At this point,

Sturdy raises a series ofquestions he would have considered. These include the relationship between Matthew and Paul; the problem of whether Matthew intended his Gospel merely for Jewish Christians or else for the wider Church; and the oddness of the fact that Matthew has almost no material of separate origin from the Gentile traditions of Mark and Luke. Sturdy says that "I do not feel completely convinced when preaching about Matthew being Jewish Christian:']. 6

New Elements in Matthew An important argument in favour of the late origin of Matthew is the inclusion of material not found in the other evangelists. This includes the use of the term "Church;' the Greek ecclesia (16:18; 18:17). The former passage is particularly interesting because it focuses on Peter in a way that is not done by the other evangelists. The sense of eschatological delay is very strong in Matthew. It is especially obvious in the parable of the ten virgins (25:1-13) which is built around the theme of delay. The material about governing the church is also an addition and it seems perhaps marginally earlier than material in the Didache (which I date to c.150 CE). Matthew's Gospel (like its predecessors) contains material which is not historical or does not go back to Jesus. In this category I place 1:18-25, the birth ofJesus; 2:1-12, the visit ofthe Magi; 2:13-23, the flight into Egypt; 5:14, the parable of the city on a hill; 5:27-28, the antithesis on adultery, which perhaps reflects early Christian disciplinary practices; 7:6, pearls before swine; 11:14-15, the Baptist identified as Elijah; 11:28-30, comfort for the heavy laden; 13:36-43, the explanation of the parable of the tares; 17:24-27, the temple tax incident; 18:19-20, agreement in prayer; 21:14, the blind and the lame cured in the temple (editorial); 23:15, the woe on proselytizers; 25:1-13, the parable of the ten virgins; 25:31-46, the Judgment of the Son of Man; 26:25, Judas' question; 27:3-10, the death of Judas (legendary); 27:19, the intervention of Pilate's wife; 27:24-25, Pilate washes his hands; 27:62-66, the watch on the sepulchre; and 28:11-15, the report and bribe of the watch. There are some passages in Matthew which may well be later additions to the text. 1:18-2.23 (the birth story proper) is a later addition. 7 8:17 may be a post-Matthaean Old Testament citation from Isaiah 53:4;8 12:17-21 is perhaps a post-Matthaean Old Testament citation from Isaiah 42:1-4. 9

48

Redrawing the Boundaries

12:40 was most probably missing from Justin Martyr's text of Matthew and can be removed without disturbance. 1O 13: 14f. is probably an early interpolation. It is almost exactly in the LXX form and agrees precisely with Acts 28:26f. 11 18:17 hoi de edistasan is an interpolation from John 20:25f. according to Weiss.!2 The status of Matthew 28: 19b-20 (the threefold baptismal formula) has long been held suspicious within the Gospel.J3 I wonder also whether the comparison of Peter with a rock (16:18) is late and based on and distorting 18:15-17.

Chapter 10 ACTS

The study of Acts poses a serious problem for researchers. Authorship is not the only question we must consider. The question of authorship, of course, depends in no small measure on the date we assign to the text. The two are interconnected. The differences oflanguage and theology indicate almost beyond doubt that Luke (the author of the third Gospel) is not the author of the Acts of the Apostles.! I shall now consider the issues that arise from this assertion. The Character ofActs The Acts of the Apostles is a lengthy account of (some aspects of) the development of the first generation Church. It is not in fact an account of the Acts of the Apostles in the broad sense. Its title is misleading (and there is no reason to think that it was supplied by the original author). Only a very few apostles are described in any detail in Acts. Many of the Twelve are hardly mentioned there at all. Some of the principal figures who are mentioned (e.g. Stephen) are not apostles, and the text itself gives every sign of arrangement according to a particular scheme. The real heroes ofActs are Peter and Paul. These figures have significance, not precisely in their own right, but because of their significance in the history of the spread of Christianity in its first generation. Acts ends with Paul's free preaching of the Christian gospel in the Roman capital. (Christianity had, of course, reached Rome before Paul.) This is an apologetic demonstration that Christianity is approved of by the Roman administration. This leitmotifdominates the end of the work. The question of the historicity of Acts is a major bone of contention among scholars. I see Acts first and foremost as having what I might term a "reconciling" quality in its presentation of first generation Christianity. By this I mean that it attempts to fuse together the different strands and play down the tensions such as are revealed, for instance, in the report of

50

Redrawing the Boundaries

the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15). This leaves open to question the possibility that the author of Acts may have rewritten the events he describes to suit his purpose in the text. This possibility must be considered by all interpreters of Acts. In what follows I shall treat the question of authorship as an open one. I shall try to see where the study takes us and not make presumptions or engage in the defence of traditional positions. In saying this, I am mindful of Norden's point that Acts is not necessarily all of a kind or all by the same author. 2 It has various styles which suggest that more than one hand may have been involved in the com position of the text. It follows from this that nothing can be assumed in advance and that we should approach the study of Acts, as it were, with a blank sheet.

The Relationship oj Luke and Acts The first substantial question to consider is the question of the relationship between Luke and Acts. Today, we speak of "Luke-Acts" as if the common authorship of the two texts is an assured result of research. It is sobering to observe that scholars have only relatively recently maintained that Luke intended from the start to write a two-volume work. The term "Luke­ Acts" in English goes back, so far as I have been able to discover, only to Cadbury in 1927. 3 The relationship between the two texts is by no means as obvious as this (by now quite common) assumption suggests. Nothing in Luke's Gospel suggests the author intended to write a sequel. The prologue (1:1-4) certainly does not advocate this view. Acts does, however, suggest at an early point - in its prologue, no less - that it is the work of the author of Luke. I regard this as a fictitious attempt to claim a literary relationship with Luke through deliberate stylistic imitation. There are a number of significant differences in linguistic usage between Luke and Acts. These are listed in various works, classically perhaps by Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae (1909). The similarities between the two texts are certainly strong. Hawkins on p. 175 lists 58 words peculiar to Luke and Acts, while on p. 176 he has, for comparison, 17 words peculiar to Matthew and Acts, 14 words peculiar to Mark and Acts, 13 words peculiar to John and Acts. 4 These similarities, however, can only be considered in the midst of very significant differences. Among the most striking of these are the fact that Acts has dropped eipen de; en to with infinitive; and kai autos; and that it has begun to use men oun; te; keleuein and synerchomai. Acts has also substituted the infinitive for the finite verb after egeneto. A. C. Clark observes also that the particle te occurs 8 times in Luke but 158

Acts

51

times in Acts. s The particle men occurs 11 times in Luke but 51 times in Acts. This includes two special classes, men without de following (Luke 1; Acts 15); men oun (Luke 1; Acts 27); and meta and syn (Luke meta 52 syn 26; Acts 37 syn 51). Clark also notes the significance of the words agros and chorion. 6 Agros is unexpectedly rare in papyri. It is evidently replaced by chorion there (agros appears only twice in the first ten volumes of Papyri Oxyrhynci). It is therefore significant that agros should be used 10 times in Luke but only once in Acts (Matthew 16; Mark 8)7 and that chorion never appears in Luke but 6 times in Acts (Matthew 1; Mark 1). This is a very clear difference. To this research I add the following remarks. The use of particles is certainly an important criterion. Only Luke, not Acts, has ei de me ge (Lk. 5:36; 5:37; 10:6; 13:9; 14:31-32). This is also found in Matthew 6:1; 9:17 and 2 Corinthians 11:6 but it never occurs in Acts. These changes in usage of vocabulary and phraseology suggested to Hawkins that Luke must be placed at a considerably earlier date than Acts. Such a view would also explain the otherwise awkward differences in chronology that exist between the two texts (most obviously in Luke 24 and Acts 1). This is surely right; and it qualifies the picture of a composite work that can be called "Luke-Acts:' The question of whether the author of Acts used Josephus is an important consideration in this assessment. s It is likely that the author of Acts (but not of Luke) made use of the work ofJosephus. Both Acts 5:36f. and to a lesser degree 11:20 call to mind Ant. 20.5.1£. If this usage is established, it would constitute another difference between Luke and Acts.

Theological and Ethical Points Also to be considered are points of theological and ethical difference from Luke. C. F. D. Moule has detected a difference between the christologies of Luke and of Acts. 9 Where Acts uses "Lord" as a title for Jesus throughout, Luke restricts it (at least on the lips of human observers) to the post­ resurrection context. There is, furthermore, a deliberate contrast in the use of the term "the Son of man:' Acts 7:56 is the solitary occurrence of this title outside the Gospels (with the exception of Rev. 1:13; 14:14); and here, the mediator's heavenly glory is fulfilled, rather than future and he is said to be standing, not sitting. The description of Jesus as "Saviour" is used in a significantly different way in the two texts. Luke sets the title only on superhuman lips (e.g. 2:11), Acts on human lips (5:31). Similarly with Son:

53

Redrawing the Boundaries

Acts

this is restricted to superhuman speakers in Luke (e.g. 1:32; 3:22) but allowed to human speakers in Acts (9:20; 13:33). There is also a not inconsiderable difference in eschatology between the two texts. The point is that Acts de-eschatologizes but that Luke does not. Luke retains a keen sense of eschatology, as we can see from chapter 21 of the Gospel. Here, the evangelist looks forward to the coming from heaven of the Son of Man (21:27), and presents many of the eschatological signs as accomplished already (e.g. the fall of Jerusalem, 21:20). Acts, by contrast, contains relatively little forward-looking eschatology. Although it is true that Acts 3: 19f. anticipates the climax of eschatology at some future point, the rest of the text contains little that foregrounds this view. The end of the text, where eschatology might if anywhere have been emphasized, says that "[Paul] lived there [i.e. Rome] two whole years at his own expense and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance:' This is very different from the eschatologically-oriented Paul of the acknowledged letters. Some of the distinctive Lukan interests in women, tax-collectors and underdogs seem to be missing from Acts. Reumann comments on this distinction: "Balancing a preoccupation in the Gospel of Luke with the poor and those 'down-and-out: Acts particularly reaches out to the 'up and outers: government officials (13:7-12, among other references), philosophers (17:18-34), and at Philippi (16:13-34) what has been called a microcosm of the Pauline ideal, namely, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female, as expressed in Gal. 3:28:'10

deliverance. There is a possible lack of historicity in the number of the missionary journeys. Acts also makes Peter the founder of the mission to the Gentiles (10:1-11.18) and attributes teaching on justification to him but not to Paul (15:lOf.).

52

The Date ofActs This information leads us to consider the question of the date of Acts. My view is that Acts was written well after Luke and thus perhaps around 130 ll CE. By this time the author of Acts could well have known Josephus, and he very probably does. The most substantial argument that is produced against a late date for Acts is the observation that the author does not seem to know the Pauline letters. But this evidence can be explained in more than one way. There may have been no single moment when the Pauline letters were published. It is worth considering whether they were in fact only known within a quite restricted circle of Gentile Christianity. But it seems to me more probable that the author of Acts (and similar writers, e.g. James) was aware of the rewriting of the Pauline tradition by Pauline followers who altered what Paul had said (e.g. the coming in of Adam, deep original sin, and so on), and without reference to them set out a different view of who Paul was and what he stood for. This I take to be a main purpose of Acts. I tentatively make this suggestion for further consideration.

The Historical Character ofActs There are a number of points where Acts appears to be misleading, unhistorical or in factual error. These include 1:1-5, the preface; 1:9-14, the ascension and return to the Upper Room; 1:15-22, Peter's speech; 2:1-13, the Pentecost event, with converting speaking in tongues into speaking in other languages; 2:14-41, the Pentecost sermon; 2:43-47, the summary of life in the primitive Church; 3:1-10, the healing of the man lame from birth; 3: 12-26, Peter's temple sermon; 5: 1-11, the miraculous death of Ananias and Sapphira; 7:2-53, Stephen's speech; 8:26-40, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch; 9:32-43, miracles in Lydda and Joppa; 12:6-11, Peter's miraculous release from jail; 15:1-35, the Council of Jerusalem and its resolution; 16:25-34, the release of Paul and Silas from prison in Philippi; 20:17-38, Paul's apologia; 27:1-44, the sea voyage, shipwreck and

'1

~I.

~,!

I

!I!!'

The Pauline Corpus

55

It is very noticeable that New Testament scholars seem defensive about

Chapter 11 THE PAULINE CORPUS: ITS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

I begin by observing that, by general scholarly agreement, not all the texts that the New Testament attributes to Paul were actually written by him. l One can hardly accept that Paul really did write Hebrews, the Pastorals, Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians. This leaves the central Pauline core of Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and 1 Thessalonians. Yet even this reduced list is not without problems. We should ask whether such long letters are really possible and whether the corpus as it now stands has been interpolated at various points. 2 There are also inconsistencies within and between the letters. This leaves some "uncertain areas" which it is unlikely will ever be solved to the final satisfaction of the scholarly community. My purpose in this chapter is to examine both the acknowledged and the "deutero-Pauline" Pauline letters. I shall examine them all, in the order mentioned here, with the exception of Hebrews which I leave until the next chapter. As with my study of Acts, I begin with no presumption of integrity. I do, however, observe that it is improbable that the longer letters were actually intended as real letters and that there is a case to be heard for texts such as 1 and 2 Corinthians being made up of shorter letters. The later pseudepigraphalletters (Ephesians, Colossians) are important because they show the expected length of a Pauline letter. But I regard it as just as necessary in places to defend Pauline authorship as to attack it. Clearly, Paul did exist and he wrote at least some of what is attributed to him. One might compare Paul's own contribution and its development with the growth of the Hebrew prophetic corpus which was achieved with the help of the prophet's circle of disciples. 3 I begin with a thumbnail sketch of Paul. 4 He is likely to have come from Tarsus but unlikely to have studied with Gamaliel. His thought is rabbinic in style but we cannot accept for certain that he was a Pharisee. He was perhaps a tent-maker as the sources say.s

I J

tI i

I

,~j

-','y

'!

i'

:~

1t ft'

the integrity of "basic Paul:' There is often an unexpected sharpness of voice about the way in which unwelcome proposals are put down. This is because Paul seems firm ground that we can hold on to: early and with apologetic value. A denial of the early date of the listing of the resurrection appearances, for instance, undercuts one of the most common forms of apologetic defence of the resurrection tradition. This is why such proposals never got very far. Certainly, they are a possible answer to a real problem: Paul should make more sense than he does. The Pastorals Of all the epistles which bear the name of Paul, it was the three Pastoral Letters (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus) which were the earliest to be identified as pseudepigraphal. 6 The Pastorals belong to the middle of the second century CE.7 They stand within the Pauline tradition but at a considerable remove from it. Perrin and Duling summarize the case for denying genuine Pauline authorship to the Pastoral Letters. s Statistics may be difficult to interpret; but of the 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus (even if 2 Thessalonians, Colossians and Ephesians are notionally reckoned in that corpus). Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but 211 belong to the general vocabulary of Christian writers in the second century. The vocabulary of the Pastorals stands closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than to the genuine Paul. The Pastorals also use Pauline words in a non-Pauline sense: in them dikaios means "upright;' not "righteous;' and pistis "the body of Christian faith" and not "faith:' A second argument rests on literary style. Paul writes in a lively style with dramatic arguments and emotional outbursts. The style of the Pastorals is quiet and meditative which seems distant from the immediacy of, especially, Galatians. Paul's situation as described by the Pastorals cannot be equated with any acknowledged scheme of his life. If Paul genuinely wrote these texts he must have done so after his first Roman imprisonment and on a journey to the West. But this journey is by no means certain, and the setting of the Pastorals in the known life of Paul is consequently problematic. Finally, the Pastorals are, in the words of Perrin and Duling, "the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emerging institutional

Redrawing the Boundaries

56

Christianity. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter:,g We can date the Pastorals with reference to the apocryphal work known as the Acts ofPaul which was written c.160 CE. lO This text includes various Pauline characters known only from the Pastorals (Onesiphorus, Hermogenes and Demas)ll so that the Pastorals must have been written before this text was composed. 12 I note that Athenagoras (c.177-80) certainly quotes 1 Timothy 2:2. 2 Timothy 3: 11 probably shows knowledge of Acts and so the Pastorals must be later than 130. They definitely know and cite 1 Peter (110 CE). 1 Timothy 2:2 has the plural basileis. An imperial co­ regent first appeared in 137 CE but we should probably think of 147 as the earliest date since it was in this year that the two Antonines first reigned alongside one another. The Pastorals were thus written c.150 CE, not long after John's Gospel received its finished form. This means that, ifthe Pastorals seem to refer to Marcion, they probably do. There is no need to avoid this possibility. Ephesians

Ephesians has long been recognized as not an authentic Pauline letter, even if it stands in the Pauline tradition. The difficulties in attributing Ephesians to Paul are substantial. They rest on more than one kind of evidence. The first is the language and style of Ephesians. 13 There are 40 words in Ephesians which do not occur elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. Many of them, however, appear in later New Testament literature and in primitive Christian literature which is not in the New Testament. The language and sentence-structure is complex (see, e.g., 4:11-16) with a predilection for the accumulation of nouns (e.g. 1:19) and for genitival formulae. Although Ephesians 2:5, 8-9 repeats the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, in other respects the theology of Ephesians fails to display distinctive Pauline touches. Thus Ephesians 2:20, where the apostles and prophets are regarded as the foundation stones on which subsequent building has occurred, seems to contrast with 1 Corinthians 12:28 where prophets are a living reality. Ephesians uses the noun ecclesia to designate the universal church whereas Paul (and even Col. 4:6) uses it only for the local congregation. And in 3:4-6 the "mystery of Christ" is the unity ofjew and Gentile, a statement that displaces Christology in the interests of ecclesiology.

The Pauline Corpus

57

Ephesians also fails to convince the modern reader that it is a real letter. There is no specific reason for its writing and no precise description of opponents. The most substantial reason, however, for denying Pauline authorship to Ephesians is its relationship to Colossians.l~ A number of passages show obvious dependence on Colossians in a way that is unparalleled in the Pauline corpus (but strikingly paralleled by the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter, where it is almost universally agreed that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphal). Into this category fall Colossians 3:12-13 = Ephesians 4:1-2; Colossians 3:16-17 = Ephesians 5:19-20; and Colossians 4:7-8 = Ephesians 6:21-22. The last example (which mentions Tychichus) is decisive for the issue. If the letter is genuine, it must have been written in close proximity to Colossians to enable Paul to speak in almost identical terms about this person. But there are so many differences between the two letters, particularly differences of vocabulary and ideas, that it is very difficult to support the view that the two letters were written in close proximity as this theory demands. We are virtually bound to conclude that Ephesians is pseudepigraphal and to regard any attempt to argue otherwise as quite unnecessarily conservative. Ephesians was written c.100 CEo It must be after Colossians and I think that it was written before 1 Peter. I have placed it in the second century because of the reference to the cessation of hostility between Jew and Gentile which is a feature also of the eirenic outlook of the Acts of the Apostles. ls Colossians

The authenticity of Colossians is accepted by a greater number of scholars than the authenticity of Ephesians, but I regard Colossians as similarly pseudepigraphal. 16 The problem which this letter raises is neatly summarized by Perrin and Duling: "The data on which authenticity of pseudonymity has to be decided is not in dispute in the letter to the Colossians; the dispute is in the interpretation of the data:'l7 The data and the dispute run according to the following lines. The vocabulary of Colossians contains some surprises when compared with the acknowledged Pauline letters. IS Twenty-five of its words are not found elsewhere in Paul and 34 not elsewhere in the New Testament. Synonyms are piled together and the sentences are long and cumbersome (see 1:9-20!). The interpretation of this evidence is disputed, but it suggests that pseudepigraphy cannot be ruled out - not least when, once again, Colossians is compared with a text of immediate rhetoric like Galatians.

Redrawing the Boundaries

The Pauline Corpus

Several key Pauline concepts are absent from Colossians.!9 These include justification, law, salvation and revelation. The absence of anyone of these is not determinative of pseudonymity by itself, but the absence of all of these together does seem to point in that direction. Can we really have a genuine Pauline letter that does not deal with the concepts of law and justification? Added to this is the presence of concepts which are not found in the earlier Pauline letters. In Colossians 1:15 Christ is seen as the true representation of the invisible God who makes the deity visible to human eyes. Christ is here presented as the goal of creation (1:16) in advance of anything Paul says in the acknowledged letters. The sense in which the church is called the "body" of Christ is different, too. In 1:18 (cf. 2: 19; 3: 15) the church is a cosmic entity and not (merely) the earthly company of believers. Colossians also represents a step towards the Pastorals in terms of its ecclesiology.20 Perrin and Duling note the reference to Epaphras as "a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf" and to Paul's ministry as a "divine office" in 1:7,23,25 as examples of this. This can be much better compared with the description of Timothy as a "good minister" of Christ Jesus in 1 Timothy 4:6 than with the statement of2 Corinthians 3:6 that "God...has qualified us to be ministers of the new covenant:' A final point is the understanding of baptism in Colossians. The author of Colossians 2: 11 calls baptism the Christian equivalent of circumcision. But in the genuine Paul circumcision is a Jewish rite which has been abandoned by Christians (e.g. Rom. 2:25-29). The salvific event on which the baptismal understanding of Colossians is founded is subtly different from the authentic Paul. 2 Corinthians 5:19 states that "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself:' Colossians 1:19-20 uses a compound verb - apokatalassein rather than katalassein - to assert that Christ's ministry was "to reconcile all things to himself' I date Colossians in the 80s to allow time for development from the authentic Paul and towards Ephesians respectively. This would explain the emergence of proto-Gnostic language and the other differences in theology from the genuine Pauline letters.

theory of pseudonymity.22 2 Thessalonians contains many un-Pauline phrases and stylistic peculiarities. Krodel has advanced the interesting suggestion that 2 Thessalonians seems to imitate what may itself be an interpolated thanksgiving in 1 Thessalonians 2: 13-16. 23 There are substantial theological differences between the two letters. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 the parousia is held to be imminent. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 seems to alter this perspective when it describes a sequence of events that must be accomplished before the parousia, as if the author is conscious of the fact that events had not happened as Paul had originally predicted. Yet, on the timescale proposed for 2 Thessalonians by those who claim it is a genuine letter, it is followed by 1 Corinthians 15 where the imminent perspective is repeated. Also difficult to reconcile with the genuine Paul is the fact that in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 persecution is promised to the persecutors in a strikingly vindictive assertion of divine retribution. Perrin and Duling also detect a christological difference between the two letters in the tendency to equate God and Christ in terms of the theology of divine action. 24 I therefore treat 2 Thessalonians as a product of the Pauline School and think it was written in deliberate imitation of 1 Thessalonians. Its date is probably quite late. The letter implies a general persecution ofthe Christians by the Romans. Given that there was no Domitianic persecution in 96 CE, this brings us to the second decade of the second century like 1 Peter and Revelation (or even later than this). Vielhauer says before c.110 CE because 2 Thessalonians is cited in Polycarp; but ifPolycarp is either 135 (Harrison) or from the third century (my view), there is no problem in accepting the validity of this reference. I date the letter to the period 120-30 CE and believe that it reflects the Trajanic persecution, as do other texts from around this period.

58

2 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians is equally pseudonymous.2! The decisive point here is that 2 Thessalonians has so many similarities with 1 Thessalonians in the midst of so many Significant differences that one is almost obliged to consider the

59

The Genuine Paul There is a core of the major part of the texts of 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philemon and probably Philippians which was genuinely written by Paul at the dates assigned to them. These were perhaps preserved by Paul himself, in the form of a copy of the letter, rather than having to be collected from the different churches addressed. My intention now is to examine this acknowledged corpus and ask whether it can be accepted in the form in which it now stands. My answer to this question is, almost certainly not. Even with Colossians and Ephesians taken away, there are great problems in finding sense and consistency in

Redrawing the Boundaries

The Pauline Corpus

the core of Paul. Although we may acknowledge that Paul, in his own words, became "all things to all men;' it is not certain that the best solution is to accept all the inconsistencies. We must examine the texts as they now stand to see if they have been overworked in the course of transmission. In what follows I shall examine the acknowledged Pauline epistles and ask whether it is possible that shorter letters lie behind them. This approach was recommended by Weisse in 1855 and it was quite popular in the 1920s.25 Such an argument deserves careful consideration ifwe are to make sense of the Pauline letters today.

is the suggestion that we have to do with a different document altogether. There have been a number of attempts to divide 2 Corinthians into different letters. Thus Bornkamm finds either five or six previous letters; Perrin and Duling, six; and Schmithals as many as nine. 31 It does seem difficult to maintain the literary integrity of2 Corinthians. Chapters 10-13, although containing authentically Pauline touches, seem different from what precedes it both in atmosphere and content. 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, for instance, has long been recognized to be a separate section in the letter and, since the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, it has been associated particularly with that strand of literature. 32 The problems of interpretation which this letter raises will not be solved by the stubborn assertion of authenticity made, for example, by Hughes. 33 My view of the matter is that 2 Corinthians 6: 14-7:1 and 13:13 are both post­ Pauline.

60

1 Thessalonians 1 Thessalonians is not quite as innocent as it seems. Despite its apparently primitive eschatology, the letter contains clear traces of overworking. I regard 1:2-10 (conceivably), 2:13-16 and 5:1-11 as post-Pauline interpolations.

Galatians Galatians is for the most part authentically Pauline. Kiimmel comments that "the older, frequently discussed hypotheses of interpolation or compilation of Galatians are nowadays scarcely discussed, and this is no doubt correct:'26 But I do think that there is a case to be heard for the post­ Pauline origin of2:7b-8 (the comparison between Peter and Paul).

1 Corinthians The unity of 1 Corinthians can be maintained without serious difficulty.27 But despite this the letter is not free from the suspicion of interpolation. Both 1.2b and 14:33b-35 (or 36) have been seen in this light,28 My own view is that 1O:29b-30, possibly 11:3-16, chapter 13, 14:33b-36, 15:21-23, 15:45-50 and 16:22b are all post-Pauline.

2 Corinthians It seems obvious that 2 Corinthians 10-13 was once a separate letter, written before chapters 1_9.29 Even a commentator who denies this is obliged to conclude: "Beyond all doubt, we have to reckon with several changes in the flow of the letter: changes of atmosphere, the mood of Paul's response, and in what he expects from the Corinthians:'30 A more convincing explanation

61

Romans There are problems also in the letter to the Romans. 34 Romans 16:1-23 has sometimes been seen as a separate letter to Ephesus. Lake lists the reasons for holding this view. 35 In the first place the large number of personal greetings which this section contains is far greater than in any other epistle; and it seems unlikely Paul would have had so many friends in a city he had never visited. Secondly, 16:17-18 seems out of place in an Epistle to the Romans. Paul refers to "the teaching which you have learned" in a context where he evidently designates himself as the major teaching authority. This is difficult since Paul had never visited Rome; and his reference to people "serving their own appetites" seems better suited to a context in Greece or Asia. Moreover, the reference to Epaenetus, Prisca and Aquila also suits an Ephesian and not a Roman destination. It remains possible, in the words of Lake, that "(if the Ephesian hypothesis be adopted, it is clear that) Rom. xvi. 1-23 must be regarded as a letter of introduction sent by St. Paul to Ephesus for Phoebe, a servant of the Church at Cenchreae, the eastern port ofCorinth:'36 Even those who do not accept that the substance of this chapter is an interpolation are prepared to accept the doxology (16:25-27) as un-Pauline. It has sometimes been suggested that 7:25b is also an interpolation. 37 The fact that Marcion had a shorter text of Romans demands careful interpretation. Origen says of this that: "Marcion, by whom the scriptures - both Gospels and epistles - were corrupted, completely removed this section [16:25ff.] from this epistle; and not only this, but also from the

63

Redrawing the Boundaries

The Pauline Corpus

place where it is written, 'Whatever is not of faith is sin' [14:23], he cut off everything to the end."38 This omission has affected a few Western manuscripts, but the bowdlerized character of Marcion's text is plain to see. My conclusion that Romans 1:lc-4, 1:18-31,5:12-21,13:1-7 and 16:25­ 27 are all post-Pauline, and I am sympathetic to the "Ephesian" hypothesis in respect of 16:1-23.

One area where this must be done is that material in the Pauline letters which is commonly agreed to be un-Pauline but which for that reason is assumed to be pre-Pauline in origin. Some of this material (notably Phil. 2:5-11) is doctrinally advanced and we should at least consider the possibility that it may be later and not earlier than Paul. I cite as an instance James Dunn's observation that Paul is too early to believe in pre-existence for Christ, but the right answer may not be Dunn's hardworking, yet rather forced, exegesis of the material but the decision that here we have post- Pauline material and not earlier doctrine. It looks as if the idea of the pre-existence of Christ was slow to spread in the Greek­ speaking church. It is not found in Mark, Matthew or Ephesians. It is certainly odd that it should be as early as Paul. Among the Pauline passages which are thought to suggest pre-existence are 1 Corinthians 2:8, 8:6, 10:4; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Romans 8:3, 8:32, 9:5; and Philippians 2.5-11. The status of the last passage is particularly intriguing because of its length and the fact that it is generally regarded as an early Christian hymn which Paul has inserted in its present context in Philippians. The view that it is a later interpolation is an attractive one (and it has even been suggested that it is an original Marcionite composition).44 1 Corinthians 13 does not belong in its context. Its stress on agape rather than pistis is surprising in Paul. This makes it possible that it is later than Paul, not earlier, and that the agape tradition here spills over from the Synoptic tradition into the Pauline after Paul's death. There are reasons to suspect that Paul did not use pistis to mean"the faith" (Le. "the Christian faith") and that he spoke of the church and the churches as a group but not of the Church as an institution. The reference to "bishops and deacons" in Philippians 1.1 is inexplicable in Paul and can without difficulty be taken as a later addition. The Trinitarian formula in 2 Corinthians 13.14 is surely post-Pauline as well. These are but a few examples of the variety of evidence that could be produced in support of this basic point. I believe that larger elements in the central Pauline tradition may be later too, in particular the Adam theme (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-23,45­ 50) and some parts of the eschatological material. I find it hard to believe that Paul at different times took up the different positions in 1 Thessalonians 4-5, 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 without apology and without linking up or otherwise explaining the different views. I think it possible that the position of 2 Corinthians 5 is nearest to the mind of Paul and that the detailed but different eschatologies of 1 Thessalonians

62

Philippians Philippians is conceivably made up of more than one document. 39 It has been suggested that in Philippians "Paul offers a perfect model of a clear and specific letter up to 3.1:'40 At 3:1 a concluding section begins but this is swiftly interrupted in 3:2 which inveighs against opponents. Verse 4:4 provides neat continuity with 3:1. Some scholars also think that 4:10-20 is out of place in the letter. My view is that 1:1 ("bishops and deacons"), 2:6­ 7 (or even 2:6-11) and the whole of chapter 3 is post-Pauline. Theological Motifs Which Are Later The difficulties raised by our present version of the Pauline corpus are exemplified in the work of three scholars. E. P. Sanders, in his various writings, has stressed that Paul seriously misrepresents the Judaism of his day.41 H. Maccoby has actually argued that Paul was a Gentile, because there is so much in him that could not be said by a Jew. 42 H. Raisanen, concentrating on Paul's view of the law, has argued that what we find in Paul is muddled and contradictory.43 It may be that these points of criticism could be better met by recognizing that a significant amount of the text of the central Pauline epistles results from post-Pauline expansion and does not come from the pen of Paul himself. Possibly the Pauline tradition was a living one from the first and the core letters were gradually interpolated so that they grew from being true and briefletters to full-blown discourses. This does not of course have to be the case, but if it appears that creation material has a good intrinsic claim to be non-Pauline in language and theology we should take this possibility seriously. This must, however, be done slowly and cautiously, with many uncertainties left open as is the nature of the case. The goal of all such work in this area is to discover thought-out principles by which the question of interpolation can properly be examined and the status of the Pauline epistles determined according to a consensus opinion.

Redrawing the Boundaries

The Pauline Corpus

and 1 Corinthians are both post-Pauline presentations of a less subtle and more traditional (and for that reason, more appealing to the early church) form of eschatology. It is worth enquiring in this respect whether all the cross-references to Synoptic tradition in the corpus Paulinum are later. We would not expect the Paul of2 Corinthians 5:16 to be interested in formulaic traditions handed down of what the Lord had said ("even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way"); and it does seem possible that the "handed over...received" traditions of 1 Corinthians 11 and 15 are in fact post-Pauline.

only a vaguely familiar echo from the past. This continued till about A.D. 90. About that time, an intimate disciple of the Apostle, who remembered his master with deep affection and enduring gratitude, and who, for personal reasons, knew of one or two of his surviving letters, was inspired to set on foot an enquiry to discover if any others were still in existence. His search met with remarkable success.""

64

The Collection of the Pauline Letters This approach to the material raises the need to determine the place where the continuing Pauline tradition was expanded. I have already suggested that the collection of Paul's letters may have been due to the fact that Paul himself kept copies of his letters. This obviates the need to posit a later admirer desperately scouring the Mediterranean world to find what Paul had said. We are dealing here with the issue of interpolation alongside, and distinct from, the issue of pseudepigraphy. That some of the Pauline letters are pseudonymous seems to me unquestionable. But it is perhaps less easy for scholars to accept that the genuine Pauline were also interpolated as the first century progressed. We do not, ofcourse, know for sure where the Pauline letters were kept but it seems more probable that this was done in the west rather than the east, given the Jewish Christian influence in the Jerusalem church. Ephesus is almost bound to be considered as a possibility, but there may have been more than one centre of Pauline influence. The "classic" theory about the collection of the Pauline epistles was stated by Mitton in 1955 and in the various works of Goodspeed in connection with his work on Ephesians. 45 I cite the following summary by Mitton of the effect ofGoodspeed's work: Pauls letters...so far from gaining immediate and lasting popularity and authority in the early Church. actually fell into almost complete neglect. once they had served the immediate purpose for which they had first been written. Only a very few, out of the total number he must have written, survived at all. and these more by happy chance than by the deliberate intention of the churches which received them. Those which were not either destroyed or lost, were forgotten and left, idle and unremembered. either in some church safe or some church officer's cupboard. Indeed. as the years passed after Paul's death, his very name was in danger of becoming for younger Christians

65

I wish to make two criticisms of this influential view. In the first place, it ignores the possibility that Paul himself kept copies of his letters, for one reason or another, and that these were the source of the Pauline collection when this began to be made in the late first or early second century. Secondly, it posits a "tunnel period" when Paul passed into obscurity which is unsupported by the substantial interpolations into the letters to which I have drawn attention. These interpolations point to a different conclusion, which is that Paul's writings did not pass into general disuse even if, as I have said, his influence may have been more substantial in Asia than it was in the east. The evidence suggests that Paul was not only remembered but interpolated. The manner in which this interpolation was done suggests that the need was felt to "update" Paul as time progressed. I also wish to enter into dialogue with Bishop Barnes concerning his suggestion that the Pauline collection could not have been made because Acts shows no knowledge of them. On my date for Acts, the Pauline collection would have been started, if not nearing completion. The earliest reference which we have to it is in 2 Peter 3:15-16 which was written c.150 CEo The fact that Acts does not mention the collection does not mean that the collection did not exist at that time. It simply means that the author of Acts, for one reason or other, chose not to refer to the Pauline collection.

Redrawing the Boundaries

The Pauline Corpus

Appendix: List of Scholars Who Have Deemed Various Parts of the Corpus Paulinum Inauthentic

16 as a whole, Weiss (1872); Hawkins (1941); Knox (1954); Friedrich (1961). 16:17-20, Volkmar (1875); Pfleiderer (1887: 145). 16:17-18, Loisy (1935: 29). 16:24, Cranfield; Mangold (1884). 16:25-27, Reiche (1833); Krehl (1845); Delitzsch (1849); Davidson (1868: 134-37; 1882: 118-21; 1894: 120-23); Lucht (1871); Hilgenfeld (1872: 469ff.; 1875: 326f.); Pfleiderer (1873: 314); Seyerien (1874); Volkmar (1875); Schultz (1876); Mangold (1884: 44-81); Bruckner; Lipsius; von Weizsacker (1886: 334); Jiilicher (1894: 71); Corssen (1909: 1-45); Lake (1914: 359f.); Wendland (1912: 351); Weiss (1917: 534); Burton (1921: 509); Loisy(1922: 106, 134); Harnack (1931); Barnikol (1931a; 1933: 116-48); Dodd (1932: 245); Manson (1948); Gaugler (1945); Zuntz (1953); Michel (1955: 19f.); Barrett (1958: 10-13,286); Friedrich in RGG 3, V, 1138; Beare (1962b: 112f.); Marxsen (1964); Fuller (1966: 56); Fitzmyer in Brown, Fitzmyer and Murphy (eds) (1990: 292); Bornkamm (1969); Lohse (1972); Kasemann (1973); Cranfield (1975: 6-9); Schmithals (1975); Vielhauer (1975: 187f.); Gamble (1977: 107­ 10, 123f.); Schenke and Fischer (1978: I, 136f.); Elliot (1981); Dunn (1988: 912f.); Ziesler (1989: 25); Donfried (1970); Kamiah (1956).

66

Romans 1:3-4 Loisy (1935: 9). 1:18-32, parts by Michelsen (1876); Couchoud (1926); Harrison (1936: 298£.); Carrington (1939); Hawkins (1941); O'Neill (1975: 40-45, continues until Rom. 2:29); Munro (1983: 112f). 2:1, Bultmann (1947); Schmithals (1975, marginal note). 2:13, Schmithals (1975, marginal note). 2: 14f., Weiss sees as a gloss.

2:15b-16, Sahlin (1953).

2:16, Bultmann (1947); Schmithals (1975, marginal note); Koester.

3:9-20, Hawkins (1941).

3:10-18, Weisse (1833); Pierson and Naber (1886); Michelsen (1887);

van Manen (1880); Schenke and Fischer (1978: 142f.); O'Neill (1975, vv. 12-18). 3:23-26, Hawkins (1941). 3:24/25-26, Talbert (1966). 4:1 and 4:17b, Schenke and Fischer (1978: 144) make the complicated suggestion that 4:17b really belongs at the end of 4:1. Weisse omits4:1. 5:1, Schmithals (1975, probably redactional). 5:5-10, Sahlin (1953) accepts in order 5, 8,6,9, 10; Schenke and Fischer (1978: 144) agree. 5:6-7, Keck (1979: 237-38); Schmithals (1975, marginal note). 5:7 Semler (1810) thinks added later.

5:12-21, Barnes (1947: 239); O'Neill (1975: 96-107).

6:17b, Bultmann (1947); Schmithals (1975, marginal note).

7:25b, Bultmann; Schmithals (1975, marginal note).

8:1, Weisse omits; Bultmann (1947); Schmithals (1975, marginal note).

10:17, Bultmann (1947); Schmithals (1975, marginal note).

13:1-7, Pallis (1920); Loisy (1922: 104, 128; 1935: 30-31; 1936: 287);

Windisch (1931); d. Barnikol (1931b); Eggenberger (1945); Barnes (1947: 302, possibly); Kallas (1964-65); Munro (1983: 56f., 65-67); Sahlin (1953); Bultmann (1947). 15 and 16 together, Baur (1836b; 1849; 1845); Schwegler (1846: I, 296); Zeller (1854: 488); Volkmar (1856; 1875: xvff., 129ff.); Lucht (1871); Ryder (1898); Smith (1901); Scholten (1876); Davidson (1882: 125-28; 1894: 126­ 31). 15:4b, Schmithals (1975, redactional).

67

1 Corinthians As a whole Bauer; Pierson; Loman 1:2, Weiss (1917: 534); Gilmour (1962: 688). 1:2b, Weiss (1910: xli, 3f.); Dinkier in RGG3; Schmithals (1965: 188f; 197~258);Schenke(1978:92f).

1:12, Weiss; Heinrici (1880); Pearce in Bowyer (1812); Goguel (1926: IV, 2); Michaelis. 1:16, Holsten (1880: 461 n.9, not asserted absolutely). 2:6-16, Widmann (1979). 4:6, Straatman; van de Sande Bakhuyzen (1880).

4:17, Weiss (1910: xli, 120); Gilmour; Dinkier.

6:3, Holsten.

7:8, Holsten.

7:11ab, Holsten.

7:14, Holsten.

7:17, Weiss (1910: xli); Gilmour; Dinkier.

7:17-24, Munro (1983: 80f.).

7:36-38, Holsten; Barnes (1947: 229).

8, as a whole, Munro (1983).

10, as a whole, Barnes (1947).

Redrawing the Boundaries

The Pauline Corpus

1O:4b, Holsten. 10:13, Clemen; Pierson and Naber (1886: 81£.). 10:17, Clemen. 10:23-11:1, Munro 1983: 75-79). 10:29b-30, Hitzig; Zuntz. 11:2-16, Loisy (1935: 60f., 73f.,); Walker (1975; 1983; 1989); Cope (1978); Trompf (1980); Munro (1983: 69-75). 11 :5b-6, Holsten. 11:10, Holsten; Lang; Wassenbergh (1815: 66); Straatman; Baljon; Owen; Lotze; Neander; Baur (1845: 636). 11:11, Straatman. 11:11£., Weiss (1910: xli). 11:13-15, Holsten. 11:16, Straatman; Prins; Baljon; Weiss (1910: xli, 276f.); Gilmour; Dinkier. 11:23-28, Straatman; Bruins; Lehman and Fridrichsen (1922); Loisy (1922: 43,67; 1935: 69-74). 11:30, Prins. 13, in entirety, Lehmann and Fridrichsen; Loisy (1922: 43,67); (1935: 69-74); Barnes (1947: 230); Titus (1959); Schenke (1978). 14:33-38, Munro (1983: 68f.). 14:33, Weiss (1910: xli); Gilmour; Dinkier; Loisy (1935: 73). 14:33b-35, Kiimmel; Straatman; van de Sande Bakhuyzen (1880); Holsten (1880: 495-97); van Manen (1880: 284-85); Genootsch (1880: 259f.); Schmiedel (1891); Weinel; Weiss (1910: 342); Allworthy (1917: 95­ 97); Dinkier; Loisy (1922: 43; 1933: 20 n.6; 1948: 363; 1961: 287); Leipoldt (1952); Zuntz (1953); Wendland (1954); Conzelmann (1969: 289f.); Ruef (1971: 154£.); Scroggs (1972); Munro (1973; 1983: 15f.); Jewett (1978); Perrin and Duling (1982: 180). 14:34-35, only Heinrici; Pfleiderer (1887: 169n); Easton (1947); Fascher (1953); Leipoldt (1954); Schweizer (1959: 152); Fitzer (1963); Bittlinger (1967); Barrett (1987: 699-708); Murphy-O'Connor (1979: 81-84). Cf. also Clemen (1894: 49f., as displaced but not therefore ungenuine). 15, as a whole, Barnes (1947: 228). 15:3-11, Straatman, van Manen, Teylers. 15:5b, Holsten. 15:21£.,42-49, O'Neill (1975: 96). 16:22, Schmiedel; Baljon (1884); Holsten (1880: 450f.); Rovers; Bruins.

3:12-18 and 4:3, 4,6, Halmel (1904). 3:17, 18b, Schmithals (1958; 1969: 286ff.). 4:4, Baljon; Wassenbergh. 5:16, Schmithals; Giittgemanns (1966: 290ff.). 6:14-7:1, Schrader (1835: IV, 300f.); Ewald (1857: 12, 282f.); Straatman (1863: I, 138-46); Baljon; Holsten (1868: 386); Michelsen (1873); Rovers (1874: I, 137); van de Sande Bakhuyzen (1880: 266f.); Davidson (1882: 60; 1894: 63); Krenkel (1890: 332); Halmel (1904: 115-29); Jiilicher and Fascher (1931: 87f.); Groussow (1951a, 1951b); Dinkier in RGG3 IV, 18,22; Fitzmyer (1961); Gnilka (1968); Georgi (1986/7: 21-22); Marxsen (1964); Braun (1966: 201-204); Fuller (1966: 41-42); Wendland (1968); Rissi (1969: 79­ 80); Klinzing (1971: 172-82); Dahl (1972: 62-69); Betz (1973); Gunther (1973: 308-13); Perrin and Duling (1982: 182); Vielhauer (1975: 153); Bultmann (1976: 169); Schenke and Fischer (1978: 110f., 117f.); Lang; Findeis (1983: 66); Klauck (1988: 60-61); Wiirzburg (1988: 60-61); Kuhn (1951-52; 1954); Jewett (1978: 433 n.4). 11:32-12:1, Michelsen (1873). 12:2, Matthes; Rovers (1870); Scholten (1876). 13:13, Burton (1921: 509); Goodspeed (1945; 57); Furnish (1984: 587); Barrett.

68

2 Corinthians l:lb, Schmithals; Schenke and Fischer (1978: 112).

69

Galatians Burton (1921: Ixix-Ixx) notes those who doubt the epistle as a whole. They include (NOT Evanson), Bauer (1850-52); Loman (1882); Pierson (1878); Pierson and Naber (1886: 26f.); Steck (1888); van Manen; Friedrich (1891); Kalthoff (1904); Johnson (1887); and Robertson. O'Neill (1972) suggests extensive interpolations: see Murphy-O'Connor in RB 82 (1975: 143f.). 2:3-8, Warner (1951). 2:7b-8, Straatman, van Manen (1890: 513ff.); V6lter (1890: 90); Barnikol (1931a); Schenke and Fischer (1978: 79-81); O'Neill (1972). 2:18, Schmithals (1973). 3:16b, Burton (1921: 509f.). 3: 19a, not in text of P46; it contradicts the context, and can be explained from Romans 5:20. See Gaston (1982); Eshbaugh (1979); and Walker (1988). 3:20, Burton (1921: 190-92. "possibly"). 4:25a, Schmithals (1973); Schenke; O'Neill (1975); Bentley (1962); Mace (1729, who omits it from Sinaiticus); Mill; Schott; Prins (1872); Naber (1878, "insertion work of an ass"); Holsten (1880: 171£.); van de Sande

~

I

Redrawing the Boundaries

The Pauline Corpus

Bakhuyzen (1880); Baljon (1889: 185); Thijm (1890); Cramer (1890); Clemen; Burton (1921: 259f.). 5:7, whole verse Scott. 5:7b, Semler; Koppe; Holsten (1880: 175). 5:16-24, [Sturdy asks how Pauline this really sounds].

2:15f., Koster (1980); Schmidt (l983). 3:2b-5a, Loisy (l922: 135, 139f.). 3:5, Clemen; von Dobschiitz; Eckhart. 4:1-8, lOb-12, Eckhart. 4:1-12, Munro (1983: 86-88). 4:1, Schenke and Fischer (l978: 70); Friedrich (1973; 1976); Harnisch (1973); Eckhart (1961); Hitzig (1856); Schmiedel (l891: 34); Weiss; Schenke and Fischer (1978: 1, 70).

70

Philippians Baur and Schwegler held the whole epistle non- Pauline; as apparently did Volkmar and Hitzig Davidson (1882: 164) refers to early division theories. For the early attempt to exclude parts of the epistle see Volter (l892); Clemen (1894). 1:lb, Bruckner; Volter (1892); Schmiedel (1902); Moffatt (1918: 171); Riddle and Hutson (l946: 123); Marxsen (1964: 57); Fischer (1973); Schenke and Fischer (1978: 126). 2:6-11, Loisy (1935: 91£.; 1948: 364); Bruckner (1885; 1890: xix, 219ff.); but cpo Marxsen (l969: 22-37); Holsten (1876); Barnikol (1932b); Barnes (l947: 244, "perhaps open to some doubt; it might be a development at the end of the first century of our era"); Berlage (l880: 80ff.); Schmiedel (in part). 3:1-4.9 Schrader apud Davidson (1882: 158). 3:1, Clemen. 3:2,5, Weisse. 3:9, Wassenbergh. 3:lOf., Schmiedel. 3:18, Laurent. 3:20, Briickner; Clemen. 4:2f., Ewald. 4:3, Schenke (1978: 128). 1 Thessalonians Queried in whole by Schrader (1836); Baur (1845: 480ff.); Noack (1857); Volkmar (1867: 114ff.); van der Vies (l865); Holsten (1877). 1:2-10, Fuchs (1963-64). 1:9-10, Friedrich (1965). 2:1-16, Loisy (1935: 85). 2:13, Wassenbergh. 2:14-16 van der Vies; Ritschl (1847); Rodrigues (1876); Pierson and Naber; Spitta (1889: 501; 1901: 190); Schmiedel (1891: 17); Pfleiderer; Teichmann (1896); Mansfield; Drummond; Loisy (1922: 135, 139; 1935: 85); Goguel; Bammel (1959); Eckhart (1961); Schmithals (1965: 89ff.).

71

Philemon Queried by Baur and Holtzmann. 5-6, Bruckner. 19a, Zuntz. Jiilicher and Fascher (1931: 23f.) lists scholars who find interpolations in Philemon. These include Clemen; Paulus (1904); and Hagge (1876).

The Catholic Epistles

73

James

Chapter 12 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES

In this chapter we will deal with the letters of the New Testament which are not attributed to Paul or John. This means that we shall consider 1 Peter, 2 Peter, James, Jude and Hebrews. I shall leave the Johannine writings until the next chapter.

James seems odd and latish. It was certainly not written by James the brother of Jesus. There is an obvious theological difference from Paul, especially in chapter 2. I tend to see James in this respect as akin to the author ofActs in the sense that he was aware of the rewriting of the Pauline tradition by Pauline followers who had altered what Paul said and tried to set out a different understanding whereby this interpretation was adjusted. The date of James is indicated by its obvious contacts with the Synoptic Gospels. James probably knew Matthew but, if so, he used that Gospel very freely. Grafe has established that 1 Peter is earlier than James so that in any event James cannot be before 115 CE. 6 Given James' use of Matthew, I set the letter at c.130-40 CE, perhaps towards the end of this span. James is first cited (probably) by Hermas and then by Origen. It was probably written in Rome. This is suggested by its special relationship with Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 Clement, Hermas and the Pastorals.

Hebrews Hebrews is a difficult piece of work which leaves us at first sight feeling lost. But there are at least some things that we can say quite clearly about it. Hebrews is not early. It seems to be sub-Pauline and was known to the author of 1 Clement. It is not Jewish-Christian in origin and seems definitely Gentile. It is very obviously third generation. This is revealed especially i.n the anxieties about falling away. The date to which I assign Hebrews is l c.110 CE because it must be before 1 Clement. It is odd that Hebrews contains no reference to the resurrection. But this is not the only oddity in Hebrews. Schenke shows that the picture of the cult is odd: it reflects neither the Old Testament nor contemporary Jewish rituaF This means that it must be based on a tradition that was interested in cultic matters. The dependence on Paul is certain. Hebrews sho:"s ~ependenc~ on Romans and 1 Corinthians at least;3 possibly also 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, just possibly Ephesians. There is also a relationship with the Apocalypse; in my view, it is likely that the author of the Apocalypse (c.150 CE) knew Hebrews. There is a case for regarding Hebrews 13:22-25 (with its reference to Timothy) as interpolated. 4 The genuineness of the whole of chapter 13 has s been questioned in different ways by different scholars.

1 Peter 1 Peter is certainly not written by the Peter to whom it is attributed? It is written in highly competent Greek. It seems most probable that 1 Peter is relatively late in the growth of the New Testament: the reference to the harrowing of hell (3: 19) ranks among the evidence for a developed theology which suggests a late date. The writer is a Gentile. It is most likely that 1 Peter comes from the period after 115 CE. 8 The placing of 1 Peter in the history of the development of the Canon is an important matter. It serves as a sort of fulcrum. It cites some books and is in turn cited by others. Thus it is cited by James and clearly known to 2 Peter. 1 Peter was certainly written after Ephesians. 9

2 Peter 2 Peter is traditionally regarded as the latest of the New Testament documents. It is often aSSigned to 150 CE, and some would say 170. 10 There is an intimate relation with Jude. The generally accepted current explanation of this relationship is that the author of2 Peter knew and used Jude. This sets up a chain of dates given the possible dependency of some New Testament texts on earlier writings. Thus if Jude follows James we find a line of development from 1 Peter (c.115 CE) to James (c.125-30 CE), Jude (145-50 CE) and 2 Peter (165-70 CE). But I am prepared to concede

74

Redrawing the Boundaries

that 2 Peter n1ight be somewhat earlier than this. The terminus ad quem is the fact that 2 Peter is known to Origen and possibly to Clement of Alexandria. ll It is obvious that 2 Peter is not by Peter the apostle and that it is very late in the New Testament. 12 The willingness to concede this point is a good test of the openness and critical position of an individual scholar. Even Bleek, who is otherwise very conservative, has reluctantly to admit that it is late and cannot be apostolic. 13 2 Peter's theology seems very Hellenistic with its ideas about deification. This is evident in 1:4 and other references.

Jude Jude is a circular letter addressed to churches threatened by a rapidly spreading Gnostic heresy. The opponents are, rather obviously, antinomian Gnostics. This means that Jude cannot be very early. It is no earlier than the second century CE. 14 If Jude implies the existence of an earlier James, it must be c.150 CEo Jude was used by the author of2 Peter and it is cited in the Muratorian Canon. This means that 1 dissent from the current tendency of scholars (e.g. Bauckham, I(night) to date the letter earlier than the second century 1s because 1 cannot see that the opponents are anything other than Gnostics. Jude may imply the existence of an earlier James. It was clearly written before 2 Peter, on which it is dependent. The most striking feature of Jude is the way it uses citations from apocryphal books such as the allusion to the Assumption ofMoses in v.14. This is evidence for the particular kind of Christianity which it represents. Some argue for an Egyptian origin for Jude because of this material.

Chapter 13 JOHANNINE LITERATURE

Finally, the Johannine literature. In this category I include John's Gospel (including John 21) and the Johannine epistles, but I regard Revelation as a separate writing and shall treat it separately at the end of this chapter. On the Gospel I will argue for a view that is at odds with much recent scholarship. I think that it is fairly Gentile, or at least not very Jewish, and dependent on Mark and Luke. I think that it is late (130-40 CE) and adds almost nothing of historical value that is not found in the Synoptics. 1 The view that John knows the Synoptic tradition in general, and not any Synoptic Gospel in particular, I am sure is a defensive aberration of British New Testament scholarship. I would follow Barrett for the case that John knows and depends on both Mark and Luke, although I will not formally state the case for this. 2 John is theologically much more advanced than the other Gospels. The view that it is the product of the conversion of a Jewish sect only partly explains its peculiarities. I would be happier about this if there were other evidence of a sect that believes in the Son as well as the Father and talks of a Paraclete. I am sure that in any event it remains a sound instinct that wants to put John as late as possible.

John's Gospel John's Gospel is a retelling ofthe story ofJesus. In form, it is like the Synoptic Gospels. It is focused round Jesus and shows him doing miracles and being in dialogue with (mostly hostile) Jews. It comes to a climax in a passion narrative that leads up to the death of Jesus and concludes with his resurrection. It is much more like Matthew, Mark and Luke than is for instance the Gospel of Thomas which comes to an end with no passion story. It is of the same generic family as the Synoptic Gospels. Even before any consideration of content it would seem likely that the author knows the Gospel form from particular instances. 3

Redrawing the Boundaries

Johannine Literature

Although the contrary view is widely held, especially among English scholars, it is as certain as anything can be that John knew and used Mark. (I think it very likely that he knew and used Luke as well.) Although on first sight John is very different from the Synoptists, there are considerable underlying similarities. In particular, John has a significant number of narratives in common with Mark which are given in a common order. I reproduce the following list from Barrett's commentary.4 Barrett has ten such passages. They are (a) The work and witness of the Baptist (Mk 1:4-8 = Jn 1:19-36); (b) Departure to Galilee (Mk 1:14f. = Jn 4:3); (c) Feeding of the Multitude (Mk 6:34-44 = Jn 6:1-13); (d) Walking on the Lake (Mk. 6:45-52 = Jn 6:16-21); (e) Peter's Confession (Mk 8:29 = Jn 6:68f.); (f) Departure to Jerusalem (Mk 9:30f., 10:1,32,46; Jn 7:10-14); (g) The Entry and the Anointing, which John transposes (Mk 11:1-10, 14:3-9; Jn 12:12-15, 12:1-8); (h) The Last Supper, with predictions of betrayal and denial (Mk 14:17-26 = Jn 13:1-17:26); (i) The Arrest (Mk 14:43-52; Jn 18:1­ 11); (j) The Passion and Resurrection (Mk 14:53-16:8 = Jn 18:12-20:29). Within this list there are particular agreements in wording which I hold are conclusive for the case that John knew Mark. s These include (a) Mark 1:7 = John 1:27 (b) Mark 6:37-38, 43, 44 = John 6:7,9,10,13; and (c) Mark 6:50 = John 6:20. This agreement is particularly obvious in Mark 14:3 and John 12:3 (Mk: "While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar ofvery costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head"; In: "Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus' feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume:'). John's use of the word pistikes, which occurs in this context, is not known as a Greek word and was probably coined from the Aramaic pistaqa, the pistachio nut. It is difficult to see how John could have come by this word except from knowledge of Mark because it fails to appear in the Matthaean and Lukan versions of the incident. There is also a case for supposing that John knew and used Luke. Luke and John - and only they - speak of the two sisters Martha and Mary. John alone has a brother of the two, Lazarus (ch. 11); but in Luke 16:19f. a man called Lazarus features in the parable which concludes that "they would not believe if one were to rise from the dead" - which of course Lazarus does in John's Gospel. Luke alone has in his list of the Twelve a "Judas of James"; John mentions a disciple called Judas who is not Judas Iscariot (14:22). Luke and John alone refer to Annas (Lk 3:2, cf. Acts 4:6; Jn 18:13, 24). The prediction of Peter's denial is made at the supper in Luke and

John, not after it as in Mark; John 13:38 is nearer to Luke 22:34 than it is to Mark 14:30. This evidence has a cumulative quality and reflects the date which I have placed on the Synoptic Gospels. John knows the first two of them in my chronological sequence (Mark and Luke) but not apparently the third which was not written until c.130 CEo John evidently felt himself free to recast and reuse his sources. If there are pre-existing sources besides Mark and Luke, it is more or less impossible to disentangle them - unless John has used them differently from his use of Mark and Luke. It is possible that John used Q but we can hardly reconstruct his use ofQ with the confidence, for instance, of Fortna. 6 The Prologue is different from the body of the Gospel and comes almost certainly from a source.

76

77

The Thought ofJohn and its Relations John's thought is Gentile and not Jewish. The theology of the Gospel makes a Jewish background impossible. I cite with approval the following passage from Casey; A central point is its uGentile self-identification':..We can establish the Uidentity" of a person, or of a social group, when we all agree as to what that identity is. When their identity changes, however, and when their identity may be differently perceived by different people, we need the term uself-identification" to isolate and describe their own view of themselves. By uGentile self­ identification;' I mean that the community identified itself as not Uthe Jews:' It follows that the central piece of evidence of the Gentile self-identification of the ]ohannine community is its hostile use of this term, Uthe ]ews:'7

The thoroughly Hellenistic character of John's thought is noticed also by F. C. Grant. 8 Nor is John a Palestinian. Despite his evident knowledge of specific geographical details, such as the reference to Bethany beyond the Jordan in 10:40 and Aenon near Salim in 3:23, the details are not all necessarily correct. John treats lithe Jews" as an undifferentiated group and he falsely assumes that the Pharisees were in a position of authority (7:45, 47f.) and that there was a new High Priest each year (11:49, 51; 18:13). The nature of this information suggests a distance from Palestine and no firsthand knowledge of the area.

78

79

Redrawing the Boundaries

Johannine Literature

The Language ofJohn

The relationship between Ignatian tradition and John is significant. Burghardt believed that Ignatius knew the author of the Gospel but not the Gospel itself.2° Barrett argues that both reflect a general kinship of thought. My conclusion is that Ignatius probably did not know the Gospel, and it does not matter to my case in this respect if Ignatius is c.170 CE, although it would be interesting if John were even then still unknown.

The language ofJohn is another point where scholars have ~ot b~en as alert as they might have been. The Gospel was obviously not wntten.1n Hebrew or Aramaic. Its language is often thought Semitizing but thIs case has convincingly been answered by Colwel1.9 An important article by Bonsirve~ gives clear evidence from Syriac that John was writ~en in ~~eek and that ll~ uses words and concepts which were not known In SemItIc languages. We can conclude, on the basis of this research, that John thought in Greek and wrote in Greek. It is striking, then, to find that many authors lay stress on the presence in John's Gospel of underlying Semitic thought ways; and for some of ~h~m this seems to imply that he was after all of Jewish and PalestInIan background. I I The non-translational character of the Greek in J~hn is shown by phrases such as thegrammata oiden of7:15 and the su legels as a strong affirmative of 18:37. These are good Greek idiom. 12 The Date ofJohn

The older tradition of seriously critical scholars was to regard John's Gospel as unhistorical and also as very late. This view goes back to Baur and Scholten. 13 Among more recent scholars it is found also in the work of Pfleiderer, Loisy and Barnes. 14 In reaction against it there has been a powerful defensive movement to insist on the relative earliness and IS reliability of the Gospel. This has been led from the front by Dodd. It was sound instinct which led the older radical scholars to place John as late as they could. Their arguments are very strong. In the light ofJohn Robinson's work, especially his Redatingand the posthumously-publIshed Priority ofJohn, 16 there is the need for this radical case to be restated with conviction. In 1935 Papyrus Rylands (P52) was published by Colin Roberts, himself a great expert in the area. 17 This papyrus has been taken to s~p~~rt an early date for John's Gospel (e.g. by Cullmann, Vielhauer).18 But It IS Important to note that P52 comes from the second century and not the first. Even Barrett is prepared to concede that, in discussion of the date of John, "the wide limits of A.D. 90-140 have been reached, and it seems impossible to narrow them further without recourse to a hypothesis involving authorship. John itself is a quite credible product of any date between 90 and 140:'19 The evidence of P52 cannot take us back to the first century, however much scholars might wish that it could. In my view John was written c.140 CEo

The Reception and Later Knowledge ofJohn

The Alogoi constitute important evidence for the first reception of John's Gospel. 21 These people flourished c.170 CEo They ascribed John's Gospel and the book of Revelation to Cerinthus. According to Epiphanius (Haer. 51) they denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the Logos. The Alogoi show that there were places where John's Gospel was not accepted and where a more reticent christology fought back against the Johannine view. John's Gospel is not cited in any early sources, with or without my redefinition of dates. It is not, for instance, cited in 1 Peter, 1 Clement, the Pastorals, Barnabas or Hermas and there is no reference to it in Papias or Polycarp. Even Valentinus apparently did not know John; there is at least no trace of it in the fragments that we have. It is not certain that Basileides knew John. 22 This point is debatable because Hippolytus makes Basileides cite John 1:9 and it has been disputed whether this is a reliable attribution. If the citation is authentic, however, we have testimony to knowledge of the Fourth Gospel in Egypt in the reign of Hadrian. The main weight of opinion, however, seems to reject Hippolytus' account of Basileides. 23 There is no reference to John's Gospel in Justin, either. It is thought that Justin cites John 3:3, 5 in lApology 61.4, but the wording is not precise and it is possible that Justin is citing only pre-Johannine tradition. We know, however, that the Montanists are reported as having used the Johannine writings in the second half of the second century. But they cannot be dated earlier than the 160s and Eusebius says that Montanus did not begin to prophesy before 172 CEo It has to be recognized that, even if the date of]ohn's Gospel is held to be relatively early (a point which I dispute), we cannot reinstate the historicity of most of the material in the Gospel. Thus we must suspect the reliability of the Nicodemus episode; the Miracle of Cana; the conversation with the Samaritan woman; the resurrection of Lazarus; all the long discourses; the timing of the entry into Jerusalem; and the date of the Last Supper. In

Redrawing the Boundaries

Johannine Literature

effect, there is almost nothing historical which is related in the Fourth Gospel and not in the Synoptics which we can put any truth in.

author of the Gospe1. 32 But against Dodd stands research written in the 1930s and 40s by Howard and Wilson. 33 1 John is not a real letter but a manifesto addressed to all Christians. It hardly even observes the letter form. Quite a number of scholars separate 2 and 3 John from 1 John. The three Johannine epistles are known by Papias according to Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39. Polycarp quite clearly cites 1 John. The best example is Polycarp 7.1, 2 (cf. 1 John 4:2-3; 3:8; 2:24). Irenaeus quotes freely from 1 and 2 John. Clement of Alexandria quotes 1 John and ascribes it to the apostle. The Muratorian Canon refers to two letters of John. There is some evidence of a redactional expansion of the text. Thus Bultmann shows convincingly that 1 John 5:14-21 was written by a later writer. 34

80

The Integrity of the Text ofJohn: Possible Expansions As I did in the case of the Synoptic Gospels, I shall consider the possibility that the text of John's Gospel has been expanded in the course of transmission. The story of the woman taken in adultery (7:53-8:11) is novelistic and represents apocryphal tradition which has a strong disposition to romance. 24 It is an embodiment of a Lukan type of understanding. 9:38-39a is probably also a liturgical addition. 25 There are other suggestions that material in John is added later of which one cannot be quite so certain. In particular, 6:51b-58 falls into this category. Until this point in the Gospel the syITLbol of the bread of life has been used to refer to Jesus and his word. Here it is suddenly and tlsurprisingly massively" reused of the Eucharist in which the flesh and blood of Jesus are enjoyed. This new interpretation can hardly go back to the Evangelist himself and must be attributed to the redactor. 26 If this is a redactional addition, so too probably is 19:34b-35 which breaks up its context by direct eye-witness appeal to show that both sacraments have a basis in the cross; and finally, the reference to water in 3:5. 27 Schenke and Fischer also see the following as additions which disturb their context and come from the redactor: 1:15, 17,24; 3:24; 4:2; 18:9,32, and all the passages which mention the Beloved Disciple. 28 Chapter 21 is certainly an addition to the original form of the Gospe1. 29 While it shows some linguistic agreements with the earlier material, the differences froln the body of the gospel are stronger. It uses words which are not found elsewhere in John, such as ischuein; different usages such as apo partitive, epistrapheis rather than strapheis. This divergence is scarcely possible in the same author. The first scholar to notice the different character of chapter 21 was H. Grotius in 1642. Vielhauer thinks that the author of chapter 21 is the (re-)editor ofJohn. 30 On his view, this material was added c.160 CEo

The Johannine Epistles One question we must ask - not necessarily the first question - is whether John and 1 John were written by the same author. Opinion inclines against this view now. 31 Thus, for instance, Dodd argued that 1 John was not by the

81

The Book ofRevelation And so to the book of Revelation. 35 This text bears the name of John but has no real connection with John or 1 John. The idea persisted for a surprisingly long time that Revelation was apostolic and early. Early Christian tradition (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.30.3) holds that Revelation was written in 96 CE, but this can no longer be considered reliable given that scholarship has cast substantial doubt on a putative Domitianic persecution at this time. Interestingly, many of the early radical critics proposed a date c.68 CE. 36 This reflects the desire to see Revelation as coming from a docun1ented experience of persecution. Although a few scholars argue that there was a persecution under Domitian, the general tendency is now to question this possibility so that there is no particular reason to link Revelation with 96. There are, however, a few indications ofwhere Revelation is to be placed on the chronological scale. The first is its character as an apocalypse. 37 The analogy of the Old Testament apocalypses may suggest that the writing of an apocalypse will take place at a late stage in the development ofa tradition. It is a desk occupation and implies a tertiary stage of tradition. There are further implications in the apocalypse form. According to the conventions of the genre the work will be pseudepigraphal and it will read its own situation back into the past, so that the supposed author is presented as looking forward at a period earlier than the time when the text was actually put together. Despite what is often said, then, Revelation may be a pseudonymous apocalypse and if we can agree what date is implied, for example, by the count of emperors in chapter 17, the actual date of

82

Redrawing the Boundaries

composition is likely to be later than the time which is implied by this. Becker believes that there was a Domitianic persecution and he sees the text as reflecting upon it from afterwards. But if there was no persecution under Domitian, we are pointed forward rather than backwards and towards the persecution ofTrajan and to a date ofcomposition for Revelation which is rather later than this. This provisional judgment is reinforced by the degree of cross-reference to other New Testament works which is considerable. There is overlapping of material with Matthew and Luke in particular. Among the instances are Revelation 3:5 = Matthew 10:32; 21:20 = Matthew 4:8; 1:3 = Luke 11:28; 6: 15-16 = Luke 23:30. There is overlapping too with the Pauline tradition. especially with Ephesians and Colossians, but also very probably with Romans. Philippians. Galatians and 1 Thessalonians; possibly with 1 and 2 Corinthians and even 2 Thessalonians; and possibly also with 1 Peter and James. The evidence points strongly towards the conclusion that. in every case of overlap. Revelation is the dependent text (as is often the case with an apocalypse). Even on conventional dates for Matthew and Ephesians. it would be extremely and implausibly early to see Revelation as coming from c.96. The picture of a dependent work that cites other books which are by implication moving towards a canonical status suggests a significantly later date. If my datings for the other documents are accepted. this suggests after 110 (Ephesians) and after 130 (Matthew. and perhaps James). How much later than these texts Revelation is to be placed depends on when it was first known and cited. It is sometimes claimed that Papias (ob. c.150?) refers to the Apocalypse but this depends on information found in Andrew of Caesarea (613 CE) and can hardly be regarded as reliable. There is probably a reference to the Apocalypse in Justin 1Apology 1.28 which alludes perhaps to Revelation 12:9 in its dishonorific titles Serpent. Satan and Devil. This makes a date about 140 CE entirely possible. This date was proposed by the leaders of radical criticism. van Manen and Bergh van Eysinga. although in them it accompanied similar late dates for the Pauline epistles which I regard as implausible. 38 It has been suggested that the Apocalypse enjoyed a two-layered compositional development; but this theory should not be allowed to push the Apocalypse back towards the first century.

Chapter 14 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

At the end of the book I want to summarize my case and restate my major conclusions. This can best be done in the form of a chart. I shall in fact offer three charts of the dates of the New Testament books. The first is that of moderate critical scholars such as Kummel (1975). The second is that of more recent radical scholars such as Perrin and Duling (1982). The third is my own (summary) attempt to make sense of the problem. 1. Moderate Critical (Kiimmel197S)

30

40

50 1 Thessalonians; 2 Thessalonians; Galatians; Romans;

1 Corinthians; Philippians; ?Philemon; Colossians

60

70 Mark c.70/Luke 70-90

80 Matthew 80-100; Acts 90-100; Ephesians 80-100

90 John and 1-3 John 90-110;1 Revelation; 1 Peter

100 Jude; Pastoral Epistles 110 Hebrews 120 130 James; 2 Peter 125 onwards 140 150

2. Recent More Radical Critical (Perrin and Duling 1982) 30

40 1 Thessalonians

50 Galatians; Romans; 1 Corinthians; 2 Corinthians;

?Philippians or later; ?Philemon

I~

,...

~

84 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Redrawing the Boundaries

Mark 67-69

Q?

Mark; Matthew; Colossians

2 Thessalonians

Ephesians Luke; 1 Peter; Hebrews Johannine Epistles? Matthew; James; Acts; Jude Pastorals; 2 Peter John; Revelation John 21 3. My Reconstruction of the Evidence

30

40 1 Thessalonians

50 Authentic core of Galatians; Romans; 1 Corinthians;

2 Corinthians; ?Philippians; ?Philemon

60

70 Q?

80 Mark; Colossians

90

100 Ephesians 110 Luke; 1 Peter; Hebrews 120 2 Thessalonians 130 Matthew; James; Acts; Jude; 1 Clement 140 John; Pastorals; Barnabas; Papias (up to 160) 150 Johannines; 2 Peter; Revelation; Didache; Hermas 160 John 21 170 180 19natian letters 190 200 Polycarp (200 onwards; perhaps even 250)

The Gesamtverstiindnis of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers presented here will, no doubt, seem revolutionary, and at first sight too different from the scholarly consensus to be plausible. It is useful therefore to emphasize that all of this has been said before. I have predecessors ­ often illustrious predecessors - for everything that I have suggested in this

Summary and Conclusions

85

book, although the exact combination of views presented here has not been done before, so far as I am aware. 2 In undertaking this research I have become aware of the need to review what are commonly regarded as the "fixed points" in the dates of the primitive Christian material. The fall of Jerusalem (70 CE) is one such marker; but this tends to be used by those (such as Robinson) who have come to see the New Testament literature as (what I regard as implausibly) early. I see all the Gospels as written after this date and I find the disaster of 70 CE reflected in Mark 13 as well as in its dependent texts. Another important marker is the Neronian persecution in 64 CEo This is properly documented in the ancient sources and has been used by some conservative scholars to suggest that 1 Peter was written in Rome around this time. My view is that only the genuine sections of the Pauline epistles were written before 64 CE and that all the other New Testament texts are later. This brings us to the alleged Domitianic persecution in the last decade ofthe first century which the most recent research has shown to be a shifting marker. The general feeling now is that there was no persecution of the Christians under Domitian. This inevitably draws us forward to the Trajanic persecution which is fictitiously documented by the Ignatian letters. This is the true origin of 1 Peter (and indeed of Hebrews and Luke). The best proof of my position, and the only thing that I ask of my reader, is to consider whether it actually makes sense. In particular, I call attention to the identification of pseudepigraphy which I have made in respect of the Ignatian epistles and other documents in this book. I draw attention also to the possibility that such key Christian elements such as baptism and belief in the pre-existence of Christ are later rather than earlier and that this is an important factor in the process of dating the New Testament documents. I also urge my readers to consider the possibility that the Pauline letters were interpolated in the course ofthe first century CE, with all the consequences that this theory has for the perception of Paul at that time (at least in the western church). I close by emphasizing that this process of historical discernment is essential to the business of Christian faith. If the arguments presented here are accepted, it is certain that we shall have to rewrite our histories and our reviews of New Testament scholarship. In particular, we shall have to reconsider the dates of the Gospels and the sub-apostolic sources where the different New Testament texts are first cited. Scholars who must be reconsidered in this task include Semler, Schrader, Baur and the Tiibingen School, Schwegler, Volkmar, Weisse, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Scholten,

I

~

'lIlIIIf

86

Redrawing the Boundaries

Volter, Martineau and Barnikol. I would like to pay special tribute to Evanson, Davidson and Barnes among the English contingent of scholars. This re-examination of the New Testament sources is part of the process of critical discernment which every Christian generation must undertake afresh. I commend this matter to my readers for their further reflection and study.

ApPENDIX

Sturdy's Review ofRedating the New Testament The following text was originally published as ]. V. M. Sturdy, "Review of

]. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London, 1976):' ITS 30

(1979): 255-62.

Dr Robinson's aim is to establish the thesis that every book of the New Testament (with the Didache and 1 Clement for good measure) was composed before 70 CEo He holds that there is little or no solid evidence for the dates at present usually attached to the New Testament books, and that there is one feature of the New Testament, oddly ignored by scholars, which demands an extensive redating: the failure of them to mention the fall of Jerusalem. Individual books are then discussed, and detailed arguments brought forward in support of the central position. A final chapter summarizes the argument, with highly critical remarks on the work ofcontemporary New Testament scholars. The book is characteristic of Dr Robinson at his best: lively, ingenious and thought-provoking. But along with this it has serious faults, which must lead to a final definitely adverse judgement. These will be brought out in some fullness, since the subject is an important one. The centre of gravity of British scholarship shifted sharply in the fifties to a much more general acceptance of non-traditional positions among critical scholars; but there are still a substantial number of British scholars of an older school to whom Robinson's views will not seem all that strange or indeed novel. I write from the point of view of the more critical, and look at the question whether Robinson has, as to succeed he must, made a case which will persuade them that there are, for example, genuine difficulties in the view that John or the Pastorals are late. I will make some more general criticisms first, then deal with certain of Robinson's arguments about individual books, and then return to certain more general points before making a final over-all evaluation. One welcome feature of the book is a stress on the great value and thoroughness of the work of older (especially nineteenth-century) scholars

'I

ij, I' "

i

\

h

111,1

88

Redrawing the Boundaries

Appendix

such as Harnack, Lightfoot, Zahn, Mayor, and the little known Edmundson, whose Bampton Lectures of 1913 Robinson regards as of unsurpassed quality and importance. This awareness is admirable. Far too much excellent nineteenth-century work goes unregarded, and some of it is indeed superior to later work. But it is sad that the revival is so one-sided. Much of the best work was that of strongly critical scholars, and it would have made Robinson's work more balanced if we had heard more of Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, or the great Samuel Davidson. In fact Robinson is sometimes weak on the history of scholarship. It is quite misleading to say (p. 3) that in 1850 "the scene was dominated by the school of F. C. Baur:' In 1850 the Tiibingen School was indeed heard vocally, but it was never more than a small minority of scholars even in Germany. Again, it is a serious over-simplification to describe the history of the dating of the fourth Gospel as "an extraordinarily simple one... The radical critics like Baur began by dating it anything up to 170 and have since steadily come down" (p. 259). One could not guess from this that Loisy in 1936 was still dating John in 130-35 with a second edition in 160-70; nor would one realize that in this century British scholarship has been characterized by a slow and reluctant but definite abandonment of apostolic authorship and any claim to an early date. It is also misleading that Robinson does not point to the relationship of his work to a continuous tradition of gently conservative English scholarship in which it stands. Most of the positions he argues for can also be found, for example, in Charles Raven's The New Testament of 1931. The Roman Catholic tradition up to the 50s, as found, for example, in the notes to the Confraternity version of the Bible, is also very close indeed to Robinson's position (this places after 70 only John's Gospel and Epistles). It is only by ignoring these antecedents that Robinson can give the impression he is arguing a very bold and radical position with the help oflong-forgotten scholars of the past. A truer description might be that he is fighting a rearguard action against the change in emphasis of British scholarship which has come about in his lifetime, which he has never come to terms with, and which has left him stranded in the company of the Conservative Evangelicals. It is perhaps part of the same weakness that Robinson fails to appreciate the strength of the case he has to meet. In several places he does not mention or answer the objections which will come immediately to mind to his critical readers. To take two examples: there is a powerful case, perhaps best set out by Mitton, for holding that the peculiar relationship of Ephesians to Colossians is such that no explanation involving Pauline authorship is plausible, whether one places Ephesians near to or far from Colossians in

date. Robinson boldly says "I have never really doubted the Pauline authorship of Ephesians" (p. 63), but does not discuss the arguments at all. Again, the character of John's theology and his portrayal of Jesus have persuaded many scholars that there is no choice but to place John fairly late and at least outside Palestine, if not outside Judaism. Robinson claims an early date and Palestinian origin for John, but he makes no serious attempt to list and controvert the arguments which on the face of it count against this.

89

At the heart of Robinson's case lies the claim that the fall ofJerusalem must have been an event of earth-shaking significance for the Christian Church, which could not but be reflected in its literature. The absence of references to it argues for a pre-70 date for all the New Testament. This is a weak case. On the face of it there are references to the fall ofJerusalem as post eventum prophecies in Matthew and Luke, and perhaps in Mark, and it is only by sleight of hand that Robinson can avoid the clear implications of these passages, especially ofMatthew 22:1-10, demanding of the Gospels a precision of detail if they are to be post eventum which is found indeed in some Jewish post eventum references to the destruction of Jerusalem but which cannot be claimed to be invariable in such references. But in any case it is not clear that we should expect extensive references to the fall of Jerusalem in all parts of the New Testament to be dated after 70. Robinson does not himselfshow why it should have been ofsuch central significance, simply quoting other (critical) scholars who have said that it was. The fall ofJerusalem must have been of central importance to Palestinian Jews, of lesser but still considerable importance to diaspora Jews. It was presumably of great significance to those Jewish Christians, if any, whose worship was still centred on the temple. But to Jewish Christians to whom the temple was no longer central it would have been significant not directly but as a point of controversy against the Jews; and to Gentile Christians it must have been even less important, except again for possible use in controversy. We should not be surprised to find works dating to after 70 which do not refer to it, and it is wrong to treat this as a silence which is of profound significance for dating. Robinson deals at greater length than we might have expected (ch. 3) with the exact chronology and interrelationship of the Pauline epistles. On the (sometimes speculative) details of this I do not propose to comment. Outside the certainly genuine Pauline epistles there are two different types of argument to be found. Some letters are widely held to be pseudepigraphical, and so of after 70; there are others of which the date is in dispute between the periods before and after 70, but where

,~ ......

,il

90

Redrawing the Boundaries

Appendix

pseudepigraphy is not in question, and the arguments about dating stand on their own feet. In the discussion of the possibly pseudepigraphic works (the Pastorals, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Peter are most obviously in question; I would add myself Colossians and 2 Thessalonians) Robinson starts by weighting the arguments as heavily as he can against the very existence of pseude­ pigraphical writings in the New Testament (most clearly on pp. 186-88 and 348), as if there were something intrinsically unlikely in their creation. But given that pseudepigraphy was known in Judaism and in the Graeco­ Roman world, and is common in Christianity after the mid second century, it is hard to see why a great fuss should be made over allowing its existence in the first half of the second century too. The fact that some Christians at the end of the second century objected strongly to the creations of pseudepigraphs (such as the Gospel ofPeter) cannot be evidence for "the Church's attitude;' since others in the Church were at the same time creating such works. The alternative Robinson offers in the case of2 Peter, and as a possibility for the Pastorals (for he does not rule out the possibility of Pauline authorship) is that they were written by a contemporary in the name of and with the authorization of the professed author (2 Peter by Jude). It is fair that we in turn should ask for parallels, which we are not offered, for this procedure. It seems substantially less likely in the abstract than pseude­ pigraphy. Robinson compares the Pastorals to the charges composed by a modern missionary bishop for an archidiaconal visitation, and adds "It is not unknown for a busy bishop to have these written for him:' Robinson, himself a bishop, should know; but he gives no example, and it has the ring of a serious libel on his colleagues. And though I myself regard 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and 3:17 as tell-tale signs of inauthenticity, ifthey are authentic, as Robinson holds, they surely count quite as strongly against the possibility that Paul could have allowed to be circulated in his own name letters which were not composed by himself, as against pseudepigraphy. To move now to individual cases, Robinson's argument about 2 Peter is forced. Special pleading is heard in the explanation of the character of the references to Paul, and the inclusion of the Pauline epistles in the graphai. We find too a slippery argument on dating of a kind Robinson uses more than once: definitely later second-century features (listed on p. 190) are treated as "second century" without more ado, as a way of pushing 2 Peter into the first century (p. 191}.If2 Peter is clearly earlier than the Apocalypse ofPeter this should at least raise the question whether the latter may be

later than the date often given it of c. 135, rather than be used immediately

as an argument for putting 2 Peter well before 135.

On the Pastorals Robinson is regrettably ambiguous. He does not firmly

decide between Pauline authorship and contemporary composition by

someone else, although his sympathies appear to be towards Pauline

authorship (p. 70). The claim that "Paul would not be the last church

leader whose style (and indeed subject-matter) in an ad Clerum differed

markedly from his already highly diverse and adaptable manner ofspeaking

and writing for wider audiences" is greatly in need of confirmation by

detailed examples. I find it particularly hard to accept the verdict that

there is nothing in the doctrinal positions of the Pastorals inconsistent

with a date in the life of Paul. More will be said later on the question of

doctrinal development. In the discussion of 1 Peter no reference is made to

the unparalleled character of the "descent into Hades;' which is surely not

early; and the discussion of the character of the Greek of 1 Peter is evasive.

A claim that Peter could produce Greek of the quality here found needs

good parallels (e.g. from the English of German refugees ofpoor education)

before it can be taken seriously; and Robinson himself admits the fragility

of the Silvanus Hypothesis. The best case he can make is in the end a plea

for a "suspension of judgement"; which ill accords with the confidence

with which at the end of the hook 1 Peter is placed in 65.

To turn to works for which pseudepigraphy is not in question, I find that Robinson makes his most persuasive case (though I do not in fact agree with it) for a date in the 60s for Hebrews and Revelation. These were the dates preferred by the Tiibingen School too. If development is to be found within the New Testament both in my view are likely to be substantially later; but there is legitimate room for disagreement here. Of other books, the synoptic Gospels are not persuasively handled. Robinson's solution of the problem of the synoptic relationship (parallel development of three different traditions, gradually crystallizing into gospels) makes easier his dating of all three before 65 (though it is not essential to this), but is certainly wrong: the linguistic details of the synoptic relationship demand a directly literary connection between the three works, very probably in their present form, with Mark standing as a mid-term between Matthew and Luke. No serious consideration is given to the. evidence for this. Another feature, the presence of legendary elements in the Synoptics, needs explanation and apology if all three are of before 65. Robinson appears to grant the existence ofsuch material when he speaks of "some quasi-legendary stories" (p. 102); but does not ask whether this has possible implications for dating. In the case of Acts, again, although the

91

[I

I

!!

I

~I(I

',t\1

....

''''f 92

Redrawing the Boundaries

old argument is very tempting that Acts stops with Paul preaching freely in Rome because this is the last event the author knows to record, Robinson does not look at the reasons which have led to a widespread rejection of this view: the detail of Acts, and especially the thin and legendary character of the material on the earliest Church in Jerusalem, and apparent inconsistencies with Paul, about his apostleship as well as about the Council of Jerusalem, continue to persuade most scholars that Acts must be from well after 70. The treatment of John is perhaps the most striking, but also strange, section of the book. Robinson began his work on redating the New Testa­ ment under the influence of his own claim that John was the earliest of the gospels. This has now been abandoned, and John is seen as completed last of the four gospels; but only because the synoptic gospels have been made to leapfrog over John to become even earlier. It is held that John "reflects intimate contact with a Palestinian world blotted off the map in A.D. 70"; and in the end Robinson attempts even to rehabilitate the tradition of apostolic authorship. Here again he does not adequately recognize and attempt to explain the facts which have slowly pushed the consensus of British scholars into acceptance ofa late date and non-apostolic authorship. It is unfortunate that no attempt is made to show that the theology, with its picture of a self-revealing redeemer who is called "my Lord and my God;' is possible in first-century Palestinian Judaism. Perhaps this is because it cannot be done. Robinson takes Dodd to task for setting a gulf between John and the events he wrote about, and says that at two points only (which he believes he can deal with) does Dodd see traces of development external to Palestine. But it should be noted that on another page (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 94) Dodd refers to a further reason for placing John at a distance from first-century Palestine, his misconception that the High Priest changed annually On 11:49), and says that "attempts" (to avoid this conclusion) "fail to convince:' Robinson does not mention this problem. His work on John is unpersuasive because it lacks control from what we do know about pre-70 Palestine. To return now to more general considerations, it is hard to see why Robinson should so urgently want to date all the New Testament before 70. This was not the tradition of the early Church (he has to set aside Irenaeus' dating of Revelation in the reign of Domitian), and modern fundamentalists have found no need to make this claim. There is no suggestion made that in the formation of the canon there was a deliberate attempt to include those books and only those which were written before 70: on Robinson's own dating the omission of the Didache and of 1 Clement

Appendix

93

would then be anomalous. The claim that in the absence of any such intention, by a sheer fluke, only those works written before 70 were included seems extraordinary; and the presence of Daniel in the Old Testament reminds us how easily a late work can slip into a substantially earlier collection. Now on Robinson's own assessment of the evidence the only proper conclusion is not that a date before 70 is established for each book, but that for many the date is wide open, and a firm decision cannot be reached. If this seems unlikely there may be something wrong with some of Robinson's working hypotheses, as they are restated in his last chapter. One must agree with him that there is very little firm evidence of any sort for most of the dates given to the New Testament books; that scholars are heavily dependent one on another; and that the general consensus is precariously established, and may well be in need of substantial alteration (though not, I think, in the direction favoured by Robinson). But he is wrong, though not alone in this, on two other points: that no literary relationship can be found between New Testament books as a clue; and that the development ofearly Christian doctrine, especially in Christology, was so fast that no conclusions can be drawn from developed theology to late date. (If he were correct in these views the only possible conclusion would appear to be that all New Testament books are quite undatable in principle as between 30 and 150). On the first point, though there is something of a fashion, particularly in England, to deny links between New Testament books, there are in fact some very clear literary dependences, established by closer similarities of wording than is normally found in oral tradition, and it must be accepted (I would urge) that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark and also on another common source (or else one on the other of the two), John on Mark and Luke, James on Romans, 1 Peter on Ephesians, and Ephesians on Colossians; 2 Thessalonians on 1 Thessalonians; 1 Clement on a substantial number of books of the New Testament; and so on. A framework of relationships can be established in this way. Furthermore, there is theological development to be seen. To trace it is difficult and subjective; but if the evidence is given its full weight there can be no serious doubt that the Pastorals and Ephesians are later than Paul, Matthew than Mark, John than the Synoptics. This remains true even if there was a very fast early development in Christology in particular as far as the high evaluation of Christ found already in Paul. For there are developments still to come, and the Pastorals and John use Christological expressions not found in Paul, which clearly go beyond him. It is intriguing that Robinson can acknowledge a cluster of late ideas, and see them as

94

Redrawing the Boundaries

common to 2 Peter and Jude, the Pastorals, Colossians, and Ephesians (p. 174), without recognizing that this is exactly the sort of evidence which argues for markedly later dates for these books, and undermines his own attack on views which find development. Indeed if Robinson had not steadfastly refused to acknowledge the existence ofsuch evidence he could have made a very strong point against the consensus of critical scholars on dating. 1 Clement and the Ignatian epistles are markedly more advanced doctrinally than almost all the New Testament works, and a careful attention to this could have produced a strong argument for dating, for example, the Pastorals and 1 Peter well before 100. Robinson, having no feel for such development, bizarrely dates 1 Clement in 70, and misses what is really quite a powerful case. Indeed I believe that here we see a real weakness in the recent preferred view of critical scholars, and that either almost all New Testament works now placed near or after 100 must be dated earlier than is usual (though not therefore before 70), or a later date must be given to 1 Clement and Ignatius, the solution I prefer. Literary dependences and theological development firmly rule out Robinson's position; and we must see his book as an ultimately unconvincing tour de force. He is carried away by an attractive theory, and one-sidedly ignores difficulties for his views, steamrollers the evidence, again and again advances from an improbable possibility into a certainty. He ignores his own remark that every statement must be taken as a question, and so reaches a conclusion which is without evidence and intrinsically absurd. These are faults; and although they might be expected, though still regretted, in the work of a young scholar, they are surprising in the work of a scholar of Robinson's seniority. On the other hand, the book is very stimulating; it underlines the thin basis of the typical modern consensus on dating; it forces us to think again about problems of interrelationship usually ignored; and if it will not persuade many of the correctness of the view Robinson himself urges, it will nevertheless be the stimulus to further work which will in the longer run take us, perhaps in a direction unwelcome to Robinson, nearer to the truth.

NOTES

Chapter 1 1. See, e.g., the work of Perrin and Duling (1982).

2. 3. 4.

See Chapters 11 and 12 below. Brown, Fitzmyer and Murphy (eds) (1990). Robinson (1976). The near-conservative position represented by Bleek (1869), Lightfoot (1875) and Zahn (1897-99) is obsolete. This means that little attention will be paid to these scholars in the text of this book. I

Chapter 2 1. An impressive list of scholars dates 1 Clement after 96. These include Zeller;

Schwegler (1846: II, 125-33); Volkmar (1856; 1857a: 390-94; 1860: I, 64; 1875: 66, 130); Baur (1858: 82); Scholten (1866; 1867); Stap (1866: 232); Hausrath; Hitzig (1870: 11-12); Keim (1878); Davidson (1882: I, 8); Steck (1888: 294-310); Bergh van Eysinga (1908: 54; 1912: 113; 1926: 183); Delafosse (1922; 1927: 23, 35); Merrill (1924: 217-41); Barnikol (1958: 41-42); Enslin (1938: 313); Barnes (1947: 256); Eggenberger (1951: 181); and Welborn (1984). See Chapter 4 for an examination of Polycarp. 2. Thompson (1990). See also Collins (1984) and d. the following comment from a secular historian: "No convincing evidence exists for a Domitianic persecution of the Christians" (Jones 1992: 117). Earlier scholars who discuss the Domitianic persecution include Hartman (1907); Bergh van Eysinga (1908); Lelong (1912: xxxi); Canfield (1913: 72-85); Merrill (1924: 148-73); Henderson (1927: 45); Last (1937); Enslin (1938: III, 313, 325); Milburn (1944-45); Knudsen (1945); Beare (1947: 32); Moreau (1953; 1956: 36-40); Sparks (1952: 142); Ste Croix (1963); Barnes (1971: 150); Sweet (1979: 24£); and Downing (1988). Those who accept the hypothesis of a Domitianic persecution include Smallwood (1956) and Syme (1988: 29). Jaubert (1971: 69) admits there was no persecution under Domitian but still assigns 1 Clement to 96. 3. For an examination of this matter see Knight (1999). 4. Cf. the following comment from an expert in the field: "There are signs that the situation was still somewhat in flux ...and it seems likely that Ignatius gave greater weight to episcopal authority than did most of those with whom he came into contact. In any event, episcopacy does not yet seem to have been reinforced by

,I

I

It

,.

96

the idea of succession. And the ministry is still genuinely collegial" (Schoedel 1985: 22). 5. Hegesippus was a second-century Palestinian church historian. His fragments are collected in Routh (1846-48: I. 207-19); and Zahn (1881-92: VI. 228-73). See also Telfer (1960); Hyldahl (1960); and Kemler (1971). 6. Harrison (1936). 7. See Gregoire and Orgels (1951). They argue for 177 CE, but this date is much disputed. For further discussion of this issue see Marrou (1953); Barnes (1967); and Brind'Amour (1980). 8. Hagner (1973). 9. For an introduction to which see White (1972) and Stowers (1986). 10. This point was made by Bergh van den Eysinga (1908). See also Vielhauer (1975: 532ft); Dibelius (1926: 48); and Peterson (1959: 129-36). 11. For an introduction to this subject see Doty (1973).

Chapter 3 1. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III, 36. 2. The authenticity of the shorter recension was flrst demonstrated by Ussher (1644) and Voss (1646). In the modern period this theory was substantiated by Zahn (1873) and Lightfoot (1889). This consensus has been challenged in three different ways in more recent research. Weijenborg (1969) proposes that the middle recension represents a shortened version of the long recension. Rius-Camps (1979) believes that, although the middle recension is prior to the long recension, this is not what Ignatius wrote. He holds only the letters to the Romans, Magnesians, Trallians and Ephesians as being original. loly (1979) holds the letters of the middle recension to be a forgery from about 160-70 CE in a view which comes close to my own. I have not been convinced by the reply to loly of my former colleague in the Divinity School, C. P. Hammond-Bammel (1982). The matter is discussed further in Schoedel (1985: 3-7). The fullest and strongest case for Ignatian inauthenticity was made in 1906 by a Dutch scholar called H. P. Schim van der Loeff (Schim van der Loeff 1906). This view was held also by Delafosse (1922: 303-37,477-533), Loisy (1935: 156-69) and Barnes (1947: 260-64). I give a full list of scholars who refuse to accept the authenticity of the Ignatian letters in the appendix to this chapter. 3. Harnack (1897: 381-406). 4. HUbner (1989) is exceptional in recent scholarship in arguing for the late second century origin of the Ignatian letters. See also his more recent article (HUbner 1997). 5. Perler (1949); Riesenfeld (1961). 6. If A. Dupont-Somner (1939) were correct in ascribing 4 Maccabees to Antioch c.118 CE, the inauthenticity of the Ignatian epistles would be settled. But his case, however attractive, is not the only possibility. 7. Norden (1915: I. 416-20) (my translation of Perler). For reaction to Norden see, e.g., von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff(1969: III. 223-73). 8. Lightfoot (1889: I. 361). 9. The writer is Riesenfeld (1961).

..........

______________M

97

Notes

Redrawing the Boundaries 10. 11. 12. 13.

Lightfoot (1889: I, 391). Harrison (1936: 47). HUbner (1989). Lightfoot translates it "the bishop belonging to Syria:' But he fails to justify this translation and observes, following Zahn, that it remains an anachronism at a later date as well. This is the clearest possible indication that the letter is not what it seems to be and is in fact pseudonymous. The word Syrias is omitted by one manuscript of the Curetonian Syriac. This shows that a Syriac copyist later found the expression impossible. 14. Brown (1963). 15. "Catholic church" appears in the Martyrdom ofPolycarp (on the date ofwhich see the next chapter) inscr., 8.1, 16.2, 19.2 and then in the Muratorian Canon. "Christianity" appears in the Martyrdom of Polycarp and then in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. 16. Its earliest attestation is in the Passion ofPerpetua and Felicitas, c.203 CE; Lightfoot (1889) produces examples from a rescript of Marcus and Commodus (177-80) and a treatise of Galen (c.185). This would accord with a date for Ignatius c.180 CEo 17. See also Perler (1949); and Riesenfeld (1961). 18. Lightfoot (1889: I. 388). 19. Hubner (1989). 20. This is an anonymous review of Lightfoot which appeared in the Athenaeum, 12 December, 1885. The author may well be Samuel Davidson who often wrote for the Athenaeum. I have listed this in the bibliography under the title, "Anonymous:' 21. But in his 1840 work he changed to the view that the shorter edition had been interpolated. 22. The 1902 edition is altered and includes material from the old preface in the text together with new material. 23. His view is indicated by his silent omission of Ignatius. 24. The view is implied in this reference. 25. Pfleiderer changes his view in the second edition of Das Urchristenthum. 26. Schmidt changes his mind in his 1824 work (I, 200).

Chapter 4 1. See the list of scholars reproduced as Appendix I to this chapter. 2. The first scholar to date it in 155 was Waddington (1867). 3. Marrou (1953). Within this span Brind'Amour (1980) has made a strong case for 167 CEo 4. See the bibliography below. 5. Cited in Harrison (1936), Prefatory Note, V. 6. Harrison (1936). 7. Schwegler (1846: II, 154-59; my translation). 8. Killen (1886: 15-16). 9. Lightfoot (1889: I, 588). 10. Harrison (1936: 171). 11. On this text see Conzelmann (1978), Dehandschutter (1979) and Ronchey (1990). We may note, as a half-way stage to this view, the suggestion that there are

_

98

extensive interpolations in the present text of the Martyrdom. This is found in von Campenhausen (1957) and Schoedel (1967: 49). 12. The 1858 reference is noted by Harrison (1936: 82). 13. Loisy's later writings (1948; 1950) treat Polyearp as interpolated.

ChapterS 1. [Editor: Much of this chapter remains undeveloped. It is clear that Sturdy would

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

Notes

Redrawing the Boundaries

have written, for example, on Jewish Christianity and other topics, but unfortunately he failed to leave a clear indication of what he would have said.] [Editor: And it is incomplete in terms of the manuscript.] But I do not think that Paul ever finally passed out of favour, certainly not in the western church, for reasons I shall discuss in Chapter 11. There is an interesting approach to this issue in Maddox (1982: 159). Maddox cites the work of Blinzler (1965) in reviewing, among other scholars, the approach of Gardner-Smith (1938) to John's Gospel: 'There were two practical consequences that might be drawn from Gardner-Smith's conclusions, both having to do with evaluating the historical reliability of John. One is that, if John is to be seen as drawing on oral tradition for most of his material, the degree of allegorization or free composition might be substantially less than would be required by thinking of him as a reinterpreter of the synoptic gospels; the other is that, if John is not dependent on the synoptic gospels, the reason for dating his work later than them is partially removed:' As does Hanson (1967: 40): "The title 'Lord' (kyrios) is certainly a very old title for Jesus, for it translates the Aramaic word Mara, which is found in the primitive Christian phrase Marana tha ('our Lord come') in 1 Corinthians 16.22 and Revelation 22.20:' See, e.g., Carleton Paget (1994: 28): "It has not been my intention to consider doctrinal matters in relation to the question of date. I regard such an approach as unhelpful for it too readily assumes that theology develops in a linear way: low christologies precede high ones and so on. It is evident from recent study of Christian origins that this was not the case:' See further Chapter 11. [At this point Sturdy has an outline section on Jewish Christianity in which he planned to examine its christology and eschatology among other topics. This material is unfortunately not developed in any detail and for that reason I have been obliged to omit it here. But on Jewish Christianity notwithstanding, see Bagatti (1971); Danielou (1964); Elliot-Binns (1956); Hoennicke (1908); Hort (1904); Longenecker (1970); Manns (1977; 1978); Pieper (1938); Pines (1965); Pritz (1988); Schlatter (1966); Schoeps (1949; 1969); Schonfield (1939); Simon (1964); Stern (1967; 1968); Strecker (1971); and Testa (1962).] The Greek text of Hermas is incomplete. Codex Sinaiticus goes only as far as Mand. 4.; the Athos manuscript, published by Tischendorf (1856), up to Sim. 9. The rest of the text is known from two Latin manuscripts. The "Versio Vulgata" was first published by Faber Stapulensis (1513) and the "Versio Palatina" by Dressel (1857). Further papyrus fragments of the Greek text were published by Wessely (1908; 1924). Critical editions by Whittaker (1967) and, with French translation,

99

by Joly (1958). See also Bonner (1934). Among the secondary literature see Robinson (1920); Dibelius (1923); Peterson (1947); Giet (1963); Pernveden (1966); Reiling (1973); Lane Fox (1986: 381-90); Brox (1991); CPG 1: 22 no. 1052 (1983); Altaner and Stuiber (1978: 55-58 and 553); J. Paramelle and P. Adnes in Diet. Sp. 7 (1969: pt I, cols. 316-34); and A. Hilhorst in RAC 14 (1988: cols. 682-701). 10. Critical edition by Otto (1842-43; 1876-81). Apologies, ed. with notes by Blunt (1911) and Marcovich (1994); with French translation by Munier (1994); Dialogue, ed. by Marcovich (1997). Commentary on Dialogue 1-9 by van Winden (1971). The literature on Justin includes Goodenough (1923); Prigent (1964); Shotwell (1965); Barnard (1967); and Osborn (1973). 11. Text in Lightfoot (1885). See the bibliography in chapter 4. 12. The Adv. Haer. was first edited by Erasmus. Later editions by Stieren (1848-53) and Harvey (1857). Critical text by Rousseau and Doutreleau (1965-82). The vast secondary literature includes Hitchcock (1914); Lawson (1948); Minns (1994); Sanday and Turner (1923); Lundstrom (1943; 1948); Sagnard (1947); Wingren (1947; 1959); Houssiau (1955); Benoit (1960); Brox (1966); Orbe (1969; 1972; 1969-88); Tremblay (1978); de Andia (1986); Fantino (1994); and the standard Patrologies. 13. The sole manuscript ofthe Didaehe (copied in 1056) was discovered by P. Bryennios in a monastery at Constantinople in 1875 and published by him in 1883. Other editions by Harnack (1884); Schaff (1885); Lietzmann (1936); Klauser (1940); Audet (1958); and Rordorff and Tuilier (1978). English translation by Bigg (1898), revised by Maclean (1922). On this text see Schlecht (1900; 1901); Altaner (1952; 1967: 335-42); Horner (1923-24); Schmidt (1919; 1925); Robinson (1920); Connolly (1932); Vokes (1938); Peterson (1951); Butler (1960; 1961); Clerici (1966); Voobus (1968); Giet (1970); Schollgens (1986); Jefford (ed.) (1995); and Draper (ed.) (1996). 14. Editions of Barnabas include Kraft and Prigent (1971) and Scorza-Barcellona (1975). See also Windisch (1920); Prigent (1961); Wengst (1971); Richardson and Schukster (1983); and Carleton Paget (1994). 15. Origen, De Prine. 1.2.4.; Clement i. 1.1.11. 16. Clement's Protreptieus and Paedagogus survive in the "Arethas Codex" (914 CE) and some dependent manuscripts; the Stromateis, in the Florence ms Laur. V (eleventh century). First editions by Victorius (1550) and Sylburg (1592). Later editions by Potter (1715); Migne (1857-66, 68 and 69); Stiihlin (1905-1909) revised by Fri.ichtel and Treu (1960-72). The SC series is valuable too: see Mondesert (1944) and subsequent texts. Among the secondary literature see the studies of de Faye (1898); Tollinton (1914); Lazzati (1939); Mondesert (1944); Bigg (1913: 72-150); Munck (1933); Molland (1936; 1938: 5-84); Camelot (1945); Quatember (1946); Volker (1952); Osborn (1957); Mehat (1966); Chadwick (1966: 31-65); Lilla (1971); and Wyrwa (1983). 17. Complete edition (in the first case, without the Hexapla fragments) by de la Rue (1733-59); and Migne (1857-66: 11-17). Manyofthe texts are available in the SC series. There is a detailed list of sources and translations in ODCC, 1194. Studies ofOrigen include de Faye (1923-28); Danielou (1948; 1955); Nautin (1977); Trigg (1983); Crouzel (1956; 1961; 1985); Cadiou (1932); Volker (1931); Koch (1934); Lieske (1938); Harl (1958); Nemeshegyi (1960); Rius-Camps (1970); Vogt (1974); Lies (1978); de Lubac (1950); Hanson (1954; 1959); Torjesen (1986); Smith (1992);

....

'1

100

Redrawing the Boundaries

Notes

101

(1967); Eltester (1969); Troger (1973); Yamauchi (1983); Petrement (1984; 1991);

and Logan (1996).

29. This is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2.9.45) and cited by Origen (in Joh. 2.12). It is independent of the canonical Gospels and possibly preserves traditions of historical value. See also Lagrange (1922); Elliot (ed.) (1993: 1-10); Vielhauer and Strecker in Hennecke (ed.) (1987: 142-47); Handman (1888); Schmidtke (1936); Waitz (1937); Bardy (1946); and Klijn in Haase (ed.) (1988: 3997-4033). 30. For the primary evidence see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.22.8 and Theophaneia 4.12; Epiphanius. Haer. 29f.; and Jerome, De vir. illustr. 3 and Dial. adv. Pel. 3.2. See also Vielhauer and Strecker in Hennecke (ed.) (1987: 128-38; 1991: 154-65); and Elliot (ed.) (1993: 10-14). 31. Fragments of this preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. 30). These are accessible in Hilgenfeld (1866: IV. 32-38); Elliot (ed.) (1993: 14-16); Vielhauer and Strecker in Hennecke (ed.) (1987: 138-42) and in Hennecke (ed.) (1991: 166-71). See also Waitz (1937), Boismard (1966) and Petersen in ABD II. 261ff.. 32. For the primary evidence see Clement, Strom. 3.9.13; and Hippolytus. Haer. 5.7; and Epiphanius. Haer. 62.2. See also Elliot (ed.) (1993: 16-19); and Schneemelcher in Hennecke (ed.) (1987: 174-79) and Hennecke (ed.) (1991: 209-15). 33. This apocryphal infancy Gospel was possibly known to Justin Martyr. probably to Clement ofAlexandria and certainly to Origen. For the Greek text see TIschendorf (1876: 1-50). French translations by Amann (1910) and Strycker (1961). ET in Elliot (ed.) (1993: 48-67). See also Smid (1965); Cullmann in Hennecke (ed.) (1987: 334-49) and in Hennecke (ed.) (1991: 421-39); and Charlesworth (ed.) (1987: 218-28). 34. This text was originally written in Greek but it survives in full form only in an Ethiopic translation together with other fragmentary versions. See Schmidt (1919); Bardy (1921); Guerrier and Grebaut (1913); Elliot (ed.) (1993: 555-88); Muller in Hennecke (ed.) (1987: I. 205-33) and Hennecke (ed.) (1991: I. 249-84); Ehrhardt (1964); Hornschuh (1965); and Quasten (1950: I. 150-53). 35. This text was written in Greek but survives only in an Ethiopic translation together with other partial versions. The Slavonic version, which agrees with a Latin translation (L2) in recording only chapters 6-11 of this apocalypse, suggests that it may have circulated in more than one form in antiquity. On this text see the critical edition edited by Bettiolo and others (1995) and the commentary of Norelli

(1995). ET by Knibb in Charlesworth (ed.) (1985: 143-76) and by Charles rev.

Barton in Sparks (ed.) (1984: 775-812). See also Helmbold (1972); Pesce (ed.)

(1983); Acerbi (1984; 1989); and Knight (1995; 1996).

36. Fragments in Klostermann (1908: I. 13-16). See also Elliot (ed.) (1993: 20-24); von Dobschutz (1893); Reagan (1923); Paulsen (1977) and Schneemelcher in Hennecke (ed.) (1989: 34-41) and Hennecke (ed.) (1992: 34-41). 37. Editio princeps of Greek text by Grabe (1698: 1.145-253). See also Migne (1857­ 66: II, 1037-150). Critical editions by Sinker (1869); Charles (1908); and de Jonge

and others (1978). ETs by Charles (1908; 1913: II, 282-367); Kee in Charlesworth

(ed.) (1983: 775-828); and by de Jonge in Sparks (ed.) (1984: 505-15). See also

Hollander and de Jonge (1953); Burchard. Jervell and Thomas (1969); Becker (1970); de Jonge (1975); and de Jonge in ABD V. 181-86.

de Lange (1976); and the edited collections of Crouzel (1975); Crouzel and

Quacquarelli (1980); Hanson and Crouzel (1985); Lies (1987); and Daly (1992).

18. The Gospel of Thomas was originally written in Greek. A Coptic version was discovered in the Nag Hammadi papyrological collection. It has been thought possible that Thomas preserves certain sayings of Christ (among others) which. although not in the canonical Gospels. derive from genuine tradition. For the Coptic text see Guillaumont and others (1959); the work of various scholars in Layton (ed.) (1989: 38-93. 96-128). For ETs. Robinson (ed.) (1988: 124-38); and Elliot (ed.) (1993: 124-38). On the text see also Quispel (1957; 1967; 1975); Wilson (1960); Gartner (1961); Blatz in Hennecke (ed.) (1987: 93-113; 1991: 110-33); Santos Otero (1988: 678-705); and Cameron in ABD VI. 535-40. 19. See Bardy (1949); Grant (1977); and Altaner and Stuiber (1978: 61£f.). 20. See Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.3.3 and Chron. ad a. 2140; Jerome. De vir. illustr. 20. Critical edition of the Greek text by Geffcken (1907: 1-96). Syriac text edited by Harris (1891); Armenian fragments by Pitra (1883). See also Milne (1924) for a further Greek fragment. See further van Unnik (1961); Altaner and Stuiber (1978: 64f.); and Quasten (1950: I. 191-95). 21. Greek text preserved in the "Arethas Codex" (914) on which all the other manuscripts depend. Editions by Stephanus (1557); Maran in (1742); Migne (1857­ 66: 887-1024); Marcovich (1990); Pouderon (1992). ETs by Crehan (1956) and

Schoedel (1972). See also Lucks (1936); Barnard (1972); Pouderon (1989); and

Quasten (1950: I. 229-36; with bibl.).

22. Editions of the various texts and versions by Bonner (1940); Testuz (1960); and Birdsall (1967). Critical edition by Perler (1966). See also Chadwick (1960) and Cross (1960: 103-109). 23. Published by Muratori (1740: III. 851-54). Facsimile edition by Tregelles (1867); revised text by Buchanan (1906-1907). See also Westcott (1855); von Campenhausen (1968: 282-303); Sundberg (1973); Robbins in ABD IV. 928f£.; and Hahneman (1992). 24. For the fragments see Lightfoot (1891: 514-35). See also Kortner (1983); Kurzinger (1983); Schoedel in ABD V. 140-42; and Bauckham (1993: esp. 44-63). 25. See the literature which I collected in my discussion of 1 Clement in Chapter 2. To this add Donfried (1974). 26. For the primary evidence see Irenaeus. Adv. Haer. 1.24; Clement. Strom .• passim; and Hippolytus. Haer. 7.20-27. See also Hilgenfeld (1884: 195-230); Hendrix (1926); Foerster (1963); and Lohr (1996). 27. The chief sources are Irenaeus. Adv. Haer. 1, passim. and 3.4; Tertullian. Adv. Valentinianos; Clement. Stromateis and Excerpta ex Theodoto; Hippolytus. Haer. 6.20-55; Pseudo-Tertullian. Adversus Omnes Haereses. 4 [De Prescriptione. 49J; Eusebius. Hist. Eccl. 4.11; and Epiphanius. Haer. 31, 33f. and 56. See also Volker (1932: 57-141); Foerster (1928; 1972: I. 121-243); Sagnard (1947); Orbe (1955­ 66); Markschies (1992); Barth (1911); Quispel (1947); Stead (1969); and Layton (1980). 28. For an ET of the Gnostic sources see Layton (ed.) (1987) and Robinson (ed.) (1988). There is a complete list of the Nag Hammadi treatises in CPG 1 (1983: 68­ 104 nos. 1175-222). See also Rudolph (1977; 1983); Jonas (1958; 1992; 1964); Quispel (1951); Peterson (1959); Wilson (1958; 1968); Grant (1966); Bianchi

;,!/II

I,' I,

"1'

'1

Ii ,

, I"

(i, I"

,

i

'l' ,:;

I

,I,

I

'Iii' '

'/1

'I~I!~*I IU1~

l ......

!

,I'

!I

,

102

Redrawing the Boundaries

38. Critical editions by Geffcken (1902a); Kurfess (1951). See also Collins in Charlesworth (ed.) (1983: 317-472); Wilson in Hennecke (ed.) (1992: 652-80); Geffcken (1902b); Bischoff (1951; 1966-81: 150-71); and Collins inABD VI,2-7. 39. 2 Esdras contains the Jewish apocalyptic text generally called 4 Ezra. The Latin text was edited by Bensly (1895) and Klijn (1983); the Syriac text by Bidawid (1973: IV. 3). See also Gry (1938); Box (1912); Charles (1913: II. 542-624); Metzger in Charlesworth (ed.) (1983: 517-59); Myers (1974: 105-354); Knibb and Coggins (1979: 76-305); and Bergren (1990). 40. Syriac text with ET by Harris (1909; 1911); and Harris and Mingana (1916; 1920). See also Testuz (1959: 49-69); Bernard (1912); Emerton in Sparks (ed.) (1984: 683-731); Charlesworth in Charlesworth (ed.) (1985: 725-71); Lattke (1979ff.); Franzmann (1991); Drijvers (1978); and Drijvers (1984: no. 7. d. nos. 8-10). 41. See Brandt (1912; 1971); Cirillo (1984); and Klijn-IZeininck (1974). 42. Hickling (1990). 43. Lohfink (1976: 35). 44. Hickling (1990: 265-66). 45. Pernveden (1966: 144-45). 46. See the above bibliography. 47. See further Anrich (1894); Bianchi (1976); Bousset (1921; 1970); Burkert (1987); Cumont (1963); Merkelbach (1984); Mylonas (1961); Nock (1964); Reitzenstein (1978); Smith (1990); and Witt (1971). 48. See further Neill (1988: 35-64). 49. This has consequences for the dating of2 Peter since I hold Matthew the last of the three Synoptic Gospels (c.130 CE).

Chapter 6 1. For a good introduction to this problem see Sanders and Davies (1989: 51-122). There is valuable material also in Bellinzoni. Tyson and Walker (1985); and Stein (1988). 2. Griesbach (1824-25). See also Orchard and Longstaff (1978); Tuckett (1983); and Johnson (1991). 3. Unfortunately. Sturdy fails to specify which Owen; but he will have been a predecessor of Griesbach (whose dates are 1745-1812). 4. The importance of Koppe is acknowledged by Holtzmann (1885: 346). The view was held also by Storr (1786), whom Holtzmann also acknowledges. Many English commentators forget this early suggestion of Marcan priority. 5. Butler (1951); Farmer (1964). 6. Styler (1981). 7. Tuckett (1996); Sanders and Davies (1989: 117). Note the conclusion of the latter: "It is our judgment that...the literary relations are in fact complex. Those who have defended the two-source hypothesis by complicating it, and those who have proposed other complicated solutions. have seen something. They have seen that there is no one answer which easily solves everything:' 8. This view of Luke is held also by Goulder (1989).

Notes

103

9. [Sturdy is critical of those who wish to return to the Q hypothesis but his remarks are unfortunately not developed.) 10. This view was held by O. pfleiderer in the first edition of his Das Urchristenthum (1887); but he abandoned it in the second edition of this book. 11. Sturdy unfortunately failed to record detailed arguments at this point. The editor has therefore reconstructed this section of the book on the basis of Schlager (1896) which Sturdy mentions as an important resource in his book. Sturdy does. however, observe that there are passages in Luke which are evidently nearer the form of Q and where Matthew almost certainly represents an alteration of the tradition. He mentions Lk.12:33-34 =Mt. 6:19-21 where Lk. 12:34 is a precept for the community ("where your treasure is. there will your heart be also"); but Mt. 6:21 for the individual. Sturdy also indicates that he would have written on the difficulties inherent in the proto-Luke theory. 12. Schlager (1896).

Chapter 7 1. See also the discussion with review of earlier critical scholarship in Ki.immel (1975: 97-98). 2. This point is recognized by many scholars. See. e.g.• Baronius (1601-1608); Possinus (1673); and Weiss (1903: 385f.). 3. The secondary nature of the material was recognized as early as Evanson (1792). 4. On this point see Moffatt (1911: 242). 5. Hooker (1991). This view is held also by Perrin and Duling (1982); and Vielhauer (1975: 346-47). Among earlier scholars it was held by Volkmar (1866) and Ji.ilicher (1931). 6. Mark 13 has been held to reflect a situation both before and after the Roman destruction ofJerusalem. Those who argue for a date beforehand generally concede that the chapter reflects the traumas of the First Jewish Revolt so that it is by no means necessarily very much earlier than 70 CE (see. e.g.• Marxsen [1969); Hengel [1985)). But my feeling is that the chapter has a reflective quality and that this sets the Gospel after 70 CEo In particular. I point to the prediction of the temple's destruction in 13:2 and the image of the desolating sacrifice in 13:14 as evidence that this is so. 7. Recorded by Eusebius in his Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15. 8. For this section of the chapter I have learned much from Bundy (1955). 9. Bundy (1955: 79). 10. So Bundy (1955: 212). 11. Bundy (1955: 288). 12. Bundy (1955: 320). 13. Bundy (1955: 444-45). 14. So Bundy (1955: 507). 15. Werner (1923). 16. Marxsen (1969). 17. Marxsen (1969: 216). 18. So Bundy (1955: 43). Weiss (1903: 124) says that it seems inorganic and secondary. Even the sworn enemies of the Urmarkus hypothesis see it as an interpolation.

I

I

ill]'

,

104

Notes

Redrawing the Boundaries

19. See Weiss (1903: 124). Wellhausen (1909: 1-7), argues thatthe D form oftext may be more original. 20. See Wellhausen (1909: 125). 21. See Weiss (1903: 148); Wellhausen (1909: ll); Bundy (1955: 81). 22. So Wellhausen (1909: 222). 23. Wendling (1908: 4); Weiss (1903: 151 n.l); Bundy (1955: 89, "could be a later addition"). 24. See Weiss (1903: 124). Wellhausen (1909: 4) argues that the D form of text may be more original. 25. Bundy (1955: 244) says that Mark's numerical estimate of 2000 swine does not reappear in Matthew or Luke and that this is the first of three such estimates in Mark (d. 6:37; 14:5). 26. Cf. Bundy (1955: 245). 27. See Weiss (1903: 200, 203). 28. So Bundy (1955: 277). 29. See Weiss (1903: 85f. n.l); Bundy (1955: 281). 30. So Bundy (1955: 290). 31. So Weiss (1903: 137 n.2). 32. Weiss (1903: 249). 33. Weiss (1903: 250). 34. Weiss (1903: 253). 35. Ptleiderer (1877). 36. Weiss (1903: 256 n.l). 37. Weiss (1903: 283). 38. So Weiss (1903: 273). 39. So Bundy (1955: 244). 40. Weiss (1903: 293). 41. Valter (1910b; 6); Lohmeyer (1957: 312); Bundy (1955: 503). 42. Weiss (1903: 304-305); Bundy (1955: 513). 43. Weiss (1903: 313) notes that it spiritualizes the saying of Jesus. 44. Weiss (1903: 320f.). 45. Weiss (1903; 335). 46. It is not rejected by Bundy (1955); but see the comments of Bousset (1921: 58). 47. It is omitted by Weiss (1903: 340). 48. Thus Wendling (1908); Bultmann (1972: 278); Bundy (1955: 550). 49. Thus Wendling (1908); Thiel (1938); d. Bundy (1955: 240 n.5, and his Appendix II, 584-87).

Chapter 8 1. Scholars who date Luke about or after 100 CE include Zeller (1845); Volkmar (1866); M. H. Schulze; Scholten (1866; 1867); Hilgenfeld (1854: 224-26); Holsten; Weizsacker; Ptleiderer (1887: 416-78); Holtzmann (1885: 375-80); Krenkel (1894); Keirn; Hausrath; Wittichen (1876); Bruckner; Rovers; van Manen; and Simons. 2. At this point, Sturdy's manuscript is merely programmatic. He indicates that he would have followed through the argument that Luke is used by Matthew and tried to determine how much of the Q/L material is "authentic." He cites Beare's

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

105

comment (1962a: 160-61) that the parable of the Good Samaritan is "cast in fluent colloquial Greek from start to finish:' Bundy (1955: 540). See the list of scholars in Clemen (1905: 116). They include Corssen; Hilgenfeld (1901); Conybeare (1902); and Usener. Bundy (1955: 25). According to Harnack (1901). See the discussion of this passage in Brown (1977: 301). Burger extends the addition to include 1:36-37; Clemen to 1:38. The passage is discussed also by Harnack (1901). See Bundy (1995: 59).

Chapter 9 1. This view is held also by pfleiderer (1887: 542-43). Volkmar (1882: 20-21) says down to 110 CEo 2. So Pfleiderer (1887: 543). 3. The fact that Matthew has some quotations in the form of Aquila and Theodotion has an important bearing on the date of Matthew. On this matter see Johnson (1943: 135-53); Stendahl (1954: 166-203). 4. pfleiderer (1887: 542). 5. See below for a discussion of this passage. 6. Scholars who think that Matthew was a Gentile include Nepper-Christensen (1958); Trilling (1959); and Strecker (1962). Tuckett (1987: 65-67) is sympathetic to the hypothesis. Allison and Davies (1988-97), however, argue against it. Vielhauer (1975: 359-64) says that in any event Matthew is not a nomistic Jewish Christian. We should add that Matthew's Christianity is certainly of a very different form from Paul's. 7. An early modern scholar to take this view was Williams in 1771. But against it see Hawkins (1909; 154); and Taylor (1920; 92-94). See also Loisy (1921); Montefiore (1927: II, 3); Bundy (1955: 29). For the view that the text of 1:25 has been altered see Grant (1940: 21). 8. So Kahler (1902: 215-27). The text is independent of any known Greek version. 9. So Kahler (1902: 215-27). The text does not follow the Hebrew or LXX exactly but agrees with Theodotion in two phrases. 10. It is not completely in line with the thought of the passage. As Green observes. "it is concerned with the impiety ofthe Pharisees in seeking a sign, not with supplying one" (1975: 145). See further Bahrdt (1793: 511); Scholten (1845: 36-112); Weisse (1838: II, 81); Weizsacker (1864: 289); and Findlay (1933: 58). 11. See Johnson (1943: 137-38); Stendahl (1954: 130-32); Strecker (1962: 70 n.3); Kingsbury (1969: 38-39); and Green (1975: 133). 12. Weiss (1903: 320). 13. See Tellerus; Knappius (1813: 767-84); Volkmar (1870: 629); Conybeare (1901: 275-88); Usener (1903: 39-40); Wellhausen (1904: 144); Brandt (1912: 353); Heinrici (1918: 213); Loisy (1922: 332,394); Bundy (1955: 568); Kosmala (1965: 132-47); and Green (1975: 230). Kastlin thinks that this verse is derived from a Catholicizing redactor. Martineau (1980) comments: "The very account which tells us that at

'I

iii: I' Ii:

I

II,

I I

~ll

Redrawing the Boundaries

106

last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations, betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself:' Outside this reference the first trace of Trinitarian language is in Didache 7.1, 3; Justin 1 Apol. 61. More than a century later Cyprian attacks those who use "into Christ Jesus" or "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Ep.73.16-18).

Chapter 10 1. Scholars who hold this view include Scholten (1873); Sorof (1890); Hilgenfeld; Gercke (1894); Norden (1915: II, 483f£.); Friedrich (1890); Hawkins (1909: 174­ 93); and Goodspeed (1912). 2. Norden (1915: II, 482). 3. Cadbury (1927). 4. But see now also Dawsey (1989). 5. Clark (1933: AppendiX III, 393-408). 6. Clark (1933: 403). 7. And in this reference from Acts Codex Bezae (D) reads chorion. 8. See O'Neill (1970: 139-59); Bruce (1954: 125 and 430, n.47); Krenkel (1894); Holtzmann (1877b); Keim (1878: I, 149); Hausrath; Wittichen (1876: 46); BrUckner; Rovers; van Manen; Simons (1880: 13); Supernatural Religion III: 475; and see "M. Renan's New Volume;' The Fortnightly Review (Oct. 1877): 496, 502­ 503. 9. Moule (1966). 10. Reumann (1991: 271). I cite also the following comments from W. Schneemelcher: "Nevertheless we may here apply the general observation that the authors of the apocryphal Acts are fond of repetitions of motifs and scenes which to them were especially valuable - in this again a reflection of popular tradition:' (II, 221). 11. Scholars who date Acts after 100 CE include Volkmar, Wittichen and Jacobsen (at the beginning of the second century); Schwegler, Zeller, Overbeck, Davidson, Keim, Hausrath and Usener (in the time of Trajan or Hadrian).

Chapter 11 1. Some scholars have argued that none of the acknowledged corpus was written by Paul. but this is surely implausible. Representatives of this category include Bauer (1850); Loman (1882, 1886); Steck (1883); and van Manen. For an English discussion of van Manen's approach see Whittaker (1904). 2. C£. the following comment from Talbert (1966: 294): "We must remember that the practice of interpolation was the rule rather than the exception in the world in which the New Testament literature was preserved. The Jewish additions to Esther and Daniel. and the Christian interpolations into the LXX, in the Jewish apocryphal literature, in Josephus, and in the gospels, are but a few examples of this tendency. In such a world, it would be highly unlikely that the epistlers] of Paul would escape the general practice:'

Notes

107

3. See, for instance, the approach to this subject which has recently been advocated by Carroll (1986: 38-50), in his study ofthe formation of)eremiah. 4. There is a growing literature on this topic. See now Murphy-O'Connor (1996) and the literature cited there. 5. Acts 18:3. 6. See the abbreviated history of research on this subject in Schweitzer (1912: 2-11). 7. Scholars who place the Pastorals in the second century include Hanson (100-105 CE); Rist; von Campenhausen; Bauer; Gealy (as late as the time of Marcion); Goodspeed; and Riddle and Hutson. Pauline authorship of one or more of the Pastorals was denied in eighteenth-century scholarship by Schmidt (1804); Schleiermacher; Liiffler; Usteri; Liicke; Neander; Rudow; Ritschl; Bleek; Krauss; Eichorn (1812); Baur (1835); Schrader (1836: 338f.); Schwegler; Bauer; de Wette; Reuterdahl; Neudecker; Mayerhoff (1838: 274); Ewald; Mangold; Meyer; Schenkel; Hausrath; Bahnsen; Hase; Scholten; Straatman; Havet; Beyschlag; Sabatier; Davidson (1868: 144-95); Renan; Hilgenfeld (1875: 744-65); Harnack; von Weizsacker (1886: 190, 496£., 639f., 695£.); von Soden; Holtzmann (1880); Briickner; and Jiilicher (1894; 114-28). 8. Perrin and Duling (1982: 384-85). 9. Perrin and Duling (1982: 384). 10. The Acts of Paul purports to records Paul's missionary career and death. See Schmidt (1905, 1965); Schmidt and Schubert (1936); Schneemelcher (1964); Davies (1980); and Brown (1988). 11. NB that Demas fails to appear as Paul's treacherous enemy in Colossians 4:14. 12. Schneemelcher (in Hennecke [ed.] 1992: 235) dates the Acts ofPaul to c.185/190 and suggests that the text is dependent on the Acts ofPeter (c.180-90). 13. See Perrin and Duling (1982: 218-20). 14. The argument is well expressed by Mitton (1951: 55-67). 15. Scholars placing Ephesians in the second century include Volkmar; Hausrath (1865); Hilgenfeld (1875: 676-86); and Rovers. Davidson interestingly changed his mind on the issue. He wrote in 1848-51 (II, 366): "According to our view, the epistle was written at Rome, AD 62"; but in 1882 (II, 225): "As Marcion had the epistle in his canon it must have been written before AD 140; but the date cannot be exactly determined:' This statement is repeated verbatim in Davidson (1894: II, 294). Others who deny Pauline authorship of Ephesians include Erasmus (1519); Evanson (1792); Usteri (1824); Schleiermacher; de Wette (1826: 163-66); Schrader; Baur (1845: 449-55); Schwegler (1846: II, 330ff, 375f.); Planck (1847); Kostlin; Zeller; Ewald (1870); Hoekstra; Hitzig (1870); Hausrath; Holtzmann (1872; 1885: 262ff., 269f£.); Pfleiderer (1890: 433-64); Rovers; Mangold; von Soden (1885; 1887; 1911); von Weizsacker (1886: 561£., 693f.); Scholten; Volkmar; Lucht; Holsten; Blom; Straatman; Ritschl; Krauss; Hase; Thoma; Seufert; Schmiedel; Bruckner; Dibelius (1890: 143-51; 1953: 56-57, 83-85); Heinrici; Cone (1893); Jiilicher (1894: 96); von Dobschiitz (1902; 1904); Clemen; Lueken; Wrede (1907: 33); Scott (1909: 180-208); Weinel (1911: 500); Freitag; Wendland (1912: 361-63); Bousset (1907: 160-203; 1921: 285ff.); Weiss (1917: 108, 533-35); Moffatt (1918: 385-95); Lake; Norden (1915: II, 4); Reitzenstein (1921: 135, 235f.); Goguel (1922: IV, 2; but he subsequently changed his mind to suggest that Ephesians was an original Pauline letter that contained interpolations outlining a cosmic doctrine of redemption); Goodspeed (1933); Kasemann (1933: 118ff.); Harrison; Ochel (1934);

I "I

I

~I

!I I

IIII

III

Ii

I'

I~ l~ 111

108

Redrawing the Boundaries

Loisy (1935: 101f.); Knox (1935; 1939: 182ff.; 1959); Schubert (1939: 37. 44); Riddle and Hutson (1946); Dibelius (1947); Dibelius and Greeven (1953); Bultmann (1956: 597-607; 1958); Beare; Brandon (1951: 215f.); Mitton (1951); Maurer( 1951-52); Barrett; Bowen (1953); Masson (1953); Nineham (1956); Sparks (1952: 67-72); Schweizer (1963: 429); Allan (1958-59); Hammer (1960). 16. Cf. the following comment from Perrin and Duling (1982: 209): "The authenticity or pseudonymity of the letter to the Colossians is a difficult historical question. Most New Testament scholars who review the evidence and arguments do in fact decide in favor of authenticity. Of the six reference works we are constantly recommending as further reading, only one...decides for pseudonymity:' Nevertheless. several prominent nineteenth-century scholars denied the Pauline authenticity of Colossians. These include Hilgenfeld (1875: 659-69); Holtzmann (1885: 262-69. who allows partial Pauline material); and Davidson (1894: II. 234­ 60). Others who take this view include Mayerhoff (1838); Baur (1845: 417f.); Schwegler (1846: II. 325f.); Planck (1847); Hoekstra (1868); Hausrath; Blom; Holsten; von Weizsacker (1886: 562-65); Pfleiderer (1887: 258ff.); Schmiedel; Bruckner (1890: 56f.. 2571'.); Cone (1893: 249-55); Wendland (1912: 362-64); Turmel (1926-28: Ill. 101-17); Kasemann (1933); Loisy (1935: 95-101); Bornkamm (1948; 1961b; 1970: 56-64); Fuchs (1949); Synge (1951); Schweizer (1963; 429); Coutts (1957-58); Conzelmann (1965-66); Schoeps (1961: 151); Eckhart; Marxsen (1964: 153-61); Pokorny (1965; 14f.); Gumann (1967); Grabner-Haider (1968); Lohse (1971: 84-91. 177-83); Schnackenburg (1969: 33f.); Lilhnemann (1971); Bujard (1973); Schenke and Fischer (1978-79: I. 158-73, 233ff.• 242ff.); Gnilka (1980); Lindemann (1983); Schenk (1983); Kiley (1986); Horgan in Brown. Fitzmyer and Murphy (eds) (1990: 876-78); Beker (1991: 64-68); Yates (1993: xi-xxv); Wedderburn and Lincoln (1993); and De Maris (1994). Scholars who think that part of Colossians is Pauline include Weisse (1855: 1,146); Hitzig (1870: 212ff.); Hausrath (1909: II. 707ff.); Harrison (1950); Masson (1950); and Sanders (1966). 17. Perrin and Duling (1982: 210). 18. See Perrin and Duling (1982: 210). 19. See Perrin and Duling (1982: 210-12). 20. See Perrin and Duling (1982: 211-12). 21. This point is acknowledged by Evanson (1792); Schmidt (1801: II. 3); Eichhorn (1810-27); de Wette (1826; but he was more reserved in subsequent editions. and defended genuineness from the 4th edition onwards); Schrader (1835: V.41ff.); Mayerhoff (1838); Kern (1839); Lipsius (1854); van Manen (1865); Baur (1845: 480-92; 1855; 1866-67: 480); Bauer (1852); Lipsius (1854); Weisse (1855); Noack (1857: 313ff.); Volkmar (1867: 114); Hausrath (1868-74: II. 600); Hilgenfeid (1862; 1887: 642-52); Steck (1883); HoItzmann (1885: 229-30); Pfleiderer (1873: I. 29); Vies (1875); Hausrath (1868-74: II. 600); Bahnsen (1880: 681-705); von Soden (1885b); von Weizsacker (1886: 190.258-61); Spitta (1889: 497-500); Bruckner (1890: 253-56); Martineau (1890: 555); Rauch (1895); Wrede (1903); Hollmann (1904); Wendland (1912); Loisy (1922: 135; 1935: 89f.); Jillicher and Fascher (1931: 67. not in earlier editions); Barnes (1947: 224f.); Bultmann (1958: 191, by implication): Braun (1952-53; 1962: 205-209); Masson (1957: 9-13); Schoeps (1961: 51); Fuchs (1960); Eckhart (1961); Day (1963); Bornkamm (1970: 243); Wurzburg (1969: 96-105); Pearson (1971); Marxsen (1964); Giblin (1967); Trilling (1980); Krodel (1978: 77-79); Schenke and Fischer (1978: 191-98); and Beker

Notes

109

(1991: 72-75). Davidson (1868) held that 2 Thessalonians had a genuinely Pauline basis but contained later interpolations; Schmidt (1885) championed a similar view. Spitta (1893: 109-54, 497ff.) held that Timothy wrote the letter. 22. Cf. Perrin and Duling (1982: 208). 23. Krodel (1978: 77-79). 24. Perrin and Duling (1982: 208). 25. Weisse (1867); Weiss (1910: xl-xlii); Burton; Lake (1924: 155-64); Windisch (1924: 518); and Barnikol (1932a: 5-6). 26. Kilmmel (1975; 304). But for this view see Clemen (1894: 100ff.). 27. So Perrin and Duling (1982: 176). 28. The former by Weiss (1910); DinkIer; Schmithals (1965: 188-89); Schmithals (1972: 258). The latter by Barrett (1968: 328-30. reluctantly); Conzelmann (1975: 246); Weiss; Dinkier; Leipoldt (1952: 229); Zuntz (1953: 17); Fascher (1953: 102­ 103); Schweizer (1963: 336-37); and Fitzer. 29. This suggestion was first made by Semler (1776). See also Hausrath (1865); Mackintosh; Rendall (1909); Paulus; Weisse (1867); Lipsius; Steck; Schmiedel; Cramer; Cone (1898: 125); McGiffert (1897: 311); Adeney (1899: 369-70); Moffatt (1911: 119-28); Bacon (1900: 94); Plummer; Pfleiderer (1887: 105-11); Volter; von Soden; Scott; Peake (1909: 36); Clemen (1906: 36ff.); Lake (1914: 154-64); Harnack (1926: 9). 30. Martin (1986: 298).

j,

I ,I

I

I J

1,1 Ii

IiI

,If "

31. Bornkamm (1971: 291-92); Perrin and Duling (1982: 181-82); and Schmithals (1972: 245-46).

ii I,

32. See Betz (1973); Collange (1972: 305-13); Dahl (1972: 62-69); Fitzmyer (1971: 205-17); Gnilka (1968); Huppenbauer (1959: 81-89); Kuhn (1954: 193-205); Rensberger (1978: 25-49); and Thrall (1977: 132-48). 33. Hughes (1962: xxi): "Modern denials ofits unity are unsupported by any evidence of an objective or even circumstantial nature:' 34. The whole letter has occasionally been denied to Paul. This was done by Evanson (1792; 1805); Bauer (1852); Loman (1882; 1884; 1886); and Steck (1888). For the view that Romans contains extensive interpolations see Weisse (1867); Pierson and Naber (1886); Michelsen (1887); Ulter (1889); van Manen (1887; 1891; summarized in Knowling (1892: 133-243]); Hawkins (1943); and see also Kinoshita (1964-65) for the view that Romans combines two separate writings. 35. Lake (1930: 325-35). 36. Lake (1914: 334). 37. See. for instance. Bultmann (1967: 33-45). 38. Commentaria in episto/am ad Romanos, vii,453 (translation from Kilmme11973:

315).

39. Moffatt (1911: 175) sets out the supporters for this view up to and including his own time. See also Schmithals (1957); Milller- Bardorff (1957-58); Rahtjen (1959­ 60); Bornkamm (1962); Marxsen (1964: 57ff.). 40. See the evidence for this line ofargument set out in Kilmmel (1975: 332). Kilmmel however concludes that "this whole line of argument is totally unconvincing:' 41. Sanders (1977; 1983; 1992). 42. Maccoby(1991). 43. Raisanen (1983). 44. Barnikol (1932a).

:11 I

I" "jl

'I

, I

'II,

i

II I

i i,

110

Redrawing the Boundaries

45. Mitton (1955); Goodspeed (1933; 1956). 46. Mitton (1955: 13-14).

Chapter 12 1. Theissen (1969: 34-37) denied that Hebrews is cited in 1 Clement, but this is desperate argumentation. Authors giving Hebrews a late date, after c.85 CEo and implying that 1 Clement is later than 96 include Volkmar (1857a: 386-94); Hausrath; and Holtzmann (1885: 309-27). The early radicals (e.g. Davidson [1849: III, 163­ 295]; Hilgenfeld [1875: 352-90]) dated Hebrews surprisingly early. 2. Schenke (1973). 3. Holtzmann (1885: 315) detects the following relationship between Hebrews and Romans: [Hebrews] 2:10 = [Romans] 11:36; 3:6 = 5:2; 6:12f. = 4:13, 20; 10:38 = 1:17; 11:12 = 4:19; 12:14 = 12:18. 14:19; 13:1 = 12:10; 13:2 = 12:13; 13:9 = 14:3f. He detects the following relationship between Hebrews and 1 Corinthians: 2:4 = 12:4,7-11; 2:8 = 15:27; 2:10 = 8:6; 2:14 = 15:26; 3:7-19,12:18-25 = 10:1-11; 5:12 = 3:2; 5:14 = 2:6; 6:3 = 16:7; 9:26 = 10:11; 10:33 = 4:9; 13:10 = 10:14-21; 13:20 = 7:15, 14:33. 4. This view was held by Bruckner (1890: xxi, 248 n.1). 5. Scholars who hold this view include Spicq; Overbeck (1965: 15); von Soden (1891: 98); and Torrey (1911). For an examination of the vocabulary of Hebrews 13 see Williams (1911). 6. Grafe (1904). 7. This is allowed by the following writers. among others: Semler (1784); Cludius (1808: 296ff.); Eichhorn (1810-27: VII, 606-16); de Wette (1832-36: 311-20); Baur (1856: 219-20); Schwegler; Zeller; Kostlin; Hilgenfeld; Lipsius; Pfleiderer; von Weizsacker; Hausrath; Keim; Schurer; Davidson; Bruckner; Mangold; von Soden; and d. Reuss (1884: 147): "his immediate participation in the work cannot be made wholly certain:' 8. Scholars placing 1 Peter is relation to the Trajanic persecution include Schwegler; Baur (1863: 124); Mangold; Keim; Lipsius; Pfleiderer (1887: 654-61); Holtzmann (1885: 492-95); Schmiedel; Buchmann; Baljon; Perdelwitz (1911); Bruckner; Beare (1970: 9-18); and Riddle and Hutson (1946: 188). Zeller and Steck place 1 Peter under Hadrian; and Volkmar places it under Antoninus. 9. See Mitton (1951: 176-97) on this point. 10. Scholars who date 2 Peter c.150 CE or later include Hilgenfeld (1875: 769); Bleek (1869: II, 172-85); Mangold; Renan; Davidson (1894: 554); Knopf (1919: 87-88); Holtzmann (1885: 495-500); Chase in Hastings (ed.) (1898-1904); Jacoby (1910); and Bruckner. Some go earlier than this and suggest a date before 130 CEo These include Ramsay (1893: 432n); Simcox; and Strachan. Some go later. These include: Semler (1784); Keim (1878); Sabatier; Pfleiderer (1887: 835-45); von Soden (1891: 170-73); Schwegler; van Manen; and Harnack. 11. Origen, ap. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.25.11. 12. Scholars writing before 1850 who concede this point include Origen; Eusebius; Jerome; Erasmus; Calvin; Scaliger; Salmasius; Grotius; Wettstein; Semler (1784); Neander; de Wette (1826: 320-29); and the Tubingen School.

Notes

111

13. BIeek (1876: II, 176): "The external history of the epistle in the early Church can hardly be understood without the assumption that the letter is spurious:' 14. The folloWing scholars place Jude after 100 CE: Schenkel in Schenkel (ed.) (1869­ 75: 11,433-36); Straatman; Volkmar; Davidson (1894: II, 342); Mangold (1884); and Volter. 15. Bauckham (1983); Knight (1995).

Chapter 13 1. For the view that John's Gospel is not by the apostle John see LeClerc (1714); Lampe (1724; who says on p. 146 that some Anabaptists had identified additions in the text of John, such as the pool of Bethesda and the woman taken in adultery); Evanson (1792); Eckermann (1796); Vogel (1801-1804); Horst (1804); Cludius (1808); Ballenstedt (1812); Bretschneider (1820); Weisse (1838); Lutzelberger (1840); Bauer; Baur (1844); Keim; Hilgenfeld (1861); Mackay (1869); Martineau (1890: 236-37); pfleiderer (1906: 278); Bergh van Eysinga; and Loisy (1933: 59). 2. Barrett (1978). 3. For a recent examination of the Gospel genre see Burridge (1992; 1995) and

Bauckham (ed.) (1998).

4. Barrett (1978: 43). 5. Barrett (1978: 44-45). Barrett has a whole page of such examples. 6. Fortna (1970). 7. Casey (1996: 111). 8. Grant (1962: 26). 9. Colwell (1931): "Those who claim that John's Greek is full of Aramaisms employ a method that is unscientific and present results that are consequently unconvincing" (123); "There is...nothing to justify the claim that the author of the Fourth Gospel thought in Aramaic or wrote in Aramaic" (131). 10. Bonsirven (1949). 11. Even Barrett is too inclined to posit an Aramaic influence on the Fourth Gospel. 12. On which point see Goodspeed (1937: 147-51; 1944). 13. Baur (1863: 146-74); Scholten (1864). This view is implicit in Evanson (1792). 14. pfleiderer (1887: 695-786); Loisy (1933: 1950); and Barnes (1948: 122-24). 15. Dodd (1963). 16. Robinson (1976). 17. Roberts (1935). 18. Cullmann (1976: 96); Vielhauer (1975: 460). 19. Barrett (1978: 128). 20. Burghardt (1940). See also Maurer (1949). 21. See Bludau (1925: 80-87). 22. The most recent study of Basilides is Lohr (1996). 23. See Scholten (1867: 63-67); Martineau (1890: 196ff.); Kretschmar in RGG3 (1,909-10); Cross (1960: 39); Layton (1987: 418-19 n.1); and Grant (1990: 48). In favour of the hypothesis, however, see Charteris (1880: xlvii-liii); and Wace and Piercy (1911: 101-15). 24. See Bundy (1955: 477). 25. See Porter (1966-67).

,I j,1 '.:-1

I I

I 1'1

I,

1.1'.j:!1

I

,~,1'1

112

Redrawing the Boundaries

26. See Clemen (1912); Bornkamm (1956); Lohse (1960-61); Temple (1961); Richter (1969). 27. See Richter (1970). 28. Schenke and Fischer (1979: 175). 29. Scholars treating John 21 as an addition to the Gospel include Grotius (1642); Vossius (1695-1701, "addition but by John"); Hammond; Semler; Paulus; Bertholdt; Seyffarth; Schott (1825); Schenkel; Credner; Lucke: Neudecker; Bleek; Neander; Wieseler; de Wette; Reville (1854); Schweizer; Baur; Schwegler; Ewald; Herwerden; Volkmar (1870: 641ff.); Weisse (1838: I, 99); von Weizsacker (1864: 301f.); Reuss; Mayer; Scholten (1864: 4ff., 57fI); Hoekstra (1867); Davidson (1868: II, 453-57); Keim; Kramer; and Loman. Defenders of the genuineness of John 21 include Meyer; Hilgenfeld (1868; 1875: 717); and Vigelius (1871). 30. Vielhauer (1975: 453-60). 31. [Editor: Sturdy has not taken account here of Hengel (1989)]. 32. Dodd (1946: xlvii-Ivi). 33. Howard (1947); Wilson (1948). 34. Bultmann (1973: 85-91). 35. For a summary of recent research on Revelation see Collins (1984); Thompson (1990); and Knight (1999). For the most recent research, Bauckham (1993b and 1993c); Aune (1997). 36. This was done, amongst others, by Baur, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, and Holtzmann. 37. See Becker (1969); Bauckham (1993b); and Knight (1999). 38. Bergh van Eysinga (1912: 24-58,122). Other scholars dating Revelation after 100 include Martineau (1890: 222fI), who proposed two layers, some of60-70, some of c.130-40; Vischer (1886); and Becker (1969).

Chapter 14 1. 2.

No date given for John 21. The two scholars who come closest to my views are Loisy and Barnes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acerbi, A. 1984. Serra Lignea: Studi sulla fortuna della Ascensione di Isaia. Rome. _ _1989. LAscensione di Isaia: cristologia e profetismo nei primi decenni del II secolo. Milan. Albertinus, E. 1654. De Eucharistia, sive Coenae Dominicae Sacramento, Libri Tres. Deventer. Allan, J. A. 1958-59. "The 'In Christ' formula in Ephesians:' NTS 5: 54-62. _ _1959. The Epistle to the Ephesians. London. Allison, D. C., and W. D. Davies. 1988-97. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 vols.; Edinburgh. Allworthy, T. B. 1917. Women in the Apostolic Church. Cambridge. Altaner, B. 1952. "Zum Problem der lateinischen Doctrina Apostolorum:' VC 6: 160-67. _ _ 1967. Kleiner patristische Schriften. TU, 83; Berlin. Altaner, B., and Stuiber, A. 1958. Patrologie: Leben, Schriften und Lehre. 5th edn; Freibourg. Althaus, A. W. H. P. 1932. Der Briefan die Romer. NTD, 6; Gottingen. Amann, E. 1910. Le Protevangile de Jacques et ses ramaniements latins. Paris. Andia, Y. de. 1986. Homo vivens: Incorruptibilite et divinisation de l'homme selon Irenee de Lyon. Paris. Andresen, C. 1952-53. "Justin und der mittlere Platonismus:' ZNTW 44: 157-95. Anonymous. 1885. Review of Lightfoot in the Athenaeum, 12 December, 1885. Anrich, G. 1894. Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinen Einfluss aufdas Christentum. Gottingen. Audet, J.- P. 1958. La Didache, Instructions des apotres. Etudes bibliques; Paris. Aune, D. E. 1997. Revelation 1-5. WBC, 52a; Dallas, TX. Bacon, B. W. 1900. An Introduction to the New Testament. London. Baeck, L. 1961. "Der Glaube des Paulus:' In Paulus, die Pharisiier und das Neue Testament. Frankfurt. Bagatti, B. 1971. The Church from the Circumcision. Jerusalem. Bahnsen, W. 1880. "Zum Verstandnis zum 2 Thess. 2,3-12:' JPTh 6: 681-705. Bailey, J. A. 1978-79. "Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians?" NTS 25: 131-45. Baljon, J. M. S. 1884. "De tekst der brieven aan de Romeinen, de Corinthiers en de Galatiers:' Unpublished dissertation, Utrecht. _ _1889. Exegetisch-kritische Verhandeling. Leiden. _ _1903. Commentaar op de Handelingen der Apostelen. Utrecht.

Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

Ballenstedt, H. C. 1812. Philo und Johannes, oder neue philosophisch-kritische Untersuchung des Logos beim Johannes nach dem Philo, nebst einer Erkliirung und Ubersetzung des ersten Briefes Johannes aus der geweiheten Sprache der Hierophanten. Braunschweig. Bammel, E. 1959. "Judenverfolgung und Nahewartung - zur Eschatologie des 1Thess:' ZTK 56: 294-315. Bammel, E. 1968. "Galater 1.23:' ZNTW59: 108-12. Bardy, G. 1921. Review of C. Schmidt, Gespriiche Jesu mit seinern Jungern nach der Auferstehung. TU, 43; Leipzig, 1919. RB 30: 110-34. _ _1946. "Saint Jerome et l'Evangile selon les Hebreux:' Melanges de Science Religieuse 3: 5-36. _ _1949. "Sur l"apologiste Quadratus:' In Melanges Henri Gregoire. Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire orientales et slaves, 9; Brussels. Barnard, L. W. 1967. Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought. Cambridge. _ _ 1972. Athenagoras: A Study in Second Century Christian Apologetic. Theologie historique, 18; Paris. Barnes, E. W. 1947. The Rise ofChristianity. London. Barnes, T. D. 1967. "A Note on Polycarp:' JTS ns 18: 433-37. _ _1968. "Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum:' JTS ns 19: 509-31. _ _ 1971. Tertullian. Oxford. Barnikol, E. 1931 [1931a]. Forschungen IV: Romer 15. Kiel. _ _1931 [1932a]. Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung des Parallelismus der Apostel Petrus und Paulus, Forschungen V. Kiel. _ _ 1932 [1932a]. Mensch und Messias. Halle. _ _ 1932 [1932b]. Philipper 2. Der marcionitische Ursprung des Mythos-Satzes Phil. 2,6-7. Kiel. _ _1938. Apostolische und Neutestamentliche Dogmengeschichte als vol­ Dogmengeschichte. Halle. _ _1958. Das Leben Jesu der Heilsgeschichte. Halle. _ _1961. "Romer 13: der nichtpaulinische Ursprung der absoluten Obrigkeitsbejahung von Romer 13:1-7." In Studien zum Neuen Testament und zur Patristik: Erich Klostermann zum 90. Geburtstag: 65-133. TU, 77; Berlin. Baronius, C. 1601-1608. Annales ecclesiastici. Rome. Barrett, C. K. 1958. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. London. _ _ 1968. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC; London. _ _1973. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. London. _ _1978. The Gospel According to John. 2nd edn; London. Barth, C. 1911. Die Interpretation des Neuen Testaments in der valentinianischen Gnosis. TU, 37; Heft 3; Berlin. Bartsch, H. W.1967. "Die anti-semitischen Gegner des Paulus im Romerbrief:' In Paul Eckert von Willehad, Nathan Peter Levinson and Martin Stohr (eds), Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament?: Exegetische und systematische Beitriige; Abhandlungen zum christlich-jlidischen Dialog 2, Munich. Basnage, S. 1706. Annales Poiltico-Ecclesiasticae annorum DCXL ~ 3 vols.; Rotterdam. Bauckham, R. J. 1983. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC, 50; Waco. _ _1993 [1993a]. "Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel:' JTS ns 44: 24-69.

_ _ 1993 [1993b]. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh. _ _ 1993. The Theology ofthe Book ofRevelation. NTT; Cambridge. Bauckham, R. J., (ed.). 1998. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edinburgh. Bauer, B. 1852. Kritik der paulinischen Briefe. Berlin. Baumgarten-Crusius, L. E O. 1832. Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte. 2 vols.; Jena. _ _1840. Compendium der christlichen Dogmengeschichte. Leipzig. Baur, F. C. 1835. Die sogennanten Pastoral-Briefe des apostles Paulus aufs neue kritisch untersucht. Stuttgart. _ _1836. "Zweck und Veranlassung des Romerbriefs:' Tb.Z: 144ff. _ _1838. "Uber den Ursprung des Episcopats in der christlichen Kirche:' TZTH, Heft iii: 61-73, 148-85. _ _ 1845. Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, sein Leben und werken. 2nd edn, 1861; Tlibingen. _ _1847. Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte. 1st edn, Tlibingen; 2nd edn, Tlibingen, 1858; 3rd edn, Leipzig, 1867. _ _1848. Die Ignatianischen Briefe und ihr neuester Kritiker. Ein Streitschrift gegen Herrn Bunsen. Tlibingen. _ _1849. In Tubinger Jahrbucher: 491ff. _ _1855. "Die beiden Briefe an die Thessalonischer, ihre Aechtheit und Bedeutung flir die Lehre von der Parusie Christi:' Theologische Jahrbucher 14: 141-68. _ _1860 [1853]. Das Christentum und die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte. 2nd edn, Tlibingen. _ _1863. Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte. Tlibingen. Baur, E E, (ed.). 1865-67. F. C. Baur, Vorlesungen uber die christliche Dogmengeschichte. 3 vols.; Leipzig. Beare, F. W. 1962 [1962a]. The Earliest Records ofJesus: A Companion to the Synopsis ofthe First Three Gospels. Oxford. _ _1962 [1962b]. "Romans, Letter to the:' In the Interpreter's Dictionary ofthe Bible: IV, 112ff. Nashville. _ _1962 [1962c]. "Thessalonians, Second Letter to the:' In the Interpreter's Dictionary ofthe Bible: IV, 625. _ _1970 [1947]. The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 3rd edn; Oxford. Becker, J. 1969. "Fragen neutestamentlicher Exegese:' BZ 13: 101ff. _ _1970. Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwolj Patriarchen. AGJU, 8; Leiden. Behr, C. A. 1968. Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales. Amsterdam. Beker, J. 1991. Heirs ofPaul. Minneapolis. Bellinzoni, A. J. 1967. The Sayings ofJesus in the Writings ofJustin Martyr. NovTSup, 17; Leiden. _ _with the assistance of J. B. Tyson and W. O. Walker. 1985. The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Approach. Mercer. Benoit, A. 1960. Saint Irenee: Introduction a letude de sa theologie. Strasbourg. Bennett, M. A., and W. E Adeney. 1899. Biblical Introduction. London.

114

115

.......

116

Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

Bensly, R. L. 1895. The Fourth Book ofEzra: The Latin Version. Texts and Studies, 3, no. 2; Cambridge. Bentley, J. 1781. Opuscula Philogica. Leipzig. Bergh van Eysinga, G. A. van den. 1907. "Zur Echtheitsfrage der Ignatianischen Briefe:' Protestantische Monatshefte 11: 258-68,301-11. _ _1908. Onderzoek naar de echtheid van Clemens' eersten briefaan de Corinthiers. Leiden. 1912. Radical views about the New Testament. ET, London. _ _1915. "De jongste verdediging van de echtheid der Ignatiana:' Nieuw ThT 4: 203-69. _ _1926. "La Iitterature chretienne primitive:' Christianisme, 18: 183-96. _ _1927. Inleidung tot de oud-christlijke letterkunde. Amsterdam. _ _ 1946. "De oudste christelijke Geschriften:' Servire's Encyclopaedia: B4 b/2, 183-93. The Hague. Bergren, T. A. 1990. Fifth Ezra: The Text, Origin and Early History. Society of Biblical Literature, Septuagint and Cognate Studies series, 25; Atlanta. Bernard, J. H. 1912. The Odes ofSolomon. TS 8/3; Cambridge. Bettiolo, P., (ed.). 1995. Ascensio Isaiae, Textus. CCSA, 7; Turnhout. Betz, H. D. 1973. "2 Cor. 6:14-7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragmenf?" JBL 92: 88-108. Bianchi, U. 1976. The Greek Mysteries. Leiden. Bianchi, U., (ed.). 1967. Le origini dello Gnosticismo. Studies in the History of Religions, 12; Leiden. Bidawid, R. J. 1973. The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version. Leiden. Bigg, C. 1913. The Christian Platonists ofAlexandria. London. _ _ 1922 [1898]. Didache. This edn with new introduction and revised notes by A. J. Maclean; TCL, Series 1; Greek texts; London. Birdsall, J. N. 1967. "Melito of Sardis, PERI TOU PASCHA in a Georgian version:' Le Museon 130: 121-38. Bischoff, B. 1951. "Die lateinischen Ubersetzung und Bearbeitung aus den Oracula Sibyllina:' In Melanges Joseph de Ghellinck: I, 121-47.2 vols.; Museum Lessianum, Section Historique, 13; Bruges. _ _1966-81. Mittelalterliche Studien. 3 vols.; Stuttgart. Bittlinger, A. 1967. Gifts and Graces: A Commentary on 1 Corinthians 12-14. Grand Rapids. Bleek, F. 1869. An Introduction to the New Testament. ET; 2 vols; Edinburgh. Blinzler, J. 1965. Johannes und die Synoptiker. SBS, 5; Stuttgart. Blondellus, D. 1646. Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi de Episcopis et Presbyteris. Amsterdam. Bludau, A. 1925. Die ersten Gegner der Johannes-Schriften. BS, 22; Hefte 1 and 2; Freiburg. Blunt, A. W. F. 1911. The Apologies ofJustin Martyr. Cambridge. Bochart, S. 1663. Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacrae Scripturae. 3 vols.; London. Bohmer, J. H. 1729. XII Dissertationes Iuris Ecclesiastici Antiqui. 2nd edn; Leipzig. Bois, H. 1887. De priore ad Corinthios epistula: adversaria critica. Erlangen. Boismard, M. E. 1966. "Evangile des Ebionites et probleme synoptique:' RB 73: 351-52.

Bonner, C. 1934. A Papyrus Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas (Simil. 2-9) with a Fragment ofthe Mandates. University of Michigan, Humanistic Series 22; Michigan. _ _1940. Melito ofSardis: The Homily on the Passion; with Some Fragments ofthe Apocryphal Ezekiel. Studies and Documents, 12; Philadelphia and London. Bonsirven, J. 1949. "Les aramaismes de S. Jean l'Evangeliste:' Biblica 30: 405-32. Bornkamm, G. 1948. "Die Heresie des Kolosserbrief:' TLZ: cols. 11-20. _ _1956. "Die eucharistische Rede im Johannes-evangelium:' ZNTW 47: 161-69. _ _1961 [1961a]. Die Vorgeschichte des sogennanten zweiten Korintherbriefes. SAH PhiL-hist. Klasse; Heidelberg. _ _1961 [196lb). "Die Hoffnung im Kolosserbrief - zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage der Echtheit des Briefes:' Studien zum Neuen Testament und zur Patristik Erich Klostermann zum 90. Berlin. _ _1962. "Der Philipperbrief als pauIinische Briefsammlung:' In B. Reicke and W. Rordorf (eds), Neotestamentica et Patristica: eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag uberreicht: 192ff. Introduction by W. C. van Unnik; SNT, 6; Leiden, Brill. _ _1965. "The History of the Origin ofthe So-called Second Letter to the Corinthians:' In The Authority and Integrity of the New Testament: 73-81 [partial ET of the above]. London. _ _1970. Paul. ET, London and New York. Boulluec, A. Le, and P. Voulet. 1981. Les Stromates: Stromate S. SC 278, 279; Paris. Bousset, W. 1921 [1912). Kyrios Christos. 2nd edn; Gottingen. _ _1970. Kyrios Christos. ET, Nashville. Bowen, C. R. 1953. "Ephesians among the Letters of PauL" ATR: 279ff. Bowyer, W. 1812. Critical Conjectures and Observations on the New Testament. 4th edn, London. Box, G. H. 1912. The Ezra-Apocalypse: Being Chapters 3-14 of the Book Commonly Known as 4 Ezra, or II Esdras. London. Brandon, S. G. F. 1951. The Fall ofJerusalem and the Christian Church. London. Brandt, W. F. 1971 [1912]. Elchasai, ein Religionsstifter und sein Werk. Leipzig, 1912; reprinted Amsterdam. Braun, H. 1952-53. "Zur nachpaulinischen Herkunft des zweiten Thessalonischerbriefes:' ZNTW 44: 152-56. _ _1962. Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament. Ttibingen. _ _1966. Qumran und das Neue Testament. Ttibingen. Bretschneider, K. G. 1820. Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Joannis, apostoli indole et origine. Leipzig. Brind'Amour, P. 1980. "La Date du martyre de saint Polycarpe (Ie 23 fevrier 167):' Analecta Bollandiana 98: 456-62. Brown, M. P. 1963. The Authentic Writings ofIgnatius. Durham, NC. Brown, R. E., J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy (eds). 1990. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. London. Brown, S. 1964. "From Burney to Black, the Fourth Gospel and the Aramaic Question:' CBQ 26: 323-39. Brox, N. 1966. Offenbarung, Gnosis und gnostischer Mythos bei Ireniius von Lyon. Salzburger Patristische Studien, 1; Salzburg. Brox, N. 1991. Der Hirt des Hermas. Erganzungsreihe zum KEK, 7; Gottingen.

....

117

II

I I

I il. II I

ill 1,1

i

~ II I

1/:

I~:

t

118

Bibliography

Redrawing the Boundaries

119

Cartwright, T. 1575. The Second Replie ofThomas Cartwright agaynst Maister Doctor Whitgifte's Second Answer Touching the Churche Discipline. Heidelberg. Casey. P. M. 1996. Is John's Gospel True? London. Cassels, W. R. 1874. Supernatural Religion: An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation. 2 vols.; 1st edn; London. Edns 2-5 all 1874 [1874b]; further editions 1875,1876,1879,1889; popular edn 1902. _ _1889. A Reply to Lightfoot's Essays. London. Centuriators of Magdeburg. 1559-74. Historia Ecclesiae Christi. Basle. Chadwick, H. 1960. "A Latin Epitome of Melito's Homily on the Pasch:' JTS ns 11: 76-82. _ _1965. "Justin Martyr's Defence of Christianity:' BJRL 47: 275-97. _ _1966. Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement and Origen. Oxford. Charles, R. H. 1908. The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Edited from nine mss., together with the variants of the Armenian and Slavonic versions and some Hebrew fragments. Oxford. _ _1908. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Translated from the Editor's Greek text. London. _ _1913. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament. 2 vols.; Oxford. Charlesworth, J. H. 1973. The Odes of Solomon. Oxford. _____ 1987. The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with Excursuses on Apocalypses. Metuchen, NJ and London. Charlesworth, J. H., (ed.). 1983, 1985. The Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigraha. Two vols.; London. Charteris, A. H. 1880. Canonicity. Edinburgh. Chase, F. H. 1898-1904. "Peter, Second Epistle of' In J. Hastings (ed.),A Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols.; Edinburgh. Cirillo, L. 1984. Elchasai e gli Elchasaiti. Un contributo alIa storia delle comunita giudeo-cristiane. Cosenza. Clark, A. C. 1933. Acts ofthe Apostles: A Critical Edition. Oxford. Clemen, K. C. 1894. Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe an der Hand der bisher mit Bezug auf sie aufgestellten Interpolations- und Compilations- hypothesen. Gottingen. _ _1905. Die Apostelgeschichte im Lichte der neuen text-, quellen-, und historisch­ kritischen Faschungen. Giessen. _ _1906. Die Enstehung des Neuen Testaments. Berlin and Leipzig. _ _1912. Die Enstehung des Johannesevangeliums. Halle. Clerici, L. 1966. Einsammlung der Zerstreuten: Liturgiegeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Vor- und Nachgeschichte der Furbittefur die Kirche in Didache 9, 4 und 10,5. Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 44; Munster. Clericus (Leclerq, Jean). 1711. Opera ad annum 1711. Amsterdam. Cludius, H. H. 1808. Uransichten des Christenthums nebst Untersuchungen uber einige Bucher des neuen Testaments. Altona. Collins, A. Y. 1984. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power ofthe Apocalypse. Philadelphia. Colwell, E. C. 1931. The Greek of the Fourth Gospel: A Study ofits Aramaisms in the Light ofHellenistic Greek. Chicago. Cone, O. 1893. The Gospel and its Earliest Interpretations. New York. _ _1898. Paul the Man, the Missionary and the Teacher. London.

Bruce, F. F. 1954. A Commentary on the Acts ofthe Apostles. New London Commentary; London. Bruckner, W. 1885. "Zur Synoptischen Fragen:' Protestantische Kirchenzeitung fur das evangelische Deutschland: 85-89, 106-11, 126-32. _ _1890. Die Chronologische Reihenfolge in welcher die Briefe des Neuen Testaments verfassen sind. Haarlem. Bruckner, A. E. 1902. Die Irrlehrer im Neuen Testament. SVTR, 26; Tubingen and Lepizig. Bryennios, P. 1883. Didache. Constantinople. Buchanan, E. S. 1906-1907. "The Codex Muratorianus:' JTS 8: 537-45. Bujard, W. 1973. Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief SUT, 11; Gottingen. Bultmann, R. 1947. "Glossen im Romerbrief' TLZ 72: 197-202. _ _1958. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 3rd edn; Tubingen. _ _ 1963. Exegetische Probleme des zweiten Korintherbriefes. 2nd edn; Darmstadt. _ _ 1967. The Old and the New Man in the Letters ofPaul. ET, Richmond VA. _ _1972. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Revised ET, London. _ _1973. The johannine Epistles. Hermeneia series; ET, Philadelphia. Bundy, W. E. 1955. jesus and the First Three Gospels: An Introduction to the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge, MA. Burchard, C., J. Jervell and J. Thomas. 1970. Studien zu den Testamenten der zwolj Patriarchen. AGJU, 8; Berlin. Burger, K. H. A. 1848. Chronologie und Harmonie der vier Evangelien. Erlangen. Burghardt, W. J. 1940. "Did Saint Ignatius Know the Fourth Gospel?" TS 1: 1-26, 130-56. Burkert, R. 1987. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, MA. Burridge, R. A. 1995 [1992]. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with GraecoRoman Biography. SNTSMS, 70; new edn; Cambridge. Burton, E. de W. 1921. Galatians. ICC; Edinburgh. Butler, B. C. 1951. The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis. Cambridge. _ _1960. "The Literary Relations of the Didache, Ch. xvi:' JTS ns 11: 265-83. _ _1961. "The 'Two Ways' in the Didache:' JTS 12: 27-38. Cadbury, H. J. 1927. The Making of Luke-Acts. London. Cadiou, R. 1932. Introduction au systeme d'Origene. Paris. Camelot, T. 1945. Foi et Gnose: Introduction aletude de la connaissance mystique chez Clement d'Alexandrie. Etudes de theologie et d'histoire de la spiritualite, 3; Paris. Campenhausen, H. von. 1951. Urchristentum und Geschichte: gessamelte AuJsiitze und Vortriige. Tubingen. _ _1957. "Bearbeitungen und Interpolationen des Polykarpsmartyrium:' In Aus der Fruhzeit des Christentums: 5-48. Tubingen. _ _1968. Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel. BHT 39; Tubingen. Canfield, L. H. 1913. The Early Persecutions ofthe Christians. New York. Capelle, B. 1927. "Le Rescrit d'Hadrien et S. Justin:' R. Ben. 39: 365-68. Carleton Paget, J. N. B. 1994. The Epistle ofBarnabas. WUNT, 64; Tubingen. Carrington, P. 1939. "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: Dr. Harrison's Theory Reviewed:' ATR 21: 32-39. Carroll, R. P. 1986. jeremiah. London.

~

120

Redrawing the Boundaries

Connolly, R. H. 1932. "The Didache in Relation to the Epistle of Barnabas:' ITS 33: 237-53. Conybeare, F. C. 1902. "Ein Zeugnis Ephraims iiber das Fehlen von c.1 im Texte des Lukas:' ZNTW 3: 192ff. Conzelmann, H. 1962. "Der Brief an die Kolosser:' In Die Kleinen Briefe des Apostels Paulus. NTD, 8; 9th edn; Gottingen. _ _1969. Der erste Brief an de Korinther. KEK, 5; 11th edn; Gottingen. _ _1978. Bemerkungen zum Martyrium Polykarps. Gottingen. Cope, L. 1978. "I Cor. 11.2-16; One Step Further:' JBL 97: 435-36. Corssen, P. 1902. "De Vita Polycarpi:' ZNTW 4: 61-82. _ _1909. "Zur Oberlieferungsgeschichte des Romerbriefes:' ZNTW 10: 1-45. Couchoud, P. 1930. La premiere edition de St. Paul. Premiers ecrits du Christianisme; Paris. Coutts,]. 1957-58. "The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians:' NTS 4: 210-17. Cramer, ]. 1890. De brief van Paulus aan de Galatiers in zijn oorspronkelijken vorm hersteld, en verklaard. Utrecht, 1890. Cranfield, C. E. B. 1975. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC, 1; Edinburgh. Crehan, ]. H. 1956. Athenagoras: Embassyfor the Christians - the Resurrection ofthe Dead. ACW, 23; London. Cross, F. L. 1960. The Early Christian Fathers. London. Crouzel, H. 1956. Theologie de ['image de Dieu chez Origene. Theologie, 34; Paris. ___1961. Origene et la "connaissance mystique." Museum Lessianum, section theologique, 66; Bruges. _ _1985. Origene. Paris. Crouzel, H., (ed.). 1975. Origeniana: premier colloque international des etudes origeniennes. QVC, 12; Paris. Crouzel, H. and A. Quacquarelli (eds). 1980. Origeniana secunda: seconde colloque internationale des etudes origiennes. QVC, 15; Paris. Cullmann, O. 1976. The Johannine Circle. ET, London. Cumont, F. 1963. Die mysterien des Mithra. 4th edn; Darmstadt. Dahl, N. A. 1954. "Formgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur Christus-verkiindigung in der Gemeindepredigt:' In W. Eltester (ed.), Neu-testamentliche Studien fur R. Bultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag. BZNTW, 21; Berlin. _ _1972. "A Fragment and its Context: 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1:' Studies in Paul (Minneapolis): pp. 62-69. Dallaeus, ]. 1654. De Jejuniis et Quadragesima Liber. Deventer. _ _1666. De Scriptis quae sub Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii Antiocheni nominibus circumferuntur libri duo. 2 vols.; Geneva. Daly, R. ]., (ed.). 1992. Origeniana Qunita: Historica, Text and Method, Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica, Origenism and Later Developments: Papers of the Fifth InternationalOrigen Congress. BETL, 105; Leuven. Danielou, ]. 1948. Origene. Paris. _ _1955. Origen. ET, New York. _ _1964. The Theology ofJewish-Christianity. ET, London. Davidson, S. 1868. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 1st edn; London. 2nd edn; London, 1882 and 3rd edn; London, 1894. _ _1877. The Canon of the Bible. London.

Bibliography

121

Dawsey, J. M. 1989. "The Literary Unity ofLuke - Acts: Questions ofStyle _ a Task for Literary Critics:' NTS 35: 48-66. Day, P. 1963. "The Practical Purpose of Second Thessalonians:' ATR 45: 203-206. Dehandschutter, B. 1979. Martyrium Polycarpi: een literair-kritische Studie. Leuven. Delafosse, H. 1922. "Nouvel Examen des lettres d'Ignace df\ntioche:' Revue d'histoire et de litterature religieuses ns 8: 303-37, 477-533. _ _1927. Lettres d1gnace d'Antioche. Les textes du christianisme, 2; Paris. Delehaye, H. 1921. Les passions des martyres et les genres litteraires. Brussels. De Maris, R. E. 1994. The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae. ]SNTSS, 96; Sheffield. Demke, C. 1973. "Theologie und Literarkritik im 1. Thessalonischer-brief~ In G. Ebeling, E. ]iingel and G. Schunack (eds), Festschrift fur Ernst Fuchs: 103-24. Tiibingen. Dibelius, M. 1890. Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus. Gottingen. _ _1923. Der Hirt des Hermas. Hb. NT, Erganzungsband, Die Apostolischen Vater, 4; Tiibingen. _ _1926. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. 2 vols.; Berlin.

_ _1947. Paulus. Berlin.

Dibelius, M., and H. Greeven. 1953. An die Kolosser, Epheser, und Philemon. 3rd edn; Tiibingen. Dobschiitz, E. von. 1893. Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht. TU 11, Heft 1; Leipzig. _ _1909. Die Thessalonischer Briefe. KEK, 10; Gottingen.

Dodd, C. H. 1932. The Epistle ofPaul to the Romans. London.

_ _1946. The fohannine Epistles. London.

_ _1963. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge.

Donaldson, ]. A. 1864. Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrinefrom the

Death ofthe Apostles to the Nicene Council. 1. The Apostolic Fathers. London. Donfried, K. P. 1970. "A Short Note on Romans 16:' fBL 89: 44ff.

_ _1974. The Setting ofSecond Clement in Early Christianity. Leiden.

Doty, W. G. 1973. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Philadelphia.

Downing, F. G. 1988. "Pliny's Persecution of Christians: Revelation and 1 Peter:' fSNT 34: 105-23.

Draper, ]. A., (ed.). 1996. The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden.

Dressel, A. R. M. 1857. Patrum Apostolicorum Opera. Leipzig.

Drijvers, H.]. W. 1978. "Die Oden Salomos und die Polemik mit den Markioniten im

Syrischen Christentum:' In Symposium Syriacum 1976. Orientalia Christiana

Analecta, 205; Rome.

_ _1984. East ofAntioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity. Variorum Reprints,

London.

Drseke, ]. 1902. Review of A. Hilgenfeld, Ignatii Antiocheni et Polycarpi Epistolae et Martyria (Berlin, 1902). Wochenschriftfur klassische Philologie 19: cols. 1388-96. _ _1914. Review of o. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur (2nd edn; Freiburg, 1913). Wochenschriftfur klassische Philologie 31: cols. 438-40. Duker, A. C., and W. C. van Manen. 1869-71. De oud-christelijke Letterkunde. 2 vols.; Amsterdam. Dunn, ]. D. G. 1980. Christology in the Making. London. _ _1988. Romans 9-16. WBC, 38b; Dallas.

122

Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

Dupont,]. 1948. "Pour l'histoire de la doxologie finale de l'epitre aux Romains:' RB 58: 3-22. Dupont-Somner, A. 1939. Le quatrieme livre des Machabees. Paris.

Easton, B. S. 1947/1948. The Pastoral Epistles. New York, 1947; London, 1948.

Eckermann, W. 1976. Eckermann Theologische Beitrage. Bd V, St. 2. Eckart, K.-G. 1960. "Exegetische Beobachtungen zu Kol. 1,9-20:' ThViat 77: 95fT. _ _1961. "Der zweite echte Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Thessalonicher:' ZTK 58: 30f. Eggenberger, C. 1945. "Der Sinn der Argumentation in Rom. 13,2-6:' Kirchenblattfar die reformierte Schweiz: 43ff. _ _1951. Die Quellen der Politischen Ethik des Klemens-briefes. Ziirich. Ehrhardt, A. A. T. 1964. "]udaeo-Christians in Egypt, the Epistula Apostolorum and the Gospel to the Hebrews." In F. L. Cross (ed.), Studia Evangelica 3: 360-82. TU, 68; Berlin. Eichhorn,]. G. 1810-27. Einleitung in das neue Testament. 5 vols.; 1st edn 1804; 2nd edn; Leipzig. Elliot,]. K. 1981. "Language and Style of the Concluding Doxology of the Epistle to the Romans:' ZNTW72: 124-30. Elliot,]. K., (ed.). 1993. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford. Elliot-Binns, L. E. 1956. Galilean Christianity. London. Eltester, W., (ed.). 1969. Christentum und Gnosis. Beihefte zur ZNTW, 37; Berlin. Enslin, M. S. 1938. Christian Beginnings. New York. Ernesti, ]. A. 1760. Neue theologische Bibliothek. Leipzig. Eshbaugh, H. 1979. "Textual Variants and Theology: A Study of the Galatians Text of Papyrus 46:' JSNT 3: 60-72. Evanson, E. 1805 [1792]. The Dissonance ofthe Four Generally Received Evangelists and the Evidence oftheir Respective Authenticity Examined. 1st. edn; Ipswich. 2nd edn; Gloucester. Ewald, H. 1857. Sendschreiben des Apostles Paulus. Gottingen. Faber Stapulensis,]. 1513. Quincuplex Psalterium. Gallicum. Romanum. Hebraicum. Vetus. Concilialum. Paris. Fantino, ]. 1994. La theologie dJIrenee: Lecture des Ecritures en response a texegese gnostique. Un approche trinitaire. Paris. Farmer, W. R. 1964. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York. Fascher, E. 1953. Textgeschichte als hermeneutisches Problem. Halle an der Saale. Faye, E. de. 1898. Clement d'Alexandrie. Etude sur les rapports du christainisme et de la philosophie grecque au 1ft' siecle. Bibl. de l'ecole des hautes etudes; Sciences religeuses, 12; Paris. _ _1923-28. Origene. Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pensee. 3 vols.; Bibl. de Ecole des hautes etudes. Sciences religeuses, 37, 43, 44; Paris. Findlay, ]. Alexander. 1933. Jesus in the First Gospel. London. Fee, G. D. 1987. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT; Eerdmans. Findeis, H.-]. 1983. Versohnung - Apostolat - Kirche: eine exegetisch-theologische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Versohnungsaussagen des Neuen Testaments. FB, 40; Wiirzburg. Fischer, K. M. 1973. Tendenz und Absicht des Epheserbriefes. FRLANT, 111; Gottingen. Fitzer, G. 1963. "Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde':' aber den unpaulinischen Charakter der mulier-taceat-Verse in 1. Korinther 14. TEH NF, 110; Munich.

123

Fitzmyer, J. A.1961. "Qumran and the Interpolated Fragment in 2 Cor. 6.14-7.1:' CBQ 23: 271-80. Foerster, W. 1928. Von Valentin zu Kerakleon: Untersuchungen aber die Quellen und die Entwicklung der valentinianischen Gnosis. Beihefte zu ZNTW, 7; Giessen. _ _1963. "Das System des Basilides:' NTS 9: 233-55. _ _1972. Trans. R. MeL. Wilson. Gnosis. 2 vols; Oxford. Fortna, R. T. 1970. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel. SNTSMS, 11; Cambridge. Franzmann, M. 1991. The Odes ofSolomon: An Analysis ofthe Poetical Structure and Form. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 20; Gottingen. Frend, W. H. C. 1964. "A Note on the Chronology of the Martyrdom of Polycarp and the Outbreak of Montanism:' In Oikoumene. Studi paleocristiani pubblicati in onore del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II. Catania. Friedlich, J. 1891. Die unechtheit des galaterbriefes. Halle. Friedrich, G. 1963. "Christus, einheit und norm des Christen. Das Grundmotiv des 1 Korintherbrief' KuD 9: 235-58. _ _1965. "Ein Tauflied hellenistischer Juden-Christen 1 Thess 1, 9£:' ThZ 21: 502-16. _ _1957-65. "Romerbrief' RGG3: V, 1138-43. _ _1973. "1 Thessalonischer 5.1-11 der apologetischer Einschub eines Spateren:' ZTK 70: 288-315. _ _1976. Die Briefe an die Galater. NTD, 8; 14th edn; Gottingen. Friedrich, J. 1890. Das Lukas-Evangelium und die Apostelgeschichte. Werke desselben Verfassers. Halle.

Friichtel, L., and U. Treu. 1970. Clemens Alexandrinus. Berlin.

Fuchs, E. 1949. Die Freiheit des Glaubens. Munich.

_ _1960. "Hermeneutik?" ThViat 7: 44-60.

_ _1963-64. "Meditation iiber 1 Thess 1,1-10:' Gottinger Predigt-Meditationen 18:

617-23.

Fuller, R. H. 1966. Critical Introduction to the New Testament. London.

Funk, F. X. 1901. Die apostolischen Vater. Tiibingen.

Furnish, V. 1984. II Corinthians. AB 32a; New York.

Gamble, H. 1977. Textual History ofthe Letter to the Romans. SD, 42; Grand Rapids.

Gardner-Smith, P. 1938. Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels. Cambridge.

Gartner, B. 1961. The Theology ofthe Gospel of Thomas. London.

Gaston, L. 1970. "One Stone upon Another:' NovT 23: 177ff.

_ _1982. "Angels and Gentiles in Early Judaism and in PauI:' SR 11: 65-75.

Gaugler, E. 1945. Der Romerbrief. 2 vols.; Zurich.

Geffcken, J. 1902 [1902a]. Die Oracula Sibyllina. GCS; LeipZig.

_ _1902 [1902b]. Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina. TU, 23,

Heft 1; Berlin. _ _1907. Zwei griechische Apologeten. Leipzig and Berlin. Georgi, D. 1964. Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. korintherbriej Studien zur religiosen Propaganda in der Spiitantike. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Gercke, A. 1894. "Der deuteros logos des Lukas und die Apostelgeschichte:' Hermes 29: 73-92. Giblin, C. H. 1967. The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Re-examination of2 Thessalonians. AnBib 31; Rome.

~

Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

Giet, S. 1963. Hermas et les Pasteurs: Les Trois Auteurs du Pasteur d'Hermas. Paris. _ _ 1970. L' Enigme de la Didache. Paris. Gilmour, S. M. 1962. "First Corinthians:' In The Interpreters Dictionary ofthe Bible, 1. IDB, 1; New York. Gnilka, J. 1980. Der Kolosserbrief. HTKNT, 10/1; Freiburg. Goguel, M. 1926. Introduction au Nouveau Testament. Paris. Goodenough, E. R. 1923. The Theology ofJustin Martyr. Jena. Goodspeed, E. J. 1912. "The Vocabulary of Luke and Acts:' JBL 31: 92-94. _ _ 1933. The Meaning ofEphesians. Chicago. _ _ 1937. New Chapters in New Testament Study. New York. _ _1944. "Greek Idiom in the Gospels:' JBL 63: 87-91. _ _ 1945. Problems ofNew Testament Translation. Chicago. _ _1957. The Key to Ephesians. Chicago. Goulder, M. D. 1989. Luke: A New Paradigm. JSNTSS, 20; 2 vols.; Sheffield. Grabe, J. E. 1698. Spicilegium SS. Patrum. Oxford. Grabner- Haidner, A. 1968. Paraklese und Eschatologie bei Paulus. Munster. Grafe, E. 1904. Die Stellung und Bedeutung des Jakobusbriefs in der Entwicklung des Urchristentums. Tubingen and Leipzig. Grant, F. C. 1962. Roman Hellenism and the New Testament. Edinburgh and London. Grant, R. M. 1940. "Where Form Criticism and Textual Criticism overlap:' JBL 59: 11-21. _ _1966. Gnosticism and Early Christianity. 2nd edn; New York. _ _ 1977. "Quadratus, the First Christian Apologist:' In R. H. Fischer (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur Voobus: 177-83. Chicago. _ _1990. Jesus after the Gospels. London. Green, H. B. 1975. The Gospel According to Matthew. Oxford. Gregoire, H., and P. Orgels.1951. "La Veritable Date du martyre de Polycarpe (23 fevr. 177) et Ie Corpus Polycarpianum:' Analecta Bollandiana 69: 1-38. Gregoire, H., P. Orgels, J. Moreau and A. Maricq. 1964 [1950]. Les persecutions dans l'Empire romain. Academie royale de Belgique, Ciasse des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques; Brussels. Griesbach, J. J. 1824. Opuscula Academica. 2 vols.; Jena. Griffe, E. 1951. "A propos de la date du martyre de saint Polycarpe:' Bulletin de Litterature Ecclesiastique de l'Universite de Toulouse 52: 170-77. _ _1952. "Les persecutions dans l'Empire romain de Neron a Dece. A propos d'un memoire de M. Henri Gregoire:' Bulletin de Litterature Ecclesiastique de l'Universite de Toulouse 3. Grotius, H. 1642. Annot. ad Joh. XX. 30, XX. 24. In Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum. London. Groussow, W. K. M. 1951. "Over de echtheid van 2 Cor 6,14-7,1:' Studia Catholica 26: 203-206. _ _1951/1952. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. A Preliminary Survey:' Studia Catholica 26 (1951): 289-99; and 27 (1952): 1-8. Gry, L. 1938. Les dires prophetiques d'Esdras - IV Esdras. 2 vols; Paris. Guerrier, L., and S. Grebaut. 1913. "Le Testament en Galilee de Notre-Seigneur Jesus­ Christ. Texte Ethiopien, edite et traduit en franc;ais:' PO 9: 141-236. Guillamont, A., with H. C. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till and Yasah 'Ab al Masih. 1959. The Gospel According to Thomas: Coptic Text. London.

Gumann, N. 1967. Taufe und Ethik. Studien zu Rom. 6. Munich. Gunther, J. J. 1973. St. Pauls Opponents and their Background: A Study ofApocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings. NovTSuppl, 35; Leiden. Haase, W., (ed.). 1988. Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, Band 2.25.5. Berlin. Hagenbach, K. R. 1880. A History of Christian Doctrines. ET, Edinburgh. _ _1885. Ed. F. Nippold. Kirchengeschichte der ersten sechs Jahrhunderte. 4th edn.; Leipzig. Hagner, D. A. 1973. The Use ofOld and New Testaments in Clement ofRome. NovTSup, 34; Leiden. Hahneman, G. M. 1992. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development ofthe Canon. Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford. Halmel, A. 1904. Der 2. Korintherbriefdes Apostels Paulus. Halle an der Saale. Hammer, P. L. 1960. "A Comparison of kleronomia in Paul and Ephesians:' JBL 79: 267-72. Hammond-Bammel, C. P. 1982. "Ignatian Problems:' JTS ns 3: 62-97. Handman, R. 1888. Das Hebraer-Evangelium. TU, 5, Heft 3; Berlin. Hanson, A. T. 1982. The Image ofthe Invisible God. London. Hanson, R. P. C. 1954. Origens Doctrine of Tradition. London. _ _1959. Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origens Interpretation of Scripture. London. ____ 1967. The Acts in the Revised Standard Version with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford. Hanson, R. P. C., and H. Crouzel (eds).1985. Origeniana Tertia: The ThirdInternational Colloquium for Origen Studies. Rome. Harl, M. 1958. Origene et lafonction revelatrice du Verbe Incarne. Patristica Sorboniensa, 2; Paris. Harl, M., and H. I. Marrou. 1960-70. Le Pedagogue. SC, 70; Paris. Harnack, A., von. 1884. Die Lehre der zwoljApostel. Leipzig. _ _1893. Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius. Leipzig. _ _1897. Die Chronologie der Altchristlichen Litteratur. Leipzig. _ _1901. "Zu Lc 1,34-35:' ZNTW2: 53-57. _ _1931. "Uber 1 Kor.14,32ff. und Rm 16,25ff. nach der altesten Uberlieferung und der marcionitischen BibeI:' In Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der Alten Kirche. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 19; Berlin and Leipzig. Harris, J. R. 1891. "The Apology of Aristides on Behalf of the Christians:' Cambridge Texts and Studies 1(1). _ _1911 [1909]. The Odes and Psalms of Solomon Now First Published from the Syriac Version. 2nd edn, with facsimile, 1911; Cambridge. Harris, J. R., and A. Mingana. 1916. The Odes of Solomon Re-edited. Manchester. Expanded edn; 1920. Harrison, P. N. 1936. Polycarps Two Epistles to the Philippians. Cambridge. Hartman, J. J. 1907. "Keizer Domitianus uit een nieuw oogpunt beschouwd: Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen": 322-60. Afd. Letterkunde, 4de Reeks, Deel 8; Amsterdam. Harvey, A. 1857. Irenaeus. Cambridge. Hastings, J., (ed.). 1898-1904. A Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols.; Edinburgh. Hausrath, A. 1868-74. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. 3 vols; Heidelberg.

124

125

Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

_ _ 1870. Der Vier-l(apitel-Briefdes Paulus an die Korinther. Heidelberg.

_ _1909. jesus und die Neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller. Berlin.

Havet, E. 1873-84. Le christianisme et ses origines. 2nd edn; Paris.

Hawkins, J. C. 1909. Horae Synopticae. 2nd edn; Oxford.

Hawkins, R. M. 1941. "Romans: A Reinterpretation:' JBL 60: 129-40.

_ _ 1943. The Recovery ofthe Historical Paul. Nashville.

HeinricL C. H. 1880. Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Korinther

erkliirt. Berlin. Helmbold, A. K. 1972. uGnostic Elements in the Ascension of Isaiah:' NTS 18: 222-27. Henderson, B. W. 1927. Five Roman Emperors. Cambridge. Hendrix, P. J. G. A. 1926. De Alexandrijnsche Haeresiarch Basi/ides. Amsterdam. Hengel, M. 1985. Studies in the Gospel ofMark. ET, London. _ _ 1989. The johannine Question. London. Henke, H. P. K. 1818. Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen l(irche. Braunschweig. Hennecke, E. 1987/1989. Revised by W. Schneemelcher. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Ubersetzung. 5th edn; 2 vols. Tiibingen. _ _1991/1992. Revised by W. Schneemelcher. New Testament Apocrypha. 5th edn; 2 vols.; ET, London. Heringa, J. 1793. Vertoog over het gebruik en hedendaagsch misbruik der kritiek. Amsterdam. Heumann, C. A. (anon). 1710. Review in Acta Eruditorum: 196-200. Leipzig. Heumann, C. A. 1718. Conspectus Reipublicae Literariae. Further edns 1726, 1732, 1735, 1746, 1753, 1763. Hanover. Heussi, K. 1955. Die romische Petrustradition in kritischer Sicht. Tiibingen. Hickling, C. J. A. 1990. llBaptism in the First Century Churches:' In David J. A. Clines, Stephen E. Fowl and Stanley E. Porter (eds), The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration ofForty Years ofBiblical Studies in the University ofSheffield: 249-67. JSOTSS, 37; Sheffield. Hilgenfeld, A. 1853. Die apostolischen Viiter: Untersuchungen uber lnhalt und Ursprung der unter ihrem Namen erhaltenen Schriften. Halle. _ _ 1854. Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutung. Leipzig. _ _ 1858. uDas Urchristentum und seine neuesten Behandlungen von Weisse, Volkmar und Meyer:' ZWT: 54-140, 377-400 and 562-602. _ _ 1860. Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche. Halle. _ _1861. uDer quartodecimanisonus Kleinasien und die Kanonischen Evangelie:' ZWT 4: 286ff. _ _ 1862. uDie beiden Briefe an die Thessalonischer, nach Inhalt und Ursprung:' ZWT 5: 225-64. _ _ 1866. uNovum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum. 4 vols.; Leipzig. _ _1868. uDas Johannes- Evangelium nicht interpoliert:' ZWT 11: 434-55. 1872. uZur Geschichte des UnionsPaulinismus:' ZWT 15: 469fT. _ _ 1874. uDie Ignatianischen Briefe und ihr neueste Vertheidiger:' ZWT 17: 96-121. _ _ 1875. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig. _ _1879. "Das Martyrium Polkarps:' ZWT22: 153ff. _ _ 1884. Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums. Leipzig. _ _ 1901. uDie Geburts- und Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu, Lk 1,5-2,52:' ZWT24: 177fT. _ _ 1902. 19natii Antiocheni et Polycarpi Smyrnaei epistolae et martyria. Berlin.

_ _1903 [1903a]. llDie Ignatius-Briefe und die neueste Verteidigung ihrer Echtheit:' ZWT26: 171-94. _ _1903 [1903b]. "Die vertiefte Erkenntnis des Urchristentums in der Ignatius­ Frage:' ZWT 26: 499-505. Hitchcock, F. R. M. 1914. Irenaeus ofLugdunum. Cambridge. _ _1916. The Treatise of Irenaeus of Lugdunum against Heresies: A Translation. London. Hitzig, R. 1870. Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe. Leipzig. Hoekstra, S. 1867. UHet laatste hoofdstuk van het vierde Evangelie vergeleken met dit Evangelie zelf' ThT 1: 407-24. _ _1868. UVergelijking van de Brieven aan de Efeziers en de Colossers, vooral uit het oogpunt van beider leerstellingen inhoud:' ThT 2: 599-652. Hoennicke, G. 1908. Das judenchristentum im ersten und 2. jahrhundert. Berlin. Hollander, H. W., and M. de Jonge, M. 1985. The Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP, 8; Leiden. Hollmann, G. 1904. Die Unechtheit des 2. Thessalonischerbriefs untersucht. TU, 24; Leipzig. Holsten, C. 1868. Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus. Berlin. _ _1880. Das Evangelium nach Paulus. Berlin. Holte, R. 1958. llLogos-Spermatikos: Christianity and Ancient Philosophy According to St. Justin's Apologies:' Studia Theologica 12: 109-68. Holtzmann, H. J. 1863. Die synoptische Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter. Leipzig. _ _1872. Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriej Leipzig. _ _ 1874. uDer Stand der Verhandlungen iiber die beiden letzen Kapitel des Romerbuch:' ZWT 17: 504-19. _ _1877 [1877a]. uJohannes, Ignatius und Polykarp:' ZWT 20: 187-214. _ _1877 [1877b]. uLucas und Josephus:' ZWT 20: 535-49. _ _1880. Die Pastoralbriefe kritisch und exegetisch behandelt. Leipzig. _ _ 1885. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Sammlung Theologischer Lehrbiicher; Freiburg. Hooker, M. D. 1991. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St Mark. Blacks New Testament Commentaries; London. Horner, G. 1923-24. uA New Papyrus Fragment of the Didache in Coptic:' JTS 25: 225-31. Hornschuh, M. 1965. Studien zur Epistula Apostolorum. Patristische Texte und Studien, 5; Berlin. Horst, G. K. 1804. llDber einige ausscheinende Widerspriiche in dem Evangelium des Johannis in Absicht auf den Logos, oder das Hohere in Christo": 20-46; and uLast sich die Echtheit des johanneischen Evangeliums aus hinlanglichen Griinden bezweifeln, und welches ist der wahrscheinliche Ursprung dieser Schrift?" Museum fur Religionswissenschajt in ihrem ganzen Umfange 1 (Magdeburg): 47-49. Hort, F. J. A. 1904. judaistic Christianity. London. Houssiau, A. 1955. La Christologie de Saint Irenee. Louvain. Howard, W. F. 1947. "The Common Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Epistles:' JTS 48: 12-25.

126

JJ

127

III jlil I liliiii......­

il

128

Redrawing the Boundaries

Hubner, R. 1989. "Die antignostische Glaubensregel des Noet von Smyrna (Hippolyt, Refutatio IX, 10,9-12 und X, 27,1-2) bei Ignatius, Irenaeus und Tertullien:' MThZ 40: 279-311. _ _1997. "Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochen:' ZAC 1: 44-72. Hyldahl, N.1960. "Hegesipps' Hypomnemata:' Studia Theologica 14: 70-113. _ _ 1966. Philosophie und Christentum: Eine Interpretation der Einleitung zum Dialog /ustins. Acta Theologica Danica; Copenhagen. Jacoby, A. 1910. Die antiken Mysterien-religionen und das Christentum. Tiibingen. Jaubert, A. 1971. Clement de Rome, Epitre aux Corinthiens. SC, 167; Paris. Jefford, C. N., (ed.). 1995. The Didache in Context: Essays on its Text, History and Transmission. NovTSup, 77; Leiden. Jenkins, R. C. 1890. Ignatian Difficulties and Historic Doubts. London. Jewett, R. 1978. "The Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline School:' JAAR 44: 389-444. Johnson, E. 1887. Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins. London. Johnson, S. E. 1991. The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism. Atlanta. Joly, R. 1958. Hermas: Introduction, texte critique. SC, 53; Paris. _ _1973. Christianisme et Philosophie: Etudes sur Justin et les Apologistes grecs du deuxieme siecle. Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres, 52; Brussels. _ _ 1979. Le dossier d'Ignace d'Antioche. Universite libre de Bruxelles, Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres, 69; Brussels. Jonas, H. 1958. The Gnostic Religion: The Message ofthe Alien God and the Beginnings ofChristianity. Boston. Revised edn; London, 1992. _ _1964. Gnosis und spiitantiker Geist, 1. Rev. edn with sup pI.; Gottingen. Jones, B. W. 1992. The Emperor Domitian. London. Jonge, M. de. 1978. The Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition ofthe Greek Text. Leiden. Jonge, M. de, (ed.). 1975. Studies on the Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs. SVTP, 3; Leiden. Jiilicher, A. 1894. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1st edn; Tiibingen. Jiilicher, A., and E. Fascher. 1931. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 7th edn; Tiibingen. Kallas, J. 1964-65. "Romans XIII.l-7: An Interpolation:' NTS 11: 365-74. Kalthoff, A. 1904. Die Entstehung des Christenthums. London. ET, London, 1907. KamIah, E. 1955. "Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Schuldoxologie des Romerbriefs:' Unpublished dissertation, Mainz. Kasemann, E. 1933. Leib und Leib Christi. Eine Untersuchung zur paulinischen Begrifflichkeit. BHT, 9; Tiibingen. _ _1973. An die Romer. Tiibingen. Kastlin, K. R. 1853. Der Ursprung und Composition der synoptischen Evangelien. Stuttgart. Keck, L. 1979. ttThe Post-Pauline Interpretation of Jesus' Death in Rom. 5.6-7:' In C. Andresen and G. Klein (eds), Theologia Crucis - Signum Crucis: 237-48. Tiibingen. Keim, T. 1878. Aus dem Urchristenthum: Geschichtliche Untersuchungen in zwanglose Folge. Zurich. _ _1881. Rom und das Christenthum. Berlin. Kemler, H. 1971. "Hegesipps romische Bischofsliste:' VC 25: 182-96.

Bibliography

129

Kennedy, J. H. 1900. The Second and Third Epistles of St Paul to the Corinthians. London. Kern, F. H. 1839. uUber 2 Thess. 2.1-12. Nebst Andeutungen iiber den Ursprung des zweiten Briefes an die Thessalonischer:' TZTH 2: 145-214. Kiley, M. 1986. Colossians as Pseudepigraphy. Sheffield. Killen, W. D. 1859. The Ancient Church: Its History, Doctrine, Worship and Constitution. London. _ _1871. The Old Catholic Church. Edinburgh. _ _1886. The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious: A Reply to the Right Rev'd Dr Lightfoot. Edinburgh. _ _1890. Framework of the Church. Edinburgh. Kingsbury, J. D. 1969. The Parables ofJesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction­ criticism. London. Kinoshita, J. 1964-65. uRomans - Two Writings Combined:' NovT7: 258ff. Klauck, H.-J. 1988.2 Korintherbriej Kommentar zum Neuen Testament mit der Einheitsbersetzung, 8; Wiirzburg. Klauser, T. 1940. Florilegium patristicum, 1. Bonn. Klijn, A. F. J. 1967. Introduction to the New Testament. ET, Leiden. _ _1983. Der lateinische Text der Apokalypse des Esra. TU, 131; Berlin. _ _1988. "Das Hebraer- und das Nazorarevangelium:' In W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: 3997-4033. Teil 2, Band 25.5; New York and Berlin. Klijn, A. F. J., and G. J. Reininck. 1974. uElchasai and ManC' VC 28: 277-89.

Klinzing, G. 1971. Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen

Testament. SUNT, 7; Gottingen. Klostermann, E. 1908-. Apocrypha. 3 vols.; Bonn. Knibb, M. A., with R. J. Coggins. 1979. The First and Second Books ofEsdras. New Cambridge Bible; Cambridge. Knight, J. M. 1995. 2 Peter, Jude. Sheffield. _ _1995b. The Ascension ofIsaiah. GAP, 2; Sheffield. _ _1996. Disciples ofthe Beloved One: Studies in the Christology, Social Setting and Theological Context ofthe Ascension ofIsaiah. JSPSS, 18; Sheffield. _ _1999. Revelation. Sheffield. Knopf, R. 1912. Die Briefe Petri und Judii. Gottingen. _"__1919. Einfuhrung in das Neue Testament. Giessen. Knowling, R. J. 1892. The Witness ofthe Epistles. London.

Knox, J. 1935. Philemon among the Letters ofPaul. Chicago.

_ _1954. The Epistle to the Romans. IB; New York.

Knox, W. L. 1939. St. Paul and the Church ofthe Gentiles. Cambridge.

Knudsen, J. 1945. ttThe Lady and the Emperor:' Church History 14: 17-32.

Koch, H. 1934. Pronoia und Paideusis: Studien uber Origenes und sein Verhiiltniss

zum Platonism us. Arbeitem zur Kirchengeschichte, 22; Berlin and Leipzig. Koppe, J. B. 1782. Marcus non epitomator Matthaei. Gottingen. Kortholt, C. 1708. Historia Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti. Hamburg. Kortner, U. H. J. 1983. Papias von Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des fruhen Christentums. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 133; Gottingen.

130

Redrawing the Boundaries

Krabbe, O. 1829. aber den Ursprung und den Inhalt der apostolischen Constitutionen des Clemens Romanus. Hamburg. Kraft, R. A., and P. Prigent. 1971. Epitre de Barnabe. SC, 172; Paris. Krehl, A. L. G. 1845. Der Briefan die Romer ausgelegt. Leipzig. Krenkel, M. 1890. Beitriige zur Aujhellung der Geschichte und der Briefe des Apostels Paulus. Brunswick. _____ 1894. Josephus und Lucas. Der Schriftstellerische Einfluss des judischen Geschichtsschreibers aufden Christlichen. Leipzig. Krodel, G. 1978. Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, the Pastoral Epistles. Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia. Kuhn, K. G. 1951-52. "Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer. Zum heutigen Stand inhrer Verffentlichung:' EvTh 11: 72-75. _ _1954. "Les rouleaux de cuivre de Qumran:' RB 61: 193-205. Kiimmel, W. G. 1975. Introduction to the New Testament. ET, London. Kurfess, A. M. 1951. Sibyllinische Weissagungen. Berlin. Kiirzinger, J. 1983. Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments. Eichstatter Materialen, 4; Ratisbon. Lagrange, M. J. 1922. "L'Evangile selon les Hebreux:' RB 31: 161-81. Lake, K. 1911. The Earlier Epistles ofSt. Paul: Their Motive and Origin. London. Lambrecht, J. 1978. "The Fragment 2 Cor. VI 14 - VII 1 - a Plea for its Authenticity:' In T. Baarda et al. (eds), Miscellenea Neotestametica II. SNT, 48. Leiden. Lampe, F. A. 1724. Commen tarius Analyticus-Exegeticus tam literalis quam realis Evangelii secundum Joannem. 3 vols.; Amsterdam. Lampe, P. 1985. "Zur Textgeschichte des Romerbriefs:' NovT27: 273-77. Lane Fox, R. 1986. Pagans and Christians. Harmondsworth. Lange, N. R. M. de. 1976. Origen and the Jews. Cambridge. Larroque, M. de. 1670. Histoire de l'Eucharistie. 4 vols.; Amsterdam. _ _1674. Observationes in Ignatianas Pearsonii Vindicias. Rouen. Last, H. M. 1937. "The Study of the Persecutions:' JRS 27: 80-92. Lattke, M. 1979. Die Oden Salomos in ihrer Bedeutung fur Neues Testament und Gnosis. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 25; Gattingen. Lawlor, H. J., and J. E. L. Oulton. 1928. Eusebius, the Ecclesiastical History. 2 vols.; London. Lawson, J. 1948. The Biblical Theology ofSt. Irenaeus. London. Layton, B. 1987. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation. London. _ _ 1989. Nag Hammadi Codex 11,2-7. Nag Hammadi Studies, 20; Leiden. Layton, B., (ed.). 1980. The Recovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28-31, 1978. I. The School of Valentin us. Numen, 41; Leiden. Lechler, G. V. 1857. Das apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter. Stuttgart. LeClerc, J. 1714. In Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi. 2nd edn; Frankfurt. Lehmann, E., and A. Fridrichsen. 1922. "I Kor. 13. Eine christlich-stoische Diatribe:' ThStKr 94: 55-95. Leipoldt, J. 1952. Der soziale Gedanke in der altchristlichen Kirche. Leipzig. _ _1954. Die Frau in der antiken welt und im Urchristentum. 1954. Lelong, A. 1912. Le Pasteur d'Hermas. Peres Apostoliques, 4; Paris. Le Sueur, J. 1674. Histoire de l'Eglise de l'Empire, Part 1. Geneva.

Bibliography

131

Lies, L. 1978. Wort und Eucharistie bei Origenes. ITS 1; Innsbruck.

Lies, L., (ed.). 1987. Origeniana quarta: die Referate des 4. Internationalen

Origenskongresses. ITS, 19; Innsbruck. Lieske, A. 1938. Die Theologie der Logosmystik bei Origenes. Munich. Lietzmann, H. 1907. Die Didache mit kritischen Apparat. 2nd edn; Bonn. _ _1919. Einfuhrung in die Textgeschichte - an die Romer. 2nd edn; Tiibingen. Lightfoot, J. B. 1875. Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. London. _ _ 1885. The Apostolic Fathers. 2.1. S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp. 3 vols; London. 2nd edn; 1889. Lilla, S. R. C. 1971. Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism. Oxford. Lincoln, A. T., and A. J. M. Wedderburn. 1993. Theology ofthe Later Pauline Letters. Cambridge. Lindemann, A. 1983. Der Kolosserbrief ZBK NT, 10; Zurich. Lipsius, R. A. 1854. ''tiber Zweck und Veranlassung des ersten Thessalonischerbriefes:' Theologische Studien und Kritiken: 905-39. _ _1873. aber den Ursprung und iiltesten Gebrauch des Christennamens. Jena.

_ _1874. "Der Martyrertod Polykarps:' ZWT 17: 188-214.

_ _ 1878. "Das Todesjahr Polykarps:' Jahrbuch fur protestantische Theologie 4:

51-68. _ _1855. De Clementis Romani epistola ad Corinthios priore disquisitio. Leipzig. Logan, A. H. B. 1996. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism. Edinburgh. Lohfink, G. 1976. "Der Ursprung der christlichen Taufe:' TQ 156: 35-54. Lohmeyer, E. 1957. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 14th edn; Gattingen. Lahr, W. A. 1996. Basilides und seine Schule. WUNT, 83; Tiibingen. Lohrmann, D. 1965. Das Offenbarungsverstiindnis bei Paulus und in paulinischen Gemeinden. WMANT, 16; Neukirchen-Vluyn. Lohse, E. 1960-61. "Wort und Sakrament im Johannesevangelium:' NTS 7: 110-25. _ _1971. Colossians and Philemon. Hermeneia series; Philadelphia. _ _ 1972. Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments. Stuttgart. _ _1981. The Formation ofthe New Testament. Nashville. Loisy, A. 1922. Les livres du Nouveau Testament. Paris.

_ _1933. La naissance du christianisme. Paris.

_ _ 1935. Remarques sur la litterature epistolaire du Nouveau Testament. Paris.

_ _1936. Les origines du Nouveau Testament. Paris.

_ _1948. The Birth ofthe Christian Religion. ET, London.

_ _1950. The Origins ofthe New Testament. ET, London.

Loman, A. D. 1882. "Quaestiones Paulinae:' ThT 16: 141ff.

_ _1884a. "Di Apocalypse van Barnabas:' ThT 18: 182-218.

_ _1884b. "Een vraagteeken bij Dr van Manen's Kritiek:' ThT20: 573-81.

_ _1886. "Quaestiones Paulinae II:' ThT 20: 42ff.

Longenecker, R. N.1970. The Christology ofEarly Jewish Christianity. SBT, 17; London.

Loon, J. van. 1886. "Dr. D. Valter's hypothese ter oplossing van het Ignatiaansche

vraagstuk:' ThT 20: 569-86. _ _1888. "Laatste verschijnselen op het gebied der Ignatiaansche Kritiek:' ThT 22: 420-45. _ _1893. "De kritiek der Ignatiana in onze dagen:' ThT27: 275-316.

•

'11

:.1..1.

132

Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

Lotze. J. A. 1810. His edition of J. H. Verschuir, Opuscula. Utrecht.

Lubac, H. de. 1950. Histoire et esprit: L'Intelligence des Ecritures d'apres Origene. Paris.

Lucht, H. 1871. l1ber die beiden letzen Kapitel des Romerbriefs. Eine kritische

Untersuchung. Berlin. Lucks, H. A. 1936. "The Philosophy of Athenagoras: Its Sources and Values." Unpublished PhD dissertation, Catholic University of America. Ltidemann, H. 1899. "Kirchengeschichte bis zum Nicanum:' Theologischer Jahresbericht 18: 195ff. Ltihnemann, J. 1971. Der Kolosserbrief Komposition, Situation und Argumentation. SNT, 3; Gtitersloh. Lundstrom, S. 1943. Studien zur lateinischen Ireniius l1bersetzung. Lund. _ _1948. Neue Studien zur lateinischen Ireniius l1bersetzung. Lund. Ltitzelberger, E. C. J. 1840. Die kirchliche Tradition uber den Apostel Johannes und seine Schriften in ihrer Grundlosigkeit nachgewiesen. Leipzig. Maccoby, H. 1991. Paul and Hellenism. London. Mace, D. 1729. New Testament in Greek and English. London. Maddox, R. 1982. The Purpose ofLuke-Acts. Edinburgh. Manen, W. C. van. 1865. Van Onderzoek naar de echtheid van Paulus' tweeden brief aan de Thessalonicensen. Utrecht. _ _1880. Conjecturaal-kritiek toegepast op den tekst van de Schriften des Nieuwen Testaments, Verhandelingen rakende den natuurlijken en geopenbaarden Godsdienst, uitgegeven door Teylers. Haarlem. 1887. "Marcion's Brief van Paulus aan de Galatiers:' ThT 21: 382-404, 451-533. _ _1890. Paulus I, De Briefaan de Galaten. Leiden. _ _1891. Paulus II, De briefaan de Romeinen. Leiden. _ _1892. Review of J. Reville, Etudes sur les origines de l'episcopat. La valeur du temoignage d'Ignace d'Antioche. ThT 26: 625-33. _ _1900. Handleiding voor de oud-christelijke letterkunde. Leiden. Mangold, W. 1884. Der Romerbriefund seinegeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Marburg. Manns, F. 1977. Essais sur le Judeo-Christianisme. Jerusalem. _ _1978. Bibliographie du Judeo-Christianisme. Jerusalem. Manson, T. W. 1948. "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans - and Others:' BJRL 31: 224ff. _ _1962. Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Manchester. Marcovich, M. 1990. Athenagoras: Legatio pro Christian is. PTS, 31; Berlin and New York. _ _ 1994. Iustini Martyris: Apologiae pro Christian is. PTS, 38; Berlin. _ _1997. Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone. PTS, 47; Berlin. Markschies, C. 1992. Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis. WUNT, 65; Ttibingen. Marrou, H. I. 1953. "La Date du martyre de S. Polycarpe:' Analacta Bollandiana 71: 5-20. Martin, R. P. 1986.2 Corinthians. WBC, 40; Waco. Martineau, J. 1890. The Seat ofAuthority in Religion. London. Marxsen, W. 1964. Einleitung in das Neues Testament. Gtitersloh. _ _ 1969. Der Evangelist Markus. Nashville. _ _1969. "Auslegung von 1 Thess 4, 13-18:' ZTK 66: 22-37. Masson, C. 1950. L'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Colossiens. CNT, 10; Neuchatel. _ _1953. I:Epitre de Saint Paul aux Ephesiens. CNT, 9; Neuchatel.

133

_ _1957. Les deux epitres de Saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens. CTA, lla; Neuchatel. Maurer, C. 1949. Ignatius von Antiochien und das Johannesevangelium. Zurich. _ _1951-52. "Der Hymnus von Epheser I: als Schltissel zum ganzen Briefe:' EvTh 11: 151ff. Mayerhoff, E. T. 1838. Der Briefan die Colosser mit vornehmlicher Berucksichtigung der drei Pastoral-briefe kritisch gepruft. Berlin. McGiffert, A. C. 1897. A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. Edinburgh. Mehat, A. 1966. Etude sur les "Stromates" de Clement d'Alexandrie. Patristica Sorboniensia, 7. Paris. Merkelbach, R. 1984. Mithras. Gottingen. Merrill, E. T. 1924. Essays in Early Christian History. London.

Merx, A. 1861. Meletemata Ignatiana. Halle.

Michaelis, W. 1954. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 2nd edn; Berne. 3rd edn; 1961.

Michel, O. 1955. Der Briefan die Romer. KEK; 10th edn; Gottingen.

Michelsen, J. H. A. 1873. "Het verhaal van Paulus' vlucht uit Damaskus 2 Kor. XI:32, 33; XII:!, 7a een interpolatie:' ThT7: 421-29. _ _1876. "Paulinisme en Petrinisme in het na-apostolisch tijdvak:' ThT 10: 70-82. _ _1886. "Kritisch onderzoek naar den oudsten tekst van Paulus Brief aan de Romeinen:' ThT20: 372-86.

Migne, J. P. 1857-66. Patrologia Graeca. 162 vols; Paris.

Milburn, R. L. P. 1944-45. "The Persecution of Domitian:' CQR 139: 154-64.

Milne, H. J. M. 1924. ''A New Fragment of the Apology of Aristides:' JTS 25: 73-77.

Minns, D. 1994. Irenaeus. London.

Mitton, C. L. 1951. The Epistle to the Ephesians. Oxford.

Moffatt, J. 1911. An Introduction to the Literature ofthe New Testament. Edinburgh.

3rd edn 1918.

Molland, C. 1938. The Conception ofthe Gospel in Alexandrian Theology. Oslo.

Molland, E. 1936. "Clement ofAlexandria on the Origin ofGreek Philosophy:' Symbolae

Osloenses, 15-16: 57-85.

Mondesert, C. 1944. Clement d'Alexandrie: introduction a Letude de sa pensee religieuse

apartir de l'ecriture. Theologie, 4; Paris.

Mondesert, c., and M. Caster. 1951. Clement d'Alexandrie, Les Stromates: Stromates

I. SC, 30; Paris. Montefiore, C. G. 1927. The Synoptic Gospels. 2 vols.; London. Moreau, J. 1953. "A propos de la persecution de Domitien:' La Nouvelle Clio 5: 121-29. _ _1956. La persecution du christianisme dans l'empire romain. Mythes et religions, 32; Paris. Moule, C. F. D. 1966. "The Christology of Acts:' In L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds), Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor ofPaul Schubert: 159ff. Nashville. Mtiller-Bardorff, J. 1957-58. "Zur Frage der Iiterarischen Einheit des Philipperbriefs:' WZJena 7: 591ff. Munck, J. 1933. Untersuchungen uber Klemens von Alexandrien. Stuttgart. Munier, C. 1995. Saint Justin, Apologiepour les chretiens: edition et traduction. Fribourg. Munro, W. 1973. "Patriarchy and Charismatic Community in Paul:' In Women and Religion: Proceedings of the American Academy of Religion, Montana 1973: 141-59. _ _1983. Authority in Paul and Peter. Cambridge. Muratori, L. A. 1740. Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi. Milan.

L

III' 'I

j'i

ill

lI;

I!

1

I !

Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

Murphy-O'Connor, J. 1996. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford. _ _1968. Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis. London. Myers, J. M. 1974.1 and 2 Esdras. Anchor Bible; New York. Mylonas, G. 1961. Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton. Naber, J. C. 1927. "Observantiunculae ad papyras iuridicae:' Mnemosyne 55: 217ff. Nautin, P. 1977. Origene: sa vie et son reuvre. Christianisme antique, 1; Paris. Neander, A. 1859. Auslegung der beiden Briefe an die Korinther. Berlin. Neill, S. 1988. Revised by N. T. Wright. The Interpretation of the New Testament. Oxford and New York. Nemeshegyi, P. 1960. Paternite de Dieu chez Origene. Bibliotheque de Theologie, 4th ser. 2; Paris. Nepper-Christensen, P. 1958. Das Matthiius-evangelium, ein judenchristliches Evangelium. ATD, 1; Aarhus. Nineham, D. 1956. "The Case against Pauline Authorship:' In F. L. Cross (ed.), Studies in Ephesians: 21-35. London. Noack, L. 1857. Der Ursprung des Christenthums. Berlin. Nock, A. D. 1964. Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background. New York. Norden, E. 1915. Die antike Kunstprosa. 2 vols.; 3rd edn; Leipzig and Berlin. Norelli, E. 1995. Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius. CCSA, 7; Turnhout. Ochel, W. 1934. Die Annahme einer Bearbeitung des Kolosserbriefes: eine Analyse des Epheser-brief untersucht. Marburg. O'Neill, J. C. 1970. The Theology ofActs in its Historical Setting. 2nd edn; London. _ _1972. The Recovery ofPaul's Letter to the Galatians. London. _1975. Paul's Letter to the Romans. Harmondsworth. Orbe, A. 1955-66. Estudios Valentinianos. Analecta Gregoriana, 65, 99, 100, 113 and 158. _ _1969. Antropologia de San Ireneo. Madrid. _ _1969-88. Teologia de San Ireneo: Comentario al Libro V del "Adversus haereses." 3 vols.; Madrid. _ _1972. Parabolas evangelicas en san Ireneo. 2 vols.; Madrid. Orchard B., and T. R. W. Langstaff. 1978. f.f. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-critical Studies. Cambridge. Osborn, E. F. 1957. The Philosophy ofClement ofAlexandria. Text and Studies, NS 3; Cambridge. _ _1973. Justin Martyr. BHT, 47; Tiibingen. Osiander, L. 1607. Epitomes Historiae Ecclesiasticae Centuria 1. Tiibingen. Otto, J. C. T. 1842-43. Justin. 2 vols., Jena. 3rd edn; 5 vols.; 1876-81. Oudin, C. 1722. Commentarius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiae Antiquis. 3 vols.; Frankfurt. Overbeck, F. 1874. Review ofT. Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien; Literarisches Zentralblatt fur Deutschland. Gotha, 1873. _ _1965 [1880]. Zur Geschichte des Kanons. Reprinted Darmstadt. Owen, J. 1895. "Introduction:' In A. von Harnack, Sources ofthe Apostolic Canons. ET, London. Pallis, A. 1920. A Commentary on Romans. Liverpool. Parker, R. 1616. De Politeia Ecclesiastica Libri Tres. Frankfurt. Paulsen, H. 1977. "Die kerygma Petri und die urchristliche Apologetik:' ZKG 88: 1-37. Peake, A. S. 1909. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. London. Pearson, B. A.1971. "I Thess. 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation:' HTR 64: 88f.

Perdelwitz, R. 1911. Die Mysterienreligion und das problem des 1.Petrusbriefs. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, XI.3; Giessen. Perler, O. 1949. "Das vierte Makkaberbuch, Ignatius von Antiochien und die alteste Martyreberichte:' Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 25: 43-72. _ _1966. Melito. Sur las Pasque et Fragments. SC, 123; Paris. Pernveden, L. 1966. The Concept of the Church in the Shepherd of Hermas. Studia Theologica Lundiensa, 27; Lund. Perrin, N., and D. C. Duling. 1982. The New Testament: An Introduction. New York. Pesce, M., (ed.). 1983. Isaia, il Diletto e la Chiesa. Brescia. Peterson, E. 1947. "Beitrage zur Interpretation der Visionen im Pastor Hermae:' OCP 13: 625-35. _ _1951. "Dber einige Probleme der Didache-iiberlieferung:' Riv. A.C. 27: 37-60. _ _1959. Fruhkirche, Judentum und Gnosis. Rome. Petrement, S. 1984. Le Dieu separe: Les origines du gnosticisme. Paris. _ _1991. A Separate God: The Christian Origins ofGnosticism. ET, London. Pfleiderer, O. 1877. Paulinism: A contibution to the History ofPrimitive Christianity. London and Edinburgh. _ _ 1890 [1873]. Der Paulinismus: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der urchristlichen Theologie. Leipzig. _ _1902 [1887]. Das Urchristenthum, Seine Schriften und Lehren. 2nd edn; Berlin. _ _1906. Die Entstehung des Christentums. Munich. Pieper, K. 1938. Die Kirche Paliistinas bis zum Jahre 135. Koln. Pierson, A., and S. A. Naber. 1886. Verisimilia. Laceram Conditionem Novi Testamentis exemplis. Amsterdam. Pines, S. 1965. The Jewish Christians ofthe Early Centuries ofChristianity According to a New Source. Jerusalem. Pitra, J. B. 1852-58. "Sancti Aristidae Philosophi" and "Sanctus Aristides:' Analecta Sacra 4: IV, 6-10, 282-86. Planck, K. 1847. "Judenthum und Christenthum. 4. Das zweite jahrhundert:' Theologischer Jahrbucher 6: 448-506. Plassart, M. A., and C. Mondesert. 1949. Le Protreptique. 2nd edn; Paris. Pokorny, P. 1965. Der Epheserbrief und die Gnosis. Berlin. Porter, C. L. 1966-67. "John ix.38,39a: A Liturgical Addition to the Text:' NTS 13: 387-94. Possinus, P. S. J. 1673. Catena graecorum patrum in evangelium secundum Marcum. Rome. Pouderon, B. 1989. Athenagore d'Athenes: Philosophie Chretien. Theologie historique, 82; Paris. _ _1992. Athenagoras. SC, 379; Paris. Preuschen, E. 1922. Das Altertum. Tiibingen. Prigent, P. 1961. L'Epitre de Barnabe. SC, 172; Paris. _ _1964. Justin et l'Ancien Testament: l'argumentation scripturaire du Traite de Justin contre toutes les heresies comme source principale du Dialogue avec Tryphon et de la premiere Apologie. Etudes Bibliques; Paris. Prins, J. J. 1872. "De brief aan de Galatians in de Edit. N. T. VIII van Tischendorf' ThT 6: 615-27. Pritz, R. A. 1988. Nazarene Jewish Christianity. Jerusalem and Leiden. Quasten, J. 1950. Patrology. Utrecht.

134

135

Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

Quatember, F. 1946. Die christliche Lebenshaltung des Klemens von Alexandrien nach seinen Piidagogus. Vienna. Quispel, G. 1947. "The Original Doctrine of Valentine:' VC 1: 43-73. _ _ 1951. Gnosis als Weltreligion. Zurich. _ _1957. "The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament:' VC 11: 189-207. _ _1967. Makarius, der Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle. Supplements to Novum Testarnentum, 15; Leiden. _ _ 1975. Gnostic Studies. 2 vols.; Istanbul. Rahtjen, B. D. 1959-60. "The Three Letters of Paul to the Philippians:' NTS 6: 167-73. Raisanen, H. 1983. Paul and the Law. Tilbingen. Ramsay, W. M. 1983. The Church in the Roman Empire. London. ____ 1932. "The Date of St. Polycarp's Martyrdom:' Jahrbuch des osterreiches archiiologischen Instituts in Wien 27: 245-58. Rauch, C. 1895. "Zum zweiten Thessalonischerbrief:' ZWT 38: 451-65. Reagan, J. N. 1923. The Preaching of Peter: The Beginning of Christian Apologetic. Chicago. Reiche, J. G. 1853. Commentarius Criticus in Novum Testamentum, 1. Gottingen. Reiling, J. 1973. Hermas and Christian Prophecy: A Study of the Eleventh Mandate. NovTSup, 37; Leiden. Reitzenstein, R. 1921. Das iranische Erlosungsmysterium. Bonn. _ _ 1978. Hellenistic Mystery-Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance. ET, Pittsburgh. Renan, E. 1866-83. Histoire des origines du christianisme. 8 vols.; Paris. _ _ 1879. L'Eglise chretienne. Paris. Reumann, J. 1991. Variety and Unity in New Testament Thought. Oxford. Reunung, Z. 1917. "Zur Erklarung des Polykarpsmartyriums:' Dissertation, Darmstadt. Reuss, E. 1884. History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. ET of 5th German edn; Edinburgh. Reville, J. 1880. De anno dieque quibus Polycarpus Smyrnae martyrium tulit. Geneva. _ _1881. "Etude critique sur la date du martyre de S. Polycarpe:' Revue de l'Histoire des Religions 3: 369-81. Reville, M. 1854. "Jean Ie prophete et Jean l'evangeliste: la crise de la foi chez un ap6tre:' Revue de Theologie 9: 32 ff. Richardson, P., and M. B. Schukster. 1983. "Barnabas, Nerva, and the Yavnean Rabbis:' JTS ns 34: 31-55. Richter, G. 1969. "Zur Formgeschichte und literarischen Einheit von Joh. 6, 31-58:' ZNTW60: 21-55. _ _ 1970. "Blut und Wasser aus der durchgebohrten Seite Jesu: (John 19.34b):' MTZ 21: 1-21. Riddle, D. W., and H. H. Hutson. 1946. New Testament Life and Literature. Chicago. Riesenfeld, H. 1961. "Reflections on the Style and Theology of St. Ignatius of Antioch:' In F. L. Cross (ed.), Studia Patristica. Papers Presented to the Third International Conference on Patristic Studies: IV, part 11,312-22. Berlin. Rissi, M. 1969. Studien zur zweiter Korintherbrief' Der alte Bund - der Prediger - der Tod. ATANT, 56; Zurich. Rist, J. M. 1942. "Pseudepigraphic Refutations of Marcionism:' JR 22: 39-62. Ritschl, A. 1847. In Hallesche Allgemeine Litteratur-Zeitung: 1.1000.

Rius-Camps, J. 1970. El Dinamismo Trinitario en la Divinizaci6n de los seres racionales segun Origenes. Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 188; Rome. _ _ 1979. The Four Authentic Letters of Ignatius, the Martyr. Christianismos 2; Rome. Roberts, C. H. 1935. An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library. Manchester. Robinson, J. A. 1920. Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache. Donnellan Lectures for 1920; London. Robinson, J. A. T. 1976. Redating the New Testament. London. Robinson, J. M., (ed.). 1988. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd edn; Leiden. Ronchey, S. 1990. Indagine sul Martirio di San Policarpo: critica storica e fortuna agriografica di uncaso giudizario in Asia Minore. Rome. Rordorff, W., and A. Tuilier. 1978. Didache. SC, 248; Paris. Rossler, C. F. 1776-86. Bibliothek der Kirchenviiter in Ubersetzungen und Auszugen. 10 vols.; Leipzig. Rousseau, A., and L. Doutreleau. 1965-82. Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses. SC, 10; Paris. Routh, M. J. 1846-48. Reliquiae Sacrae. 2nd edn; 2 vols.; Oxford. Rovers, M. A. N. 1860. Disquisitio de Paulo religionis Christianae apologeta. Utrecht. _ _ 1870. "Is Cor. x 11.2 geinterpolear?" ThT 4: 606ff. _ _1874. Schets van de geschiedenis der nieuw-testamentische letterkunde. Bosch. Rudolph, K. 1977. Die Gnosis: Wesen und Geschichte einer spiitantiken Religion. Leipzig. _ _1983. Gnosis. ET, Edinburgh. Ruef, J. 1971. Paul's First letter to Corinth. London. Rumpf, M. 1867. "Examen des pretendes decouvertes de M.Tischendorf': Revue de Theologie, ser.iii, 5: 1-34 Ryder, W. H. 1898. "The Authorship of Romans XV-XV!:' JBL 17: 184-98. Sabatier, A. 1910. The Religions ofAuthority and the Religion ofthe Spirit. London. Sagnard, F.-M.-M. 1947. La Gnose valentinienne et le temoignage de Saint Irenee. Paris. Sahlin, H. 1953. "Einige Textemendation zum Rom:' TZ 9: 92-100. Sanday, W., and C. H. Turner. 1923. Novum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei. Oxford. Sande Bakhuyzen, W. H. 1880. Over de Toepassing van de Conjecturaal-Kritiek op den tekst des Nieuwen Testaments. Haarlem. Sanders, E. P. 1966. "Literary Dependence in Colossians:' JBL 95: 28-45. _ _1977. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London. _ _ 1983. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. London. _ _1991. Paul. Oxford. Sanders, E. P., and M. Davies. 1989. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. London and Philadelphia. Santos Otero, A. de. 1988. Los Evangelios Ap6crifos. 6th edn; Madrid. Saumaise, C. (as Walo Messalinus). 1641. De Episcopis et Presbyteris contra D.Petavium Loiolitam Dissertatio Prima. Leiden. Saumaise, C., (as Salamasius). 1645. Librorum de Primatu Papae pars Prima cum Apparatu. Leiden. Schaff, P.1885. The Oldest Church Manual Called the Teaching ofthe TwelveApostles. The Didache and Kindred Documents in the Original, with Translation. New York. Schelkle, K. H. 1963. Das Neue Testament. Seine literarische und theologische Geschichte. Kevelaer.

136

l1li&....­

137

Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

Schenk, W. 1983. //Christus das Geheimnis der Welt als dogmatisches und ethisches Grundprinzip des Kolosserbriefes:' EvTh 43: 138-55. Schenke, H.-M. 1967. //Aporien im Rom:' TLZ 92: 881ff. _ _1973. //Erwagungen zum Ratsel des Hebraerbriefes:' In H. D. Betz and L. Schotroff (eds), Neues Testament und Existenz. Festschrift fur Hebert Braun: 421-37. Ttibingen. Schenke, H.- M., and K. M. Fischer. 1978-79. Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Gtitersloh. Schenkel, D., (ed.). 1869-75. Bibel-Lexikon. Realworterbuch zum Handgebrauchfur Geistliche und Gemeindeglieder. 3 vols.; Leipzig. Schim van der Loeff, H. P. 1906. Onderzoek naar de Herkomst en de Strekking der Zeven Brieven van Ignatius in de korte Recensie. Leiden. Schlager, A. 1896. uDie Abhandigkeit des Matthausevangeliums von Lukasevangelium:' Theologische Studien und Kritiken 69: 83-93. Schlatter, A. 1966. Synagoge und Kirche bis zum Barkochba Aufstand. Stuttgart. Schlecht, ]. 1900. Doctrina XII Apostolorum: una cum antiqua versione latina prioris de duabus viis. Freiburg. _ _1901. Doctrina XII Apostolorum. Die Apostellehre in der Liturgie der katholischen Kirche. Freiburg. Schlier, H. 1930. Christus und die I(irche im Epheserbriej Ttibingen. _ _ 1977. Der Romerbrief. Freiburg.

Schmid, W. 1941. uDie Texttiberlieferung der Apologie des ]ustins:' ZNTW 40: 87-138.

Schmidt, C. 1919. Gespriiche fesu mit seinern /ungern nach der Auferstehung. TU, 43; Berlin. _ _1925. //Das koptische Didache- Fragment des British Museum:' ZNTW24: 81-99. Schmidt, D. 1983. u1 Thess 2:13-16: Linguistic Evidence for Interpolation:' fBL 102: 269-79. Schmidt,]. E. C. 1795. uVersuch tiber die gedoppelte Recension der Briefe des Ignatius:' In H. P. K. Henke (ed.), Magazin fur Religions-philosophie, Exegese und Kirchengeschichte: iii pt, 1,91-109. _ _1801. uVermuthungen tiber die beiden Briefe an die Thessalonicher:' In ]. E. C. Schmidt, Bibliothek fur Kritik und Exegese des Neuen Testaments und iilteste Christengeschichte: 380-86. Bd 2, Fasc. 3; Hadamar. _ _1804. Uber den sogennanten Ersten Briefdes Paulus an Timotheus. Giessen. _ _ 1824. Handbuch der christlichen Kirchengeschichte. Giessen. Schmidt, P. W. 1885. Der 1. Thessalonischerbrief neu ekliirt, nebst Exkurs uber den 2. gleichnamigen Brie] Berlin. Schmidtke, A. 1936. //Zum Hebraerevangelium:' ZNTW35: 24-44. Schmiedel, P. W. 1891. Die Briefe an die Thessalonischer und an die Korinther. HCNT, 2.1; Freiburg. _ _1902. uMinistry:' In Encyclopaedia Biblica: III, 3147-48. London. Schmithals, W. 1957. //Die Irrlehrer des Philipperbriefs:' ZTI( 54: 297ff. _ _1958. uZwei gnostische Glossen im Zweiten Korintherbriet':' EvTh 18: 552ff. _ _ 1965. Paul und die Gnostiker. Untersuchungen zu den kleinen Paulusbriefen. ThF, 35. Marburg. _ _ 1969. Die Gnosis in Corinth: Eine Untersuchung zu dem I(orintherbriefen. FRLANT, 48; Gottingen. _ _ 1972. Paul and the Gnostics. ET, Nashville.

_ _1973. uDie Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung:' ZNTW 64 3/4: 263-88. _ _ 1975. Der Romerbriefals historisches Problem. SNT, 9; Gtitersloh. Schnackenburg, R. 1969. uDie aufnahme des Christushymnus durch den Verfasser des Kolosserbrief:' EKK Vorarbeiten I: 33-50. Schoedel, W. R. 1967. The Apostolic Fathers. V. The Martyrdom ofPolycarp, Fragments ofPapias. Garden City, NY. _ _1972. Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione. Oxford. _ _1985. Ignatius ofAntioch: A Commentary on the Letters ofIgnatius ofAntioch. Philadelphia. Schoeps, H. ]. 1949. Theologie und Geschichte des /udenchristentums. Tiibingen.

_ _1961. Paul. ET, London.

_ _1969./ewish Christianity. Philadelphia.

Schollgens, G. 1986. uDie Didache als Kirchenordnung:' /ahrbuch fur Antike und

Christentum 29: 5-26. Scholten, ]. H. 1864. Het Evangelie naar Johannes. Leiden. _ _ 1866. De oudste getuigenissen aangaande de schriften des Nieuwen Testaments historisch onderzocht. Leiden. _ _1867. Die iiltesten Zeugnisse betreffend die schriften des Neuen Testaments. Bremen. _ _1873. Is de derde evangelist de schrijver van het boek der Handelingen? Critisch Onderzoek. Leiden. _ _1876. uRom. xv en xvi:' ThT 10: 1-33. Schonfield, H.]. 1939. The History of/ewish Christianity. London. Schott, H. A. 1825. Comment. de origine et indole capitis ultimi evangelii /ohannis. ]ena. Schrader, K. 1835. Der Apostel Paulus. Lepizig. Schubert, P. 1939. The Form and Function ofthe Pauline Thanksgiving. BZNTW, 20. Berlin. Schultess, ]. 1833. Symbolae ad internam criticem librorum canonicorum. 2 vols.; Zurich. Schultz, H. 1876. uDie Adresse der letzen Kapitel des Briefes an die Romer:' /ahrbuch fur deutsche Theologie: 104-30. Schumacher, R. 1929. Die beiden letzen Kapitel des Romerbriefes. MUnster. Schwartz, E. 1905 [1905a]. De Pionio et Polycarpo. Gottingen. _ _1905 [1905b]. Christliche undjudische Ostertafeln. Abhandlungen der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Berlin. Schwartz,]. 1972. UNote sur Ie Martyre de Polycarpe de Smyrne:' RHPR 52: 331-35. Schwegler, A. 1841. Der Montanismus und die christliche Kirche des zweiten /ahrhunderts. Tiibingen. _ _1846. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter. 2 vols.; Ttibingen. Schweizer, E. 1956. uZ ur Frage der Echtheit des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes:' ZNTW 47: 287. _ _ 1959. Gemeinde und Gemeindeordnung im Neuen Testament. ATANT, 35; Zurich. _ _1961. Church Order in the New Testament. SBT, 32; London. _ _ 1969. Neues Testament und heutige Verkundigung. Biblische Studien, 56; Neukirchen-Vluyn.

138

139

I

-

140

Redrawing the Boundaries

Scorza- Barcellona. F. 1975. Epistola di Barnaba: introduzione, testa critico, traduzione. commento, glossario e indico. Corona Patrum. 1; Turin. Scott. R. 1909. The Pauline Epistles. Edinburgh. Scroggs, R. 1972. "Paul and the Eschatological Woman:' JAAR 40: 291ft'. Semler. J. S. 1767. Historiae Ecclesiasticae Selecta Capita. 3 vols.; Halle. _ _ 1776. Paraphrasis II: Epistolae ad Corinthos. Halle. _ _ 1784. Paraphrasis in Epistolam II. Petri et epistolam Judae. Halle. Seyerlen. R. 1874. En tstehung und erste Schicksale der Christengemeinde in Romerbriej Tiibingen. Shotwell, W. A. 1965. The Biblical Exegesis ofJustin Martyr. London. Simon. M. 1964. Verus Israel; etude sur les relations entre Chretiens et Juifs dans ['Empire romain. Paris. Simonetti. M. 1956. ''Akune osservazioni suI martirio di S. Policarpo:' Giornale Italiano di Filologia 9: 328-44. Simons, E. 1880. Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthiius beni.i.tzt? Bonn. Sinker. R. 1869. Testamenta XII Patriarchum. Cambridge. Skarsaune, 0.1987. The Prooffrom Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr's Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. NovTSup. 56; Leiden. Slichtingius. J. 1656. "Commentaria Posthuma in plerosque Novi Testamenti Libros:' In Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum: VI. I. lb. Amsterdam. Smallwood, E. M. 1956. "Domitian's Attitude towards the Jews and Judaism:' CP 51: 1-13. Smid. H. R. 1965. Protevangelium Jacobi: A Commentary. ET. Apocrypha Novi Testamenti. 1; Assen. Smith. J. C. 1992. The Ancient Wisdom ofOrigen. Lewisburg and London. Smith. J. Z. 1990. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison ofEarly Christianities and the Religions ofLate Antiquity. London. Smith. W. B. 1901. "Unto Romans XV and XVI:' JBL 20: 129-57. Soden. H. von. 1885 [1885a]. "Der erste Thessalonischerbrief:' ThStKr 58: 263-310. _ _ 1885 [1885b]. "Der Kolosserbrief:' JPTh 11: 320-68. _ _1887. "Der Epheserbrief:' JPTh 13: 432-98. _ _ 1891. Die Briefean die Kolosser, Epheser, Philemon. Die Pastoralbriefe. Die Briefe des Petrus. Jakobus, Judas. Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament, 3; Freiburg. Sordi. M. 1961. "I 'nuovo decreti' di Marco Aurelio contro i Cristiani:' Studi Romani 9: 365-78. Soror. M. 1890. Die Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte. Berlin. Spanheim, F. 1689. Summa Historiae Ecclesiasticae. Leiden. Sparks. H. F. D. 1952. The Formation of the New Testament. London. Sparks. H. F. D.• (ed.). 1984. The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford. Spicq. C. 1947. ''L'authenticat du chap. 13 de I'Epitre aux Hebreux:' In Coniecteanea Neotestamentica 11: 226ff. Uppsala. Spitta. F. 1889. Der Offenbarung des Johannes. Halle. _ _1893. Zur Geschichte und Litterartur des Urchristentums. Gottingen. Stiihlin. O. 1909-. Clemens Alexandrinus. GCS. 3; Berlin. Stap. A. 1866. Etudes historiques et critiques sur les origines du Christianisme. 2nd edn; Paris and Brussels. Ste. Croix, G. E. M. de. 1963. "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted'?" Past and Present 26: 6-38.

Bibliography

141

Stead, G. C. 1969. "The Valentinian Myth of Sophia:' JTS ns 20: 75-104. Steck. R. 1883. "Das Herrnwort 1 Thess, 4, 15:' In JPTh 9: 509-24. _ _1888. Der Galiiterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht. Berlin. Steenmeyer, J. 1859. Lets over Ignatius en zijne brieven. Arnhem. Stein, R. H. 1988. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press. Stendahl, K. 1954. The School of Saint Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament. ASNU, 20; Copenhagen. Stern, S. M. 1967. "Quotations from Apocryphal Gospels in Abd al-Jabbar:' JTS 18: 34-57. _ _1968. ''Abd al-Jabbar's Account of How Christ's Religion was Falsified by the Adoption of Roman Customs:' JTS 19: 128-85. Stieren, A. 1848-53. Adversus Haereses. Leipzig. Stowers, S. K. 1986. Letter- Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. LEC, 5; Philadelphia. Straatman, J. W. 1863-65. Kritische Studien over den len Brief van Paulus aan de Korinthiers. Groningen. Strauss, D. F. 1864. Das Leben Jesu fi.i.r das deutsche Volk bearbeitet. Leipzig. _ _1865. A New Life ofJesus. London. Strecker, G. 1962. Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthiius. FRLANT, 82; Gottingen. _ _1971. "On the Problem ofJewish Christianity:' Appendix I to W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity: 241-95. London. Sturdy, J. V. M. 1979. "Review of J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London, 1976):' JTS 30 (1979): 255-62. Strycker, E. de. 1961. La Forme la plus ancienne du Protevangile de Jacques. Subsidia Hagiographica, 33; Brussels. Styler, G. M. 1981. "The Priority of Mark"; Excursus IV in C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament: 285-316. 3rd edn; London. Sundberg, A. C. 1973. "Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List:' HTR 66: 1-41. Sweet, J. P. M. 1979. Revelation. London. Syme, R. 1988. Roman Papers, V. Oxford. Talbert, C. H. 1966. "A Non-Pauline Fragment at Romans 3.24-26?" JBL 85: 287-96.

Taylor, V. 1920. The Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth. Oxford.

Teichmann, E. 1896. Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht.

Freiburg. Telfer, W. 1952. "The Date of the Martyrdom of Polycarp:' JTS ns 3: 79-83. _ _1960. "Was Hegesippus a Jew?" HTR 53: 143-53. Testa, E. 1962. Il Simbolismo dei Giudeo-Cristiani. Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Testuz, M. 1959. Papyrus Bodmer X-XII: Correspondance apocryphe des Corinthiens et de l'apotre Paul, Onzieme Ode de Salomon, Fragment d'un hymne liturgique; manuscrit di lIe siecle. Geneva. _ _1960. Melito. Papyrus Bodmer, 13; Geneva. Theissen, G. 1969. Untersuchungen zum Hebriierbriej SNT, 2; Giitersloh. Thiel, R. 1938. Drei Markus-Evangelien. Arbeiten zur Kirchen-geschichte. 26; Berlin. Thijm. 1890. ThStKr. [Editor unable to verify this reference.] Thompson, 1. 1. 1990. The Book ofRevelation: Apocalypse and Empire. London and New York, 1990.

11111,

,I ,

il'l I

{II

I

l'l,il ~

I ~I Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

Tischendorf, L. F. K. 1876 [1856]. Evangelia Apocrypha. Leipzig. Titus, E. L. 1959. "Did Paul Write 1 Cor. 13"?" JBR 27: 299-302. Toland, j. 1699. Amyntor or a Defence ofMilton's Life. London. Tollinton, R. B. 1914. Clement ofAlexandria: A Study in Christian Liberalism. 2 vols.; London. Torjesen, K. j. 1986. Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen's Exegesis. Patristische Texte und Studien, 28; Berlin. Torrey, C. C. 1911. "The Authorship and Character ofthe Epistle to the Hebrews:' JBL 30: 137-56. Tregelles, S. P. 1867. Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Canon ofthe Books ofthe New Testament. Oxford. Tremblay, R. 1978. La Manifestation et la Vision de Dieu selon Saint Irenee. MBT, 41; Munster. Trigg, j. W. 1985. Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-century Church. London. Trilling, W. 1969. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. 2 vols.; London. Troger, K.-W., (ed.). 1973. Gnosis und Neues Testament: Studien aus Religionswissenschaft und Theologie. Gutersloh. Trompf, G. W. 1980. "On Attitudes to Women in Paul and Paulist Literature: 1 Corinthians 11.3-16 and its Context:' CBQ 42: 196-215. Tuckett, C. M. 1983. The Revival ofthe Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal. Cambridge. _ _ 1996. Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q. Edinburgh. Turmel, j. 1905. "Lettre et Martyre de S. Polycarpe:' Annales de Philosophie Chretienne 149. 1926-28. Les ecrits de St. Paul. 4 vots.; Paris. Turner, C. H. 1890. The Day and Year ofSt Polycarp's Martyrdom: II, iii, 105-55. Studia Biblica et Ecclesiana; Oxford. Ulter, D. 1889. "Ein votum zur Frage nach der Echtheit, lntegritt und Composition der vier Paulinischen Hauptbriefen:' ThT23: 265-325. Unnik, W. C. van. 1961. "Die Gotteslehre bei Aristides und in gnostischen Schriften:' Theologische Zeitschrift 17: 166-74. Ussher, j. 1644. Polycarpi et Ignatii epistolae. Oxford. Usteri, L. 1826. Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffes mit Hinsicht auf die ubrigen Schriften des Neuen Testament. Berlin. Vaucher, P. 1856. Recherches critiques sur les lettres d'Ignace d'Antioche. Geneva. Vielhauer, P. 1975. Geschichte der Urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Vater. Berlin and New York. Vies, A. B. van der. 1865. De beide Brieven aan de Thessalonicensen. Leiden. Vogel, E. F. 1801-1804. Der Evangelist johannes und seine Ausleger von dem jungsten Gericht. 2 vols; Hof. Vogt, H. j. 1974. Das Kirchenverstandnis des Origenes. Bonner Beitrage zur Kirchengeschichte, 4; Cologne and Vienna. Vokes, F. E. 1938. The Riddle of the Didache. London. Volker, W. 1931. Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes. TLibingen. _ _ 1932. Quellen zur Geschichte der christlichen Gnosis. Tubingen. 1952. Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens Alexandrinus. TU, 57; Berlin.

Volkmar, G. 1856. "Uber Clemens von Rom und die nachste Folgezeit:' Theologischer jahrbucher 15: 287-369.

_ _1857 [1857a]. Uber die romische Kirche: ihre Ursprung und erste Conflict. Zurich.

_ _1857) [1857b]. Die Religion jesu und ihre erste Entwickelung nach dem

gegenwartigen Stande der Wissenschaft. Leipzig.

_ _1860. Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen. 2 vols.; Tubingen.

_ _1866. Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien nach den Urkunden. Zurich.

_ _1867. Mose Prophetie und Himmelfahrt. Leipzig.

_ _1870. Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis...mit... Commentar. Leipzig.

_ _1875. Die neutestamentlichen Briefe geschichtlich im Zusammenhang erklart. 1.

Paulus'Romerbrief. Der alteste Text deutsch und in Zammenhang eklart. Zurich.

_ _1876. Ubersicht und Register zu den kanonischen Synoptikern. Zurich.

_ _1886. "Neueres uber den Polycarpus- Brief und die Ignatiusfrage:' Theologische

Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz 3: 99-111.

Volter, D. 1889. "Ein votum zur Frage nach der Echtheit, Integritt und Composition

der vier paulinischen Hauptbriefen:' ThT23: 265-325.

_ _1890. Die Composition der paulinischen Hauptbriefe. 1. Der Romer- und

Galaterbriej Leipzig.

_ _1905. Paulus und seine Briefe. Strasbourg.

_ _1910. Polykarp und Ignatius und die ihnen zugeschriebenen Briefe neu untersucht

Leiden.

Voobus, A. 1968. Liturgical Traditions in the Didache. Stockholm.

Voss, 1. 1646. Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii martyris. Amsterdam.

Vossius, G. j. 1695-1701. Opera. Amsterdam.

Wace, H., and W. C. Piercy. 1911. Dictionary ofChristian Biography. London.

Waddington, W. H. 1867. Memoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rheteur Aelius

Aristide. Memoires de I'Institut Imperial de France, Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, XXVI; Paris. Waitz, H. 1937. "Neue Untersuchungen uber die sogen. judenchristlichen Evangelien:' ZNTW 36: 60-81. Walker, W. O. 1983. "The 'Theology of Woman's Place' and the 'Paulinist' Tradition:' Semeia 28: 1-12. _ _1987. "The Burden of Proof in Identifying Interpolations in the Pauline Letters:' NTS 33: 610-18. _ _1988. "Text-critical Evidence for Interpolations in the Letters of Paul:' CBQ 50: 628f. _ _1989. "The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.2-16:' jSNT 35: 75-88. Warner, D. 1951. "Galatians ii.3-9: As an Interpolation:' ET 62: 380. Wassenbergh, E. 1815-17. Selecta e scholis. Amsterdam. Waszink, ]. H. 1964. "Bemerkungen zu ]ustins Lehre vom Logos Spermatikos:' In Mullus: Festschrift Theodore Klauser: 380-90. ]ahrbuch fUr Antike und Christentum, Erganzungsband 1; Munster. Weijenborg, R. 1969. Les lettres d'Ignace d'Antioche. Leiden.

Weinel, H. 1928. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tubingen. Weingarten, H. 1875. In R. Rothe, Vorlesungen uber Kirchengeschichte. Heidelberg. _ _1881. "Die Umwandlung der ursprunglichen christlichen Gemeindeorganisation

zur katholischen Kirche:' Historiche Zeitschrijt 45: 441-67. Weiss,]. 1872. Das Marcusevangelium. Gottingen.

142

I

143

'i

:1/

f ,

!I'll I

I

I, ~I

144

Redrawing the Boundaries

Bibliography

_ _ 1903.Das iilteste Evangelium. Gottingen. _ _1910. Der erste Korintherbriej Gottingen. _ _ 1917. Das Urchristentum. Gottingen. Weisse, C. H. 1838. Die evangelische Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch beiarbeitet. 2 vols.; Leipzig. _ _1855. Philosophische Dogmatik, oder Philosophie des Christentums. 3 vols.; Leipzig. _ _ 1867. Beitriige zur Kritik der paulinischen Briefe an die Galater, Romer, Philipper und Korinther. Leipzig. Weizsacker, K. von. 1864. Untersuchungen iiber die evangelische Geschichte: ihrer Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung. Besser. _ _ 1866. Die Apostolische Zeitalter. Freiburg. Welborn, L. L. 1984. "On the Date of First Clement:' Biblical Research 29: 35-54. Wellhausen, J. 1904. Das Evangelium Lucae. Berlin. Wellhausen, J. 1909. Das Evangelium Marci. 2nd edn; Berlin. Wendland, P. 1912. Die hellenistiche-romische Kultur. Die urchristlichen Literaturformen. Tiibingen. Wendling, E. 1908. Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliens. Tiibingen. Wengst, K. 1971. Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbriej Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 42; Berlin. Werner, M. 1923. Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markus. Bh. ZNTW 1: Giessen. Wessely, C. 1908. "Les plus anciens monuments du christianisme ecrits sur papyrus:' PO 4: 195-99. 1924. "Textes divers de la litterature chretienne:' PO 18: 468-81. Westberg, F. 1910. Die biblische Chronologie nach Flavius Josephus und das Todesjahr Jesu. Leipzig. Westcott, B. F. 1855. A General Survey ofthe History ofthe Canon ofthe New Testament. 1st edn; Appendix C on Canon Muratori; Cambridge. Wette, W. M. L. de. 1826. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testaments. Berlin. _ _1838-48. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Leipzig. White, J. L. 1972. The Form and Function ofthe Body ofthe Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle. SBL Diss. series, 2; Missoula. Whittaker, M. 1956. Die apostolischen Vater. 1. Der Hirt des Hermas. 2nd edn; Berlin. Whittaker, T. 1904. The Origins ofChristianity, with an Outline ofvan Manen's Analysis of the Pauline Literature. London. Widmann, M. 1979. "1 Kor. 2:6-16. Ein Einspruch gegen Paulus:' ZNTW70: 44-53. Wieseler, K. 1878. Die Christenverfolgungen der Ciiesaren. Giitersloh. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1969. Kleine Schriften. Berlin. Williams, A. L. 1930. The Dialogue with Trypho. TCL, 1; London. Williams, C. R. 1911. "A Word Study of Hebrews 13:' JBL 30: 129-36. Wilson, R. Mc.L. 1958. The Gnostic Problem: A Study ofthe Relation between Hellenistic Judaism and the Gnostic Heresy. London. 1968. Gnosis and the New Testament. Oxford. _ _ 1960. Studies in the Gospel of Thomas. London. Wilson, W. G. 1948. "An Examination of the Linguistic Evidence Adduced against the Unity of Authorship of the First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel:' JTS 49: 147-56.

Winden, J. C. M. van. 1971. An Early Christian Philosopher: Justin Martyr's Dialogue

with Trypho, Chapters 1 to 9. Introduction, (Greek) text, and commentary.

Philosophia Patrum, 1; Leiden.

Windisch, H. 1920. Der Barnabasbriej Hb NT, Erganzungsband, 3; Tiibingen. Wingren, G. 1947. Miinniskan och Inkarnationen enligt Irenaeus. Lund. _ _1959. Man and the Incarnation. ET, Lund. Witt, R. 1971. Isis in the Graeco-Roman World. London. Wittichen, K. 1876. Das Leben Jesu in urkiindlicher Darstellung. Eine kritische Bearbeitung der Evangelien nach Marcus, Matthiius und Lucas, mit Einleitung und Erliiuterungen. Jena. Wrede, W. 1903. Die Echtheit des 2. Thessalonischerbriefs untersucht. TU, 24; Leipzig. _ _1907. Die Entstehung der Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Tiibingen. Wyrwa, D. 1983. Die christliche Platonaneignung in den Stromateis des Clemens von Alexandrien. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 153; Berlin. Yamauchi, E. 1983. Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey ofthe Proposed Evidence. 2nd edn; Grand Rapids. Yates, R. 1993. Epistle to the Colossians. Epworth Commentaries: London. Zahn, T. 1873. Ignatius von Antiochen. Gotha. _ _1876. Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulae Martyria Fragmenta. Leipzig. _ _1881-92. Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 10 parts; Erlangen. _ _1888-92. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 2 vols.; Erlangen. _ _1897-99. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig; 2nd edn 1900; 3rd edn 1906-1907. Zelinger, F. 1993. Die Echtheit von 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1:' JBL 112: 71-80. Zeller, E. 1845. "Die ausseren Zeugnisse iiber das Dasein und den Ursprung des vierten Evangeliums:' T/: 579-656. _ _1854. Die Apostelgeschichte. Stuttgart. _ _1875. Contents and Origins ofActs. London and Edinburgh. _ _1876. "Zur Petrusfrage:' ZWT 19: 31-56. Ziegler, W. C. L. 1798. Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der kirchlichen Verfassungsformen in den ersten sechs Jahrhunderten. Leipzig. Ziesler, J. 1989. Paul's Letter to the Romans. Philadelphia. Zuntz, G. 1953. The Text ofthe Epistles. Schweich lectures, 1946; London.

145

II

II"

I I

III I. I

I

"

I

I'!

:i II

III jli

I!/

INDEX OF NAMES

Acerbi, A. 101 Adam 53,63 Adeney, W. F. 109 Adnes, P. 99 Albertinus, E. 13 Allan, J. A. 108 Allison, D. C. 105 Allworthy, T. B. 68 Altaner, B. 99, 100 Amann, E 101 Ananias 52 Andia, Y., de 99 Andrew (of Caesarea) 82 Anicetus 14 Annas 76 Anrich, G. 102 Antonine 56 Antoninus Pius 25, 110 Aquila 16, 61, 105 Aristides 25 Athenagoras 25, 56 Audet, J.- P. 99 Aune, D. E. 112 Bacon, B. W. 109 Bagatti, B. 98 Bahnsen, W. 107, 108 Bahrdt, C. F. 105 Baljon, J. M. S. 68-70,110 Ballenstedt, H. C. 111 Bammel, E. 70 Bard~G. 19,100,101 Barnabas 35 Barnard,L. W. 99,100 Barnes, E. W. 13, 65-68, 70, 78, 86, 95, 108, 111, 112

Barnes, T.D. 19,95,96 Barnikol,E. 66,67,69,70,86,95,109 Baronius 103 Barabbas 38 Barrett, C. K. 67-69, 75, 76, 78, 108, 109, 111 Barth, C. 100 Basileides 25, 42, 79, 111 Basnage, S. 13 Bauckham, R. J. 74, 100, 111, 112 Bauer, B. 67,69, 106-109, 111 Baumgarten-Crusius, L. F. O. 13 Bau~ F.C. 13,20,66,68,70,71,78,85, 88,95,107,108,110-12 Beare, F. W. 67,95,104, 108, 110 Becker, J. 82, 101, 112 Behr, C. A. 19 Beker, J. 108 Bellinzoni, A. J. 102 Benoit, A. 99 Bensly, R. L. 102 Bentley, J. 69 Bergh van Eysinga, G. A., van den 13, 20,82,95,96,111,112 Bergren, T. A. 102 Berlage, H. P. 70 Bernard, J. H. 102 Bertholdt, L. 112 Bettiolo, P. 101 Betz, H. D. 69, 109 Beyschlag, J. H. C. W. 107 Bianchi, U. 100, 102 Bidawid, R. J. 102 Bigg, C. 99 Birdsall, J. N. 100 Bischoff, B. 102

I,';

I

~i

148

Bittlinger. A. 68 Blatz 100 Bleek. F. 95.107.110-12 Blinzler.). 98 Blom 107, 108 Blondellus, D. 13 Bludau. A. III Blunt 99 Bochart. S. 13 Bohmer, ). H. 13 Boismard, M. E. 101 Bonner. C. 99. 100 Bonsirven,). 78. III Bornkamm, G. 61.67. 108, 109. 112 Bousset. W. 102. 104. 107 Bowen. C. R. 108 Bowyer, W. 67 Box. G. H. 102 Brandon. S. G. F. 108 Brandt. W. F. 102, 105 Braun. H. 69. 108 Bretschneider. K. G. III Brind'Amour. P. 19. 96. 97 Brown, M. P. 10.95.97. 105 Brown, R. E. 67. 107. 108 Brox. N. 99 Bruce. F. F. 106 Bruckne~A. E. 70.71.106.107.110 Bruckner. W. 67.70. 104. 108. 110 Bruins 68 Bryennois, P. 99 Buchanan.E. S. 100 Buchmann 110 Bujard. W. 108 Bultmann. R. 37, 66. 69. 81, 104, 108, 109,112 Bundy, W. E. 44.103-105. III Burchard. C. 101 Burger. K. H. A. 105 Burghardt. W.). 79. III Burkert, R. 102 Burkitt. F. C. 15 Burrhus 9 Burridge. R. A. III Burton, E. de W. 67.69.70. 109 Butler. B. C. 31, 99. 102 Cadbury. H.). 50.106

Index of Names

Redrawing the Boundaries Cadiou. R. 99

Caesar 38

Calvin 110

Camelot. T. 19,99 Cameron 100

Campenhausen. H .• von 19,98,100.107 Canfield. L. H. 95

Carleton Paget. ). N. B. 98.99 Carrington, P. 66

Carroll. R. P. 107

Cartwright. T. 13

Casey. P. M. 77. III

Cassels, W. R. 13.19 Cerinthus 79

Chadwick. H. 99, 100

Charles, R. H. 101

Charlesworth, ). H. 101, 102

Charteris. A. H. III

Chase, F. H. 110

Cicero 7

Cirillo, L. 102

Clark. A. C. 50.51, 106

Clemen. K. C. 68. 70, 71, 105, 107. 109,

112

Clement (of Alexandria) 4-7, 24. 25, 74,

81,97.99.100.101 C1erici, L. 99

C1udius, H. H. 110, III

Coggins. R.). 102

Collange 109

Collins, A. Y. 95. 102. 112

Colwell. E. C. 78. III

Commodus 97

Cone. O. 107-109

Connolly. R. H. 99

Conybeare. F. C. 105

Conzelmann. H. 68. 97. 108. 109

Cope, L. 68

Corssen. P. 19, 67. 105

Couchoud, P. 66

Coutts,). 108

Cramer.). 70, 109

Cranfield. C. E. B. 67

Credner 112

Crehan, ). H. 100

Cross, F. L. 100. 111

Crouzel, H. 99, 100

Cullmann. O. 78. 101. III

Cumont. F. 102 Cyprian 106

149

Elijah 47

Elliot,]. K. 67, 100, 101

Elliot-Binns, L. E. 98

E!tester, W. 101

Emerton 102 Enslin, M. S. 95

Epaenetus 61

Epaphras 58

Epiphanius 79, 100, 101

Erasmus 99, 107, 110

Ernesti, ]. A. 13

Eshbaugh, H. 69

Eusebius 8, 14, 24, 79, 81, 96, 100, 101,

103,110

Evanson, E. 69,86,103,107-109, III

Ewald, H. 69, 70, 107, 112

Dahl. N. A. 69.109 Dallaeus.). 13 Daly. R.]. 100 Danielou,). 98,99 Dannhavverus 20 Davidson, S. 13,66.67,69,70,86,88,95, 97,106-12 Davies, W. D. 32, 102, 105, 107 Dawsey,). M. 106 Day, P. 108 Dehandschutter, B. 97 Delafosse, H. 13,19,20,95,96 Delahaye, H. 19 Delitzsch 67

De Maris, R. E. 108 Demas 56,107 Demosthenes 9 Dibelius, M. 96,99, 107, 108 Dinkier 67-69,109 Dobschutz, E., von 71, 101, 107 Dodd, C. H. 67,78,80,81,92,111,112 Domitian 4, 8, 81, 82, 85, 92, 95 Donaldson, ]. A. 13 Donfried, K. P. 67, 100 Doty, W. G. 96 Doutreleau, L. 99 Downing, F. G. 95 Draper, ]. A. 99 Dressel, A. R. M. 98 Drijvers, H. ]. W. 102 Drseke,]. 13 Drummond 70 Duker, A. C. 13 Duling, D. C. 55, 57-59, 61, 68, 69, 83, 95,103, 107-109 Dunn, ]. D. G. 63, 67 Dupont-Somner, A. 96

Faber Stapulensis,]. 98

Fantino,]. 99

Farmer, W. R. 31,102

Fasche~ E. 68,69,71,108,109

Faye, E., de 99

Findeis 69

Findlay,]. A. 105

Fischer, K. M. 66-71,80,108,112

Fitzer, G. 68, 109

Fitzmyer, ]. A. 67,69,95, 108, 109

Foerster, W. 100

Fortna, R. T. III

Franzmann, M. 102

Freitag 107

Frend, W. H. C. 19

Fridrichsen, A. 68

Friedrich, G. 67.70-71

Friedrich,]. 69. 106

Fruchtel, L. 99

Fuchs, E. 70, 108

Fuller. R. H. 67, 69

Funk. F. X. 19

Furnish. V. 69

Easton, B. S. 68 Eckermann. W. 111 Eckhart, K.-G. 70, 71, 108 Edmundson 88 Eggenberge~ C. 66, 95 Ehrhardt. A. A. T. 101 Eichhorn, ]. G. 13, 107, 108, 110

Galen 97

Gamaliel 54

Gamble. H. 67

Gardner-Smith. P. 98

Gartner. B. 100

Gaston, L. 69

Gaugler. E. 67

I:'

150

Redrawing the Boundaries

Getkken, J. 100, 102 Gelay 107 Genootsch 68 Georgi, D. 69 Gercke, A. 106 Giblin, C. H. 108 Giet, S. 99 Gilmour, S. M. 67, 68 Gnilka, J. 69, 108, 109 Goguel, M. 67, 70, 107 Goodenough, E. R. 99 Goodspeed, E. J. 64,69, 106, 107, 110, 111 Goulder, M. D. 102 Grabe, J. E. 101 Grabner-Haider, A. 108 Grafe, E. 73, 110 Grant, F. C. 77, 111 Grant, R. M. 100, 105, 111 Grebaut, S. 101 Green, H. B. 105 Greeven, H. 108 Gregoire, H. 13, 14, 19,96 Griesbach, J. J. 31, 102 Griffe, E. 19 Grotius, H. 80, 110, 112 Groussow, W. K. M. 69 Gry, L. 102 Guerrier, L. 101 Guillaumont, A. 100 Gumann, N. 108 Gunther, J. J. 69 Guttgemanns 69 Hadrian 24,25,27,79, 106, 110 Hagenbach, K. R. 13 Hagge 71 Hagner, D. A. 6, 96 Hahneman, G. M. 100 Halmel, A. 69 Hammer, P. L. 108 Hammond 112 Hammond-Bammel, C. P. 96 Handman, R. 101 Hanson, R. P. C. 98-100, 107 Harl, M. 99 Harnack, A., von 8,13,19,67,88,96,99, 105, 107, 109, 110

Harnisch 71

Harris, J. R. 100, 102

Harrison, P. N. 5, 10, 15, 16, 59, 66, 96­ 98,107,108 Hartman, J. J. 95

Harvey, A. 99

Hase 107

Hastings, J. 110

Hausrath, A. 13,95, 104, 106-10

Havet, E. 13, 107

Hawkins, J. C. 50.51, 105, 106

Hawkins, R. M. 66, 67, 109

Hegesippus 5, 6, 96

Heinrici, C. H. 67.68,105,107

Helmbold. A. K. 101

Henderson. B. W. 95

Hendrix, P. j. G. 100

Hengel, M. 103, 112

Henke, H. P. K. 13

Hennecke, E. 100-102, 107

Hermas 27

Hermogenes 56

Herod 43

Herwerden 112

Heumann, C. A. 13

Heussi, K. 13

Hickling, C. J. A. 27, 102

Hilgenfeld, A. 13,19,20,67,85,88,100,

101, 104-108, 110-12

Hilhorst. A. 99

Hippolytus 79, 100, 101

Hitchcock, F. R. M. 99

Hitzig, R. 68,70,71, 95, 107, 108

Hoekstra. S. 107. 108, 112

Hoennicke, G. 98

Hollander, H. W. 101

Hollmann, G. 108

Holsten, C. 67-70,104, 107, 108

Holtzmann, H. J. 13, 20, 31. 71, 85, 88,

102, 104, 106-108, 110, 112

Hooker. M. D. 35, 103

Horgan 108

Horner, G. 99

Hornschuh. M. 101

Horst, G. K. 111

Hort, F. J. A. 98

Houssiau, A. 99

Howard, W. F. 81,112

Index ofNames Hubner, R. 10, 11, 13, 96, 97 Hughes 61, 109 Huppenbauer 109 Hutson, H. H. 70, 107, 108, 110 Hyldahl, N. 96 Ignatius 8-12, 14, 15, 21-24, 28, 29, 45, 79,94,96,97 Irenaeus 16, 17, 24, 25, 81, 100 Jacobsen 106 Jacoby, A. 110 Jairus 37 James 39, 53, 73, 74 Jaubert, A. 95 Jefford, c. N. 99 Jenkins, R. C. 13 Jerome 100, 101, 110 Jervell, J. 101 Jesus 37,38,43,47,73,75,80 Jewett, R. 68,69 John 39,72,77,78,81,111 John Mark 35 John the Baptist 37, 43, 47 Johnson, E. 13,69, Johnson, S. E. 102, 105 Joly, R. 13,96, 99 Jonas, H. 100 Jones, B. W. 95 Jonge, M. de 101 Josephus 51,53,106 Judas 47,76 Judas Iscariot 76 Julicher 67,69, 71, 103, 107, 108 Justin Martyr 24, 27, 48, 79, 101, 106 Kahler 105

Kallas, J. 66 Kalthoff, A. 69 Kamiah, E. 67 Kasemann, E. 67, 107, 108 Kastlin, K. R. 13 Keck, L. 66 Keirn, T. 13,19,20,95,104,106,110-12 Kemler, H. 96 Kern, F. H. 108 Kiley, M. 108 Killen, W. D. 13, 16, 19,97

151

Kilpatrick 45

Kingsbury, J. D. 105

Kinoshita, J. 109

Klauck, H.-J. 69

Klauser, T. 99

Klijn, A. F. J. 101, 102

Klijn-Reininck, G. J. 102 Klinzing, G. 69

Klostermann, E. 101

Knappius 105

Knibb, M. A. 101, 102

Knight, J. M. 74,95, 101, 111, 112

Knopf, R. 110

Knowling, R. J. 109

Knox, J. 67, 108

Knudsen, J. 95

Koch, H. 99

Koester 66

Koppe, J. B. 31,70 Kortholt, C. 13

K6rtner, U. H. J. 100

Kosmala 105

Koster 71

Kostlin 105, 107, 110

Krabbe, O. 13

Kraft, R. A. 99

Kramer 112

Krauss 107

Krehl, A. L. G. 67

Krenkel, M. 69,104,106 Kretschmar 111

Krodel, G. 59, 108, 109

Kuhn, K. G. 69, 109

Kummel, W. G. 60, 68, 83, 103, 109

Kurfess, A. M. 102

Kurzinger, J. 100

Lachmann 31

Lagrange, M. J. 101

Lake,K. 61,67,107,109

Lampe, F. A. 13,111

Lane Fox, R. 99

Lang 68,69

Lange, N. R. M., de 100

Larroque, M., de 13

Last, H. M. 95

Lattke, M. 102

Laurent 70

!IIII

i

I

:1

i

i"

I!II I

I

152

Lawlor, H. J. 19

Lawson, J. 99

Layton, B. 100, III

Lazarus 76, 79

Lazzati 99

LeClerc, J. III

Lechler, G. V. 13

Lehman, E. 68

Leipoldt, J. 68, 109

Lelong, A. 95

Le Sueur, J. 13

Lies, L. 99, 100

Lieske, A. 99

Lietzmann, H. 99

Lightfoot, J. B. 10, 11, 16, 19,88, 95-97,

99, 100

Lilla, S. R. C. 99

Lincoln, A. T. 108

Lindemann, A. 108

Lipsius, R. A. 13, 19,67, 108-10

Logan, A. H. B. 101

Lohfink, G. 27, 102

Lohmeyer, E. 104

Lohr, W. A. 100, III

Lohse, E. 67, 108,112 Loisy, A. 13,19,20,66-68,70,71, 78, 88,

96,98,105,108, Ill, 112

Loman, A. D. 67,69,106,109,112

Longenecker, R. N. 98

Longstaff 102

Loon, J., van 13

Lotze, J. A. 68

Lubac, H., de 99

Lucht, H. 66,67,107

Lucke 107,112

Lucks, H. A. 100

Liidemann, H. 13

Lueken, 107

Liiffler 107

Liihnemann, J. 108

Lundstrom, S. 99

Liitzelberger, E. C. J. III

Maccoby, H. 62,109 Mace, D. 69

Mackay III

Mackintosh 109

Maclean 99

Index ofNames

Redrawing the Boundaries Maddox, R. 98

Manen, W. C., van 13,20,66,68,69,82,

104, 106, 108-10

Mangold, W. 67,107,110, III

Manns, F. 98

Mansfield 70

Manson, T. W. 67

Maran 100

Marcion 16,42,56,61, 62, 107

Marcovich, M. 99, 100

Marcus 97

Marcus Aurelius 14, 24, 25

Maricq, A. 19

Mark 36

Markschies, C. 100

Marrou, H. I. 14, 19,96,97

Martha 43, 76

Martin, R. P. 109

Martineau, J. 86, 105, 108, Ill, 112

Marxsen, W. 67,69,70,103,108,109

Mary 35,43,76

Masson, C. 108

Matthes 69

Maurer, C. 108, III

Mayer 112

Mayerhoff, E. T. 107, 108

Mayor 88

McGiffert, A. C. 109

Mehat, A. 99

Melito of Sardis 25

Merkelbach, R. 102

Merrill, E. T. 13, 95

Merx, A. 13

Metzger, 102

Meyer 107,112

Michaelis, W. 67

Michel, 0.67

Michelsen, J. H. A. 66,69, 109

Migne, J. P. 99, 100

Milburn, R. L. P. 95

Mill 69

Milne, H. J. M. 100

Mingana, A. 102

Minns, D. 99

Mitton, C. L. 64, 88, 107, 108, 110

Moffatt, J. 70, 103, 107, 109

Molland, E. 99

Mondesert, C. 99

Montanus 79

Montefiore, C. G. 105

Moreau, J. 19, 95

Moule, C. F. D. 51, 106

Miiller 101

Miiller-Bardorff 109

Munck, J. 99

Munier, C. 99

Munro, W. 66-68, 71

Muratori, L. A. 25, 27, 100

Murphy 67,95,108

Murphy-O'Connor, J. 68,69,107

Myers, J. M. 102

Mylonas, G. 102

Naber, S. A. 66,68-70,109

Nautin, P. 99

Neande~A. 68,107,110,112

Neill, S. 102

Nemeshegyi, P. 99

Nepper-Christensen, P. 105

Neudecker 107,112

Nicodemus 79

Nineham, D. 108

Noack, L. 70, 108

Noah 34

Nock, A. D. 102

Norden,E. 9,96,106,107

Norelli, E. 101

Ochel, W. 107

O'Neill, J. C. 66, 68, 69, 106

Onesimus 9

Onesiphorus 56

Orbe, A. 99, 100

Orchard, B. 102

Orgels, P. 19, 96

Origen 24,40,61,73,74,97,99,101,110

Osborn, E. F. 99

Osiander, L. 13,20

Otto, J. c. T. 99

Oudin, C. 13

Oulton, J. E. L. 19

Overbeck, F. 13, 106, 110

Owen, J. 13, 31, 68, 102

Pallis, A. 66

Papias (of Hieropolis) 25, 36, 79, 82

153

Paramelle, J. 99

Parker, R. 13

Paul 2,16,17,22,23,39,42,47,49,52­ 65,72,73,91-93,98,106,107,109

Paulus 71, 109, 112

Peake, A. S. 109

Pearce 67

Pearson, B. A. 108

Perdelwitz, R. 110

Perle~O. ~9~9~ 100

Pernveden, L. 99, 102

Perrin, N. 55, 57-59, 61, 68, 69, 83, 95,

103, 107-109

Pesce, M. 101

Peter 36-38,45,47-49,52,56,60,74,76,

91

Petersen 101

Peterson, E. 96,99, 100

Petrement, S. 101

Pfleiderer, O. 13, 19,40,46, 67, 68, 70,

78,97,103-105,107-11

Phoebe 61

Pieper, K. 98

Piercy, W. C. 111

Pierson, A. 66- 70, 109

Pilate 47

Pilate's wife 47

Pines, S. 98

Pitra, J. B. 100

Pius 5,27 Planck, K. 107, 108

Plummer 109

Pokorny, P. 108

Polycarp 5,14,16-18,25 Porter, C. L. 111

Possinus, P. S. J. 103

Potter 99

Pouderon, B. 100

Preuschen, E. 19

Prigent, P. 99

Prins, J. J. 68, 69

Prisea 61

Pritz, R. A. 98

Pseudo-Tertullian 100

Quacquarelli, A. 100

Quadratus 24

Quasten, J. 19, 100, 101

I

Mlfll

154

Redrawing the Boundaries

Quatember, F. 99

Quispel, G. 100

Rahtjen, B. D. 109

Raisanen, H. 62, 109

Ramsay, W. M. 19,110

Rauch, C. 108

Raven, C. 88

Reagan, ). N. 101

Reiche, ). G. 67

Reiling,). 99

Reitzenstein, R. 102, 107

Renan,E. 19,107,110

Rendall 109

Rensberger 109

Reumann,). 52, 106

Reunung, Z. 19

Reuss, E. 110, 112

Reuterdahl 107

Reville, ). 19

Reville, M. 13, 112

Richardson, P. 99

Richter, G. 112

Riddle, D. W. 70, 107, 108, 110

Riesenfeld, H. 9, 96, 97

Rissi, M. 69

Rist, ). M. 107

Ritschl, A. 70, 107

Rius-Camps,). 96,99

Rivetus 20

Robbins 100

Roberts, C. H. 78,111

Robertson 69

Robinson, J. A. 99

Robinson,). A. T. 78,85,87-95,111

Robinson, ). M. 100

Rodrigues 70

Ronchey, S. 97

Rordorff, W. 99

Rossler, C. F. 13, 20

Rousseau, A. 99

Routh, M.). 96

Rovers, M. A. N. 68,69, 104, 106, 107

Rudolph, K 100

Rudow 107

Rue, de la 99

Ruef,). 68

Rumpf, M. 13

Ryder, W. H. 66

Sabatier, A. 107, 110

Sagnard, F.-M.-M. 99, 100

Sahlin, H. 66

Salmasius 110

Sanday, W. 99

Sande Bakhuyzen, W. H., van de 67-70

Sanders, E. P. 32,62, 102, 108, 109

Santos Otero, A. de 100

Sapphira 52

Saul (Paul) 35

Saumaise, C. 13

Scaliger 110

Schaff, P. 99

Schenk, W. 108

Schenke, H.-M. 66-72,80,108,110,112

Schenkel, D. 107, 111, 112

Schim van der Loeff, H. P. 13, 96

Schlager, A. 33, 34, 103

Schlager 103

Schlatter, A. 98

Schlecht, ). 99

Schleiermacher 107

Schmidt, C. 99, 101, 107

Schmidt, D. 71

Schmidt, ). E. C. 13, 97, 107, 108

Schmidt, P. W. 109

Schmidtke, A. 101

Schmiedel, P. W. 68,70,71, 107-10

Schmithals, W. 61,66-70,109

Schnackenburg, R. 108

Schneemelcher 101, 106, 107

Schoedel, W. R. 19,96,98,100

Schoeps, H.). 98, 108

Schollgens, G. 99

Scholten,). H. 13,66,69,78,85,95, 104­ 107,111, 112

Schonfield, H.). 98

Schott, H. A. 69, 112

Schrade~ K. 69,70,85,107,108

Schubert, P. 107, 108

Schukster, M. B. 99

Schultz, H. 67

Schulze, M. H. 104

Schurer 110

Schwartz, E. 19

Schwartz, J. 19

Index of Names Schwegler, A. 13, 15, 20, 66, 70, 85, 95,

9~ 106-108, 110, 112

Schweitzer 107

Schweizer, E. 68, 108, 109, 112

Scorza-Barcellona, F. 99

Scott, R. 70, 107, 109

Scroggs, R. 68

Semler, J. S. 13,20,66,70,85, 109, 110,

112

Seufert 107

Seyerlen 67

Seyffarth 112

Shotwell, W. A. 99

Silas 52

Simcox 110

Simon, M. 76, 98

Simons, E. 104, 106

Slichtingius, J. 13

Smallwood, E. M. 95

Smid, H. R. 101

Smith, ). C. 99

Smith, ). Z. 102

Smith, W. B. 66

Soden, H., von 107-10

Somonetti 19

Sordi, M. 19

Sorof, M. 106

Spanheim, F. 13

Sparks, H. F. D. 95, 101, 102, 108

Spicq, C. 110

Spitta, F. 70, 108, 109

Stahlin, O. 99

Stap, A. 95

Ste Croix, G. E. M., de 95

Stead, G. C. 100

Steck, R. 13,69,95, 106, 108-10

Steenmeyer, ). 13

Stein, R. H. 102

Stendahl, K 105

Stephanus 100

Stephen 44,49,52

Stern, S. M. 98

Stieren, A. 99

Storr 102

Stowers, S. K 96

Straatman, ). W. 67-69,107,111

Strachan 110

Strauss, D. F. 13

155

Strecker, G. 98, 101, 105

Strycker, E, de 101

Stuiber, A. 99, 100

Sturdy, ). V. M. 47,70,87,98, 102-104,

112

Styler, G. M. 31, 102

Sundberg, A. C. 100

Sweet, J. P. M. 95

Sylkburg 99

Syme, R. 19, 95

Synge 108

Talbert, C. H. 66, 106

Taylor, V. 32, 105

Teichmann, E. 70

Telfer, W. 19, 96

Tellerus 105

Temple 112

Tertullian 100

Testa, E. 98

Testuz, M. 100, 102

Teylers 68

Theissen, G. 110

Theodotion 105

Thiel, R. 104

Thijm 70

Thoma 107

Thomas, J. 101

Thompson, L. L. 4, 95, 112

Thrall 109

Timothy 58, 72, 109

Tischendorf, L. F. K. 98, 101

Titus, E. L. 68

Toland,). 13

Tollinton, R. B. 99

Torjesen, K.). 99

Torrey, C. C. 110

Tr~an 8,15,82,106

Tregelles, S. P. 100

Tremblay, R. 99

Treu, U. 99

Trigg, J. W. 99

Trilling, W. 105, 108

Trager, K-W. 101

Trompf, G. W. 68

Tuckett, C. M. 32, 102, 105

Tuilier, A. 99

Turmel,). 19, 108

156

Redrawing the Boundaries

Turner, C. H. 19,99

Tyson 102

Ulter, D. 109

Unnik, W. C., van 100

Urbicus 24

Usener 105, 106

Ussher, J. 20,96

Usteri, L. 107

Valens 16

Valentinus 79

Vaucher, P. 13

Victorius 99

Vielhauer, P. 59, 67,69, 78,80, 96, 101,

103, 105, 111, 112

Vies, A. B., van der 70,108

Vigelius 112

Vischer 112

Voelter 19

Vogel, E. F. 111

Vogt, H. J. 19,99

Vokes, F. E. 99

Volker, W. 99, 100

Volkmar, G. 13, 66, 67, 70, 85, 95, 103­ 108,110-12

Volter, D. 69, 70, 86, 104, 109, 111

Voobus, A. 99

Voss,1. 96

Vossius, G. J. 112

Wace, H. 111

Waddington, W. H. 19,97

Waitz, H. 101

Walker, W. O. 68, 69, 102

Warner, D. 69

Wassenbergh,E.68-70

Wedderburn, A. J. M. 108

Weijenborg, R. 96

Weinel, H. 68, 107

Weingarten, H. 13

Weiss, J. 48,66-68,71,103-105,107,109

Weisse, C. H. 66, 70, 85, 105, 108, 109,

111,112

Weizsaecker, K., von 67, 104, 105, 107,

108, 110, 112

Welborn, L. L. 95

Wellhausen,]. 104, 105

Wendland, P. 67-69,107,108

Wendling, E. 104

Wengst, K. 99

Werner, M. 39, 103

Wessely, C. 98

Westberg, F. 19

Westcott, B. F. 100

Wette, W. M. L., de 107,108,110,112

Wettstein 110

White, ]. L. 96

Whittaker, M. 98

Whittaker, T. 106

Widmann, M. 67

Wieseler, K. 19,112

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., von 96

Williams, C. R. 110

Wilson, R. McL. 100

Wilson, W. G. 81,112

Winden, ]. C. M., van 99

Windisch, H. 66,99, 109

Wingren, G. 99

Witt, R. 102

Wittichen, K. 104, 106

Wrede, W. 107, 108

Wurzburg 69, 108

Wyrwa, D. 99

Yamauchi, E. 101

Yates, R. 108

Zahn, T. 19, 88, 95-97

Zeller, E. 13, 20, 66, 95, 104, 106, 107,

110

Ziegler, W. C. 13

Ziesler, J. 67

Zuntz, G. 67, 68, 71, 109

INDEX OF REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT

Exodus 21:18 16

Judges 3:6 16

Esther 106

Isaiah 42:1-4 47

53:4 47

58:04 16

66:24 40

Jeremiah 107

Daniel 93, 106

Malachi 39

ApOCRYPHA

2 Esdras 25, 102

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 11, 28, 29, 31-33, 36, 40­

42,45-47,50,51,63,73,

24:37-39 34

24:50 33

25:1-13 47

25:31-36 47

26:25 47

27:3-10 47

27:19 47

27:24-25 47

27:35 39

27:62-66 47

28:11-15 47

28.19 26

28:19-20 46,48

Mark 29-32, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42,

45,47,50,51,63,73,75­

77,80,83,84,89,91,93,

102, 104

1 36

1:35 39

10:1 76

10:12 40

10:32 76

10:32-34 38

10:46 76

11:1 40

11:1-7 38

11:1-10 76

11:12-14 38

11:16 41

11:20-21 38

12:1-12 38

12:13-17 38

12:18-27 38

12:28-34 38

i: 1\

Ii

• 158 12:41-44 41 12:44 41 13 35,85,103 13:2 103 13:5-37 38 13:14 103 14:3 76 14:3-9 76 14:5 41, 104 14:8 41 14:17-26 76 14:18 41 14:18-21 38 14:20 41 14:27 41 14:28 41 14:29 41 14:30 41,77 14:32-52 38 14:43 41 14:43-52 76 14:51-52 41 14:53-16:8 76 14:58 41 14:59 41 14:61 41 14:65 39,41 14:66-72 38 14:68 41 14:72 41 15:6-10 38 15:15 41 15:22-25 38 15:23 41 15:24 38 15:25 41 15:26-32 38 15:28 39 15:33 38 15:34-36 38 15:34-37 41 15:37 38 15:38 38,41 15:39 38 15:40-41 38 15:42 41 15:44-45 41 15:47 38

Index of References

Redrawing the Boundaries 16:7 41 16:9-20 35 Luke 11, 28-33, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45,47,49-52,73,75-77, 80, 82-85, 89, 91, 93, 102-104 1:1-4 43,50 1:2 39 1:4-8 76 1:5-2:52 44 1:5-25 43 1:6 39 1:7 39,76 1:12-13 36 1:14 76 1:14-15 36 1:15 39 1:21 33 1:23-28 36 1:26-28 43 1:27 44 1:29 39 1:32 52 1:34-35 44 1:36-37 105 1:38 105 1:39 36,39 1:39-56 43 1:57-80 43 2:1-7 43 2:1-12 36 2:3-5 36 2:4 39 2:8-20 43 2:10 37 2:11 37 2:11-12 36 2:21-40 43 2:51-52 43 3:1 33 3:2 76 3:7-9 33 3:7-12 37 3:11 37 3:12 37 3:15 33

3:19 33 3:22 52 3:23 44 3:28-30 37 3:31-35 43 4:1-9 38 4:10-12 37 4:13-20 37 4:21 38 4:26-29 38 4:30-32 38 4:35-41 37 5:1-10 37 5:1-20 37, 39 5:20 40 5:21-43 37 5:22 40 5:36 51 5:37 51 6:13 39 6:14 33,40 6:17-23 40 6:17-29 37 6:30-44 37 6:31 40 6:33 40 6:34-44 76 6:35-44 40 6:37 104 6:37-38 76 6:41 33 6:41-42 43 6:43 76 6:44 76 6:45 40 6:45-52 37, 76 6:47 33 6:50 76 7:1 40 7:1-23 37 7:11-17 43 7:19 33,40 7:21-23 39 7:27 44 7:30 33 7:31 40 7:31-35 43 7:32-35 40

8:13-21 37 8:14 40 8:22-23 38 8:22-26 40 8:27-30 37 8:29 76 8:31 37 8:38 37 9:1 35,38,40 9:2-8 37 9:7 33 9:14 40 9:19 33 9:20-26 40 9:28-29 40 9:30 76 9:31 37 9:35 40 9:38-41 40 9:38-49 37 9:41 33, 37, 40 9:43 40 9:45 40 9:48 40 9:50 38,40 10:2 43 10:21 43 10:21-22 34 10:22 43 10:25 33 11:1-4 43 11:2 34 11:22 34 11:28 82 11:42 34 11:45 33 11:46 33 11:52 33 12:5 33 12:14 33 12:27 33 12:33-34 103 12:34 103 12:46 33 13:9 51 13:16 33 13:20-21 43 14:3 33

14.5 23 14:31-32 51 16:13-34 52 16:16 43 16:19 76 16:22 33 17:11-19 43 17:18-34 52 17:26-27 34 19:1 33 19:9-14 43 20:23 33 21 52 21:20 42,52 21:26 33 21:27 52 22:15 43 22:31-32 43 22:34 77 22:43-44 44 23:2 33 23:30 82 23:34 34, 43, 44 23:40-43 43 23:46 34 23:6-13 43 24 51

John 6,11,27,29,30,42,50,56, 75-80,83,84,87-89,92, 93,98, III 1:9 79 1:15 80 1:17 80 1:19-36 76 1:24 80 1:27 76 3:3 79 3:5 26,80 3:22 26 3:23 77 3:24 80 4:2 80 4:3 76 6:1-13 76 6:7 40,76 6:9 76

159 6:10 76 6:13 76 6:16-21 76 6:20 76 6:51-58 80 6:68 76 7:10-14 76 7:15 78 7:45 77 7:47 77 7:53-8:11 80 9:38-39 80 11 76 11:49 77,92 11:51 77 12:1-8 76 12:3 76 12:12-15 76 13:1-17:26 76 13:38 77 14:22 76 18:1-11 76 18:9 80 18:12-20:29 76 18:13 76,77 18:24 76 18:32 80 18:37 78 19:34-35 80 20:25 48 21 75,80,84,112 Acts 6,11,28-30,36,42,49-54, 56, 57, 65, 73, 83, 84, 91, 92, 106 1 51 1:1-5 52 1:9-14 52 1:15-22 52 2:1-13 52 2:14-41 52 2:43-47 52 3:1-10 52 3:12-26 52 3:19 52 4:6 76 4:24 34

160 5:1-11 52

5:31 51

5:36 51

7:2-53 52

7:56 51

7:60 44

8:26-40 52

9:16 33

9:20 52

9:32-43 52

10:1-11:18 53

11:20 51

12:6-11 52

12:12 35

12:25 35

13:5 35

13:7-12 52

13:8 33

13:10 33

13:13 35

13:33 52

15 22,50

15:1-35 52

15:10 53

15:37 35

15:39 35

16:25-34 52

18:3 107

18:24-28 26

20:17-38 52

20:30 33

20:35 33

27:1-44 52

28:26 48

Romans 6,11,29,30,54,59,61,72, 82-84,93,109,110

1:1-4 62

1:3-4 66

1:17 110

1:18-31 62

1:18-32 66

1:28-31 39

2:1 66

2:13 66

2:14 66

2:15-16 66

2:16 66

2:25-29 58

2:29 66

3:9-20 66

3:10-18 66

3:12-18 66

3:23-36 66

3:24 66

3:25-26 66

4:1 66

4:13 110

4:17 66

4:19 110

4:20 110

5:1 66

5:2 110

5:5-10 66

5:6-7 66

5:7 66

5:8-20 39

5:12-21 62,63,66

5:20 69

6:17 66

7:25 61,66 8:1 66

8:3 63

8:9 37

8:32 63

9:5 63

10:17 66

11:36 110

12:10 110

12:13 110

12:18 110

13:1-7 1,29,62,66

14:3 110

14:19 110

14:23 62

15 66

15:4 66

16 66,67

16:1-23 61, 62

16:17-18 61,67

16:17-20 67

16:24 67

16:25-27 61, 62,67

161

Index of References

Redrawing the Boundaries

1 Corinthians 6,11,29,30,54,59,60,64, 72,82-84 1:2 60,67 1:12 37,67 1:16 67

2:6 110

2:6-16 67

2:8 63

3:5 110

3:23 37

4:6 67

4:9 110

4:17 67

6:3 67

6:20 39

7:8 67

7:11 67, 110

7:14 67

7:15 110

7:17 67

7:17-24 67

7:23 39

7:36-38 67

8 67

8:6 63,110

10 67

10:1-11 110

10:4 63,68 10:11 110

10:13 68

10:14-21 110

10:17 68

10:23-11:1 68

10:29-30 60, 68

11 64

11:3-16 60

11:5-6 68

11:10 68

11:11 68

11:12-16 68

11:13-15 68

11:16 68

11:23-28 68

11:30 68

12:4 110

12:28 56

13 60,63,68

14:24-35 1

14:33 68, 110

14:33-35 60, 68

14:33-36 60

14:33-38 68

14:34-35 68

14:36 60

15 59,63,64,68

15:3-11 68

15:5 68

15:21 68

15:21-23 60, 63

15:26 110

15:27 110

15:45-50 60, 63

16:7 110

16:22 60, 68, 98

2 Corinthians 6,11,29,30,54,59,61,72,

82-84

1-9 60

1:1 68

3:6 58

3:12-18 69

3:17 69

3:18 69

4:3 69

4:4 69

4:6 69

5 63

5:16 64,69 5:19 58

6:14-7:1 1, 61, 69

8:9 63

10-13 60,61

10:7 37

11:6 51

11:32-12:1 69

12:2 69

13:13 61,69 13:14 63

Galatians 6,11,29,30,54,55,57,59, 60,69,72,82-84

2 22

1:4 39

1:15 58

1:16 58

1:18 58

2:3-8 69

2:7-8 60,69

2:18 69

2:19 58

3:15 58

3:16 69

3:19 69

3:20 69

3:28 52

4:25 69

5:7 70

5:16-24 70

Ephesians

1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 21,

23,27-30,54-59,63,64,

72,73,82-84,88-90,93,

94, 107

1:19 56

2:5 56

2:8-9 56

2:20 56

3:4-6 56

4:1-2 57

4:11-16 56

5:19-20 57

6:21-22 57

Philippians

11, 29, 30, 54, 59, 62, 70,

82-84

1:1 63,70

2:5-11 63

2:6-7 62

2:6-11 62, 70

3 62

3:1 62,70

3:1-4:9 70

3:2 62,70 3:5 70

3:9 70

3:10 70

3:18 70

3:20 70

4:2 70

4:3 70

4:4 62

4:10-20 62

Colossians 1, 2, 6, 11, 15, 23, 27, 29,

30,54,55,57-59,82-84,

88,90,93,94,108

1:7 58

1:19-20 58

1:23 58

1:25 58

2:11 58

3:12-13 57

3:16-17 57

4:6 56

4:7-8 57

4:14 107

1 Thessalonians 11, 15, 29, 30, 54, 58-60,

63, 72, 82-84, 93

1:2-10 60, 70

1:9-10 70

2:1-16 70

2:13 70

2:13-16 59, 60

2:14-16 70

2:15 71

3:2-5 71

3:5 71

4-5 63

4:1 71

4:1-8 71

4:1-12 71

4:15 59

5:1-11 60

2 Thessalonians 1,9,11,15,29,30,54,58, 59,82-84,90,93,109

1:5-10 59

2:1-12 59

2:2 90

3:17 90

162 1 Timothy

6,14,17,21,28-30,54-56,

58,73,79,83,84,87,90,

91, 93,94, 107

2:2 56

4:6 58

2 Timothy 6,14,17,21,28-30,54-56,

58,73,79,83,84,87,90,

91, 93, 94, 107

1:15-18 9

3:11 56

Titus 6,14,17,21,28-30,54-56,

58,73,79,83,84,87,90,

91, 93, 94, 107

Philemon 7,11,30,54,59,71,83,84

5-6 71

19 71

Hebrews 3,6,11,28-30,54,72,83­ 85, 91, 110

2:4 110

2:8 110

2:10 110

2:14 110

3:6 110

3:7-19 110

5:12 110

5:14 110

6:2 26

6:3 110

6:12 110

9:26 110

10:33 110

10:38 110

11:12 110

12:14 110

12:18-25 110

13 72,110

13:1 110

13:2 110

13:9 110

13:10 110

13:20 110

13:22-25 72

James 6,29,46,72,73,82-84,93

2 73

1 Peter

1, 6, 11, 14,21, 23, 28-30,

56,57,59,72,73,79,82­ 85,90,91,93,94,110

3:19 73

2 Peter 15, 21, 29, 56, 57, 72-74,

83, 84, 90, 91, 94, 102,

110

1:4 74

3:15-16 65

1 John

6,30,75,80,81,83,84 2:24 81

3:8 81

4:2-3 81

5:14-21 81

2 John 75,81, 83,84 3 John 75, 81, 83, 84

Jude 15, 29, 57, 72, 73, 83, 84,

90,94,111

14 74

Revelation 4,23,29,45,46,59,72,75,

79,81-84,91, 112

1:3 82

1:7 46

1:13 51

1:17 46

163

Index of References

Redrawing the Boundaries 3:5 82

6:15-16 82

7:2 33

7:31 33

7:32 33

11:6 33

12 46

12:9 82

12:14 46

13:26 33

14:14 51

17 81

19:8 46

21:20 82

22:20 98

Ascension ofIsaiah 25

OTHER EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Clement Excerpta ex Theodoto 100

Assumption ofMoses 74

Barnabas 16,24,29,79,84,99

Basileides Exegetica 42

Book of Elchesai

26

1 Clement

2-8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 21-24,

28,29,72,79,84,87,92­ 95, 100, 110

1:1 4

10:29-37 43

10:38-42 43

11:27-28 43

2 Clement 25

4 Ezra

102

4 Maccabees 9,10,96 Acts ofJohn 25

Acts ofPaul 56, 107

Acts ofPeter 107

Apocalypse ofPeter 90

Paedagogus 99

Protrepticus 99

Stromateis 99, 100

2.9.45 101

3.9 101

3.13 101

Cyprian Epistola ad Donatum de gratia Dei 73.16-18 106

Didache

23, 24, 28, 46, 47, 84, 87,

92,99

7.1 106

7.3 106

9.5 26

Epiphanius Adversus Haereses 29 101

30 101

31 100

33 100

51 79

56 100

62.2 101

Epistle to the Laodiceans 15

Epistula Apostolorum 25

Eusebius Chronographia 2140 100

Historia Ecclesia 3.36 96

3.39 81

3.39.15 103

4.3.2 24

4.3.3 100

4.11 100

4.22.8 101

6.25.11 110

Theophaneia 4.12 101

Gospel ofthe Ebionites 25

Hippolytus Haereses 5.7 101

6.20-55 100

7.20-27 100

Ignatian Epistles/Letters 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 21-24,

26-29,79,84,94,96

Letter to the Ephesians 96

1.2 9

2.1 9

Letter to the Magnesians 96

11

9.1 10.1 11

to Letter Philadelphians 6.1 11

the

Letter to the Romans 96

2.2 10

3.3 11

5.1 10, 11

Gospel ofthe Egyptians 25

Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7.1 11

8.2 11

Gospel ofthe Hebrews 25

Letter to the Trallians 96

Gospel ofthe Nazarenes 25

Irenaeus Adversus Omnes Haereses 24,25,99 1 100

1.24 100

3.3.4 16,17 3.4 100

5.30.3 81

Gospel ofPeter 90

Gospel of Thomas 24,32,75,100

~

164 Jerome De viris illustribus 3 101 20 100

Dialogus adversus Pelagianos 3.2 101 Josephus Antiquities ofthe Jews 20.5 51

Redrawing the Boundaries Melito of Sardis On the Pasch 25 Odes of Solomon 26 Origen 40,110

De Principes 1.2.4 99

Justin Martyr 1 Apologia 24 1 24 1.28 82 61 106 61.4 79 66 26

In Johannem 2.12 101

2 Apologia

24 2 24 3 24

Dialogue with Trypho 24 Martyrdom ofPolycarp 17,18,24,97 8.1 97 16.2 97 19.2 97,98

14 5

Preaching ofPeter 25 Protevangelium ofJames 25 Pseudo-Tertullian Adversus Omnes Haereses 4 100 Shepherd of Hermas 5, 7, 24, 26, 27, 73, 79, 84

P46 69

Mandate 2 24 4 98

P52 78

Similitude 9 98

Passion ofPerpetua and Felicitas 97

Vision 2.8 5 3.1.8 27

Polycarp 3-4, 6-7, 14-17, 21-24, 28, 30,59,79,81,84,95,98 1-12 5, 15 3 16 7.1 16,81 7.2 81 11 16 13-14 15 13 15

Sibylline Oracles 25 Tertullian Adversus Valentinianos 100

Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs 25

---""""'!III