UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Paul submerged?: a study of the content and possible origins of mainline post-Pauline theology Dunstan, Richard W. 1998

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1998-0143.pdf [ 8.31MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0088438.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088438-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088438-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088438-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088438-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088438-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088438-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0088438-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0088438.ris

Full Text

PAUL SUBMERGED? A STUDY OF THE CONTENT AND POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF MAINLINE POST-PAULINE THEOLOGY by RICHARD W. DUNSTAN .A., C a l i f o r n i a State U n i v e r s i t y a t Hayward, 19  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of C l a s s i c a l , Near Eastern and R e l i g i o u s Studies  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1998 © Richard W. Dunstan 1998  In  presenting  degree  this  thesis  in partial  fulfilment  at the University  of British  Columbia,  freely available for reference copying  of this  department publication  or  thesis by  of this  and study.  for scholarly  his or thesis  of the requirements I agree  I further  purposes  agree that  the Library  shall make it  permission  f o r extensive  may be granted  her representatives.  for financial  that  gain shall  It  is  by the head  understood  not be allowed  that without  permission.  Department  of Cjcss^cl  W*cs Pcife*^'*-  The University of British Vancouver, Canada  Columbia  Date  I f  DE-6 (2/88)  fy^l  t  J  Z & ^ o s ,  for an advanced  SfwJb ej  of my  copying  or  my written  ii  ABSTRACT It  i s a commonplace of New  theology  of Paul  late  New  This  critical  has  Testament  been  and  Testament  distorted  s c h o l a r s h i p t h a t the  or homogenized  e a r l y non-canonical  judgement  i n certain  Christian  implies the existence  writings.  of a t h e o l o g i c a l  standard t o which Paul has been conformed i n these w r i t i n g s . It  i s the purpose of t h i s  standard,  f o r which  thesis,  the coined  first,  expression  to identify  "mainline  that  faith"  is  used; and secondly, t o t r a c e i t s o r i g i n s . The  first  teachings  purpose i s achieved  of l i t e r a t u r e  through an  inventory  o f t e n a l l e g e d t o homogenize  or  of the distort  P a u l : w i t h i n the canon, the P a s t o r a l e p i s t l e s , Acts and 2 Peter; outside  the canon,  Polycarp. over  A  search  against  tenets  of  and  f o r patterns  characteristic  the  atonement,  1 Clement  "mainline  repentance  of agreement  Pauline faith"  and  the w r i t i n g s of Ignatius i n our  teachings  to  be  forgiveness  a of  sins;  m o r a l i t y as c e n t r a l t o the gospel; an untroubled Judaism  as  mere background  concept  of  unanimous  diametrically near  the  opposed  to Christianity;  a p o s t o l i c teaching. t o Paul's  commonsensical,  general  central and  literature  shows strong  the  chief  stress  on  focus  on  a  a p p r o p r i a t i o n of  and  These  and  a  stereotyped  tenets  teachings,  are not  but  anthropocentric  cluster  end  of  a  continuum with Paul a t the p a r a d o x i c a l , s p e c i f i c and t h e o c e n t r i c end. On  the  second  objective,  with  the  exception  of  the  stereotyped concept of a p o s t o l i c i t y which i s a t t r i b u t e d t o trends  Ill u s u a l l y c a l l e d " e a r l y Catholicism," the t h e s i s concludes t h a t the roots  of the mainline  " H e l l e n i s t mission" Acts  f a i t h can be traced back t o the s o - c a l l e d  found evangelizing the G e n t i l e s o f Antioch a t  11:19 f . The t h e s i s does not endorse a l l t h e d e t a i l s o f a  binary  opposition  between  propounded by many scholars, of Antioch the  but does argue t h a t  church,  i t was  and that  no mere  "bridge  the gospel t o Paul";  independent instrument of the e v a n g e l i z a t i o n even  i n Paul's  exercise  and  "Hebrews"  a  lifetime,  major  Christianity.  and survived  influence  on  as  the H e l l e n i s t s  were l e s s Law-observant and more mission-minded  Jerusalem  preached  "Hellenists"  i n the form i t was  rather  than they an  of the Roman Empire  beyond  our l i t e r a t u r e  Paul's and  time t o  subsequent  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract  i i  Table o f Contents Abbreviations Acknowledgement Dedication  iv v v i i viii  PART I : INTRODUCTION Chapter 1: The Problem Chapter 2: The Primary L i t e r a t u r e PART I I : INVENTORY OF PRIMARY LITERATURE  1 1 17 27  Chapter 3: Creedal Content—God, Jesus, the Holy S p i r i t  27  Chapter  4: S a l v a t i o n  43  Chapter  5: The Role of Doctrine  57  Chapter  6: The C h r i s t i a n L i f e  72  Chapter  7: Judaism  84  Chapter  8: A p o s t o l i c i t y  94  Chapter  9: The P o r t r a i t of Paul  Chapter 10: The M a i n l i n e F a i t h — R e s u l t s of t h e Inventory PART I I I : EXPLANATIONS  103 110 119  Chapter 11: D e c l i n e and Paul?  119  Chapter 12: They Came t o Antioch  136  Chapter 13: The H e l l e n i s t Mission as O r i g i n  153  Chapter 14: Evaluation and Conclusions  170  AFTERWORD: HUMAN AND HOLY  183  APPENDIX: COLOSSIANS AND NT EPHESIANS  189  Works c i t e d  192  V  /ABBREVIATIONS New  Testament books Colossians  NT  1  Cor  1 Corinthians  Phmn  Philemon  2 Cor  2 Corinthians  1 Pt  1 Peter  Gal  Galatians  2 Pt  2 Peter  Heb  Hebrews  Rev  Revelation  1 Jn  1 John  1 Thess  1  2 Jn  2 John  1 Tm  1 Timothy  Mt  Matthew  2 Tm  2 Timothy  Tt  Titus  NT  Eph  Ephesians  NT  Phil  Philippians  Apostolic  Rom  Romans  Col  Thessalonians  Fathers  1 Clem  1 Clement  IgRom  Ignatius, Romans  IgEph  Ignatius, Ephesians  IgSm  Ignatius, Smyrneans  IgMag  Ignatius, Magnesians  IgTr  Ignatius,  IgPhd  Ignatius,  MarPol  Martyrdom of  Poly  Polycarp,  Philadelphians IgPol  Ignatius t o  Trallians Polycarp  Philippians  Polycarp  Books of the Hebrew S c r i p t u r e s and Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals Is  Isaiah  Prov  Proverbs  Lev  Leviticus  Ps  Psalms  Mai  Malachi  Tob  Tobit  Num  Numbers  vi  English Bible Translations JB  Jerusalem B i b l e  NKJV New King James V e r s i o n  KJV  King James Version  NRSV New Revised Standard  NAB  New American B i b l e  Version  NASB New American Standard B i b l e  REB  Revised E n g l i s h B i b l e  NEB  New E n g l i s h B i b l e  RSV  Revised Standard V e r s i o n  NIV  New I n t e r n a t i o n a l Version  TEV  Today's E n g l i s h V e r s i o n  NJB  New Jerusalem B i b l e  Miscellaneous BAGD Bauer e t al, Greek-English  Lexicon of the New Testament  and other E a r l y C h r i s t i a n L i t e r a t u r e (see works c i t e d ) BDF  Blass, Debrunner and Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (see works c i t e d )  ins.  inscription  LXX  Septuagint  mg.  margin  (greeting of l e t t e r s )  NTAF Oxford Society of H i s t o r i c a l H i s t o r y , The New Testament i n the A p o s t o l i c Fathers UBS  (see works c i t e d )  United B i b l e S o c i e t i e s , The Greek New Testament f o u r t h rev. ed., ed. B. Aland e t al (see works c i t e d )  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish t o express lecturers  who  my  have done so  destroy any preconceptions and  uncaring  Neufeld, Daphna  g r a t i t u d e t o the much over  above  all  f o r h i s generous guidance and  Richard  Menkis,  departmental Faculty  Paul  Burns,  Paul  past  I might have had  university:  Arbel,  the  Linda  Mosca  my  faculty  three  and  years  to  of a l a r g e , f a c e l e s s supervisor,  Dietmar  encouragement, as w e l l  Christensen,  and  members  Donna  Robert  Randsalu,  as  Cousland,  along  with  s e c r e t a r y C h r i s t i n e Dawson. I a l s o wish t o thank the  of  Graduate  Studies  for a  U n i v e r s i t y of  B.C.  Graduate  Fellowship f o r the 1996-97 academic year. I am  a l s o g r a t e f u l to the l i b r a r y s t a f f at Vancouver  School  of Theology, e s p e c i a l l y P h y l l i s Barlow; t o Father James Hanrahan of  St. Mark's College and  U n i v e r s i t y , A u s t i n , TX, have probably Augustinian  Father  George Montague of  f o r s p i r i t u a l and  St. Mary's  i n t e l l e c t u a l help  they  f o r g o t t e n g i v i n g ; to Father Michael M a r t e l l and  monks  of  Ladner,  B.C.,  especially  Brother  the  Wilfred  C u r t i n , f o r t a k i n g i n a t o t a l stranger when I had nowhere e l s e t o stay  on  the  Mainland;  and  to Bob  Lane,  Peter  Limper,  and  Rev.  Richard Dixon f o r h e l p i n g me get i n t o the graduate program i n the f i r s t place. C l o s e r t o home, I thank my emotional  and  practical  family f o r an enormous range of  support:  Matthew and Beth, son-in-law  my  adult  children  Rachel,  Bern Muller, and e s p e c i a l l y my  Mary, t o whom t h i s t h e s i s i s dedicated.  wife,  This i s f o r Mary, f o r her patience  —  at t h e s i s time and a l l the time.  he agape panta hupomenei  viii  PART I : INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1; THE PROBLEM A f t e r Jesus, Paul of Tarsus Testament. From the time ascension  (Acts  Jesus  1:9) u n t i l  i s the biggest name i n the New leaves the e a r t h l y scene a t the  the B i b l e  ends with  a warning and  promise of h i s r e t u r n (Rev 22:20 f . ) , Paul i s "on stage," whether as  n a r r a t i v e p r o t a g o n i s t or as w r i t e r of l e t t e r s ,  per cent of the t e x t .  1  for fully  58  Sixteen of the 28 chapters o f the account  of the post-Easter church  i n Acts are dominated by the doings of  Paul;  Testament  13 o f the 21 New  length — But  epistles  —  71 per cent  by  bear h i s name. i n the consensus  of s c h o l a r l y  opinion,  much  of t h a t  content i s Pauline i n name only. Scholars consider as many as s i x of  the 13 l e t t e r s  t o be pseudonymous; not only  t h a t , they are 2  s a i d t o c o n t a i n m a t e r i a l the r e a l Paul would not have w r i t t e n . Many  scholars  historically  also  regard  unreliable  words,  certain  New  Paul's  name than  the p o r t r a i t  and t h e o l o g i c a l l y  Testament  books may  for his principles.  That  of  Paul  i n Acts  distorted.  3  as  In other  show more r e s p e c t f o r tendency continues i n  some o f the e a r l i e s t C h r i s t i a n w r i t i n g s o u t s i d e the New Testament canon:  Clement  of Rome,  Ignatius  ^ Based on a page count  of Antioch  and Polycarp  i n a pocket NRSV New Testament.  2  E.g. Beker 9 and passim, e.g. G u t h r i e P a s t o r a l 18 f f .  R o e t z e l 131 f f . ;  differently  E.g. Haenchen 98 f f . , 112 f f . , Achtemeier 62 f f . , V i e l h a u e r passim; d i f f e r e n t l y e.g. Munck x x x i i i f f . 3  1  of  2 Smyrna a l l quote Paul and p r a i s e him, y e t c r i t i c s o f t e n question 4  how w e l l they understood him. I f a l l t h i s i s true, i t does not d i m i n i s h Paul's as  a New Testament f i g u r e .  that  other  w r i t e r s have  importance  I t i s h i s name, not someone e l s e ' s ,  borrowed  t o add a u t h o r i t y t o so many  l e t t e r s ; i t i s Paul, not someone e l s e , who i s worth h a l f t h e book of A c t s , no matter how d i s t o r t e d the s t o r y . The honor i m p l i e d by a l l t h i s might be left-handed, but i t i s s t i l l enormous. These  claims  do, however,  raise  a  crucial  question. I f  Paul's name i s being used (pseudonymously or i n n a r r a t i v e ) i n the s e r v i c e o f ideas not h i s own, what ideas, and whose ideas, are they? It  i s a question  o f t e n answered  i n colorful  generalities.  Walter Bauer says "the complete surrender o f [Paul's] p e r s o n a l i t y and  historical  particularity"  in  such  literature  pseudonymous P a s t o r a l E p i s t l e s was the p r i c e of Paul•s by  "the church."  as  the  acceptance  Dennis MacDonald r e f e r s i n a s i m i l a r context t o  "the v i c t o r y o f the bishops," Arland Hultgren more k i n d l y t o "the common  Christian  tradition."  Acts,  says  J . Christiaan  Beker,  g i v e s us a " c a t h o l i c Paul" who says the same t h i n g s as everybody else, was  especially "submerged  mission."  Ernst Kasemann says  i n the broad  Paul's  the e a r l y  image  as  Christian  a p o s t o l i c f i g u r e " f o r Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp,  as w e l l as  Richardson  says  of  mission  "exemplary  53.  Gamble  stream  the P a u l i n e  an  4  Harry  Peter.  38, 78 f . , Achtemeier 62, G u t h r i e P a s t o r a l  3 for  the  author  of  the  canonical 2 Peter,  owes nothing  to  any  5  knowledge of h i s d i s t i n c t i v e theology. Running through a l l these turns of phrase i s the that  there  was  some  sort  of  standard,  homogenized  theology t o which Paul had t o be,  or at l e a s t was,  his  Of  imitators  might  well  and  vary  his from  champions. author  to  implication  course,  author;  mainstream  conformed  such  after  "conforming"  a l l , Luke,  "Pastor" and the others would have had t h e i r own  agendas, no  than  these  Paul d i d . But  the emphasis i n claims l i k e  the submerging of the p a r t i c u l a r i t y of Paul i n the of Luke or the Pastor or Polycarp, but r a t h e r on in  broader  trends, the  sort  that attract  such  by  the less  i s not  on  particularity i t s submerging  language as  "the  church," " c a t h o l i c Paul," or "common t r a d i t i o n . " QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED But  is  it  in  fact  possible  to  find  any  such  "common  t r a d i t i o n " or "broad stream" t h a t u n i t e s these v a r i e d w r i t i n g s and  u n i t e s them over  against Paul?  I f so, what i s i t s content?  Where d i d i t come from? And when d i d i t a r i s e — Paul's own It indeed  before Paul, i n  time, or a f t e r h i s death?  i s the contention of t h i s t h e s i s t h a t such a stream be  exceptions)  discerned, differs  although primarily  i t s content  (with  a  in  from  that  emphasis  undisputed Pauline l e t t e r s . I t i s f u r t h e r my mainstream  predates  Paul  in  most  own  can  couple  of  of  the  contention t h a t t h i s  respects,  Paul's work i n i n f l u e n c e even i n Paul's  that  it  lifetime,  Bauer 227, MacDonald 81, Hultgren Normative 71, 57, Kasemann 240, Gamble 43. 5  —  rivalled and  that  Beker  4  a n a l y s i s o f i t s teachings known as the H e l l e n i s t careful  suggests  mission  qualification)  an o r i g i n  i n what i s u s u a l l y  (though t h a t expression  which i s found  requires  evangelizing the Gentiles  of A n t i o c h a t Acts 11:19 f . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s stream or t r a d i t i o n loosely-understood  concept  i s focused on a  o f C h r i s t ' s death and r e s u r r e c t i o n as  p r o v i d i n g atonement and forgiveness f o r s i n s , t o be appropriated through repentance,  a l l i n c o n t r a s t t o Paul's  p a r a d o x i c a l understanding and  death  i n the  of God's breaking  Christ-event.  more p r e c i s e and  of the power of s i n  I t preaches  holy  C h r i s t i a n morals as a c e n t r a l p a r t of the gospel,  living  or  r a t h e r than a  consequence of the gospel as i n Paul's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c thought. I t displays  a  breezy  Judaism as nothing Paul s 1  radical  and  times  more than  critique  remains  in a  appeals  f o r i t s own  apostolic  at  very  appropriation  of  C h r i s t i a n background, q u i t e u n l i k e  of a Jewish  real  sense  very  h e r i t a g e which  normative  validation  unanimity  patronizing  to  a  different  f o r him. stereotyped from  nevertheless Finally, i t concept  Paul's  of  complex  r e l a t i o n s h i p t o "those who were already a p o s t l e s before me" (Gal 1:17). I t i s the f i r s t of  atonement,  three of these  repentance  and  four p o i n t s —  forgiveness,  l i v i n g and the a t t i t u d e toward Judaism — also,  f o r the most  mission;  part,  the stereotyped  the  focus  on  holy  which I propose t o f i n d  i n the t h i n k i n g  concept  the gospel  of  of a p o s t o l i c i t y  the  Hellenist  is, I  shall  argue, a post-Pauline development. Before proceeding, name t o be used  i t i s necessary t o g i v e t h i s phenomenon a  c o n s i s t e n t l y . Most candidates  pose a danger of  5 c l a i m i n g more than I can this if  thesis.  or wish to defend w i t h i n the  "Common t r a d i t i o n , " my  6  original  choice,  everybody or n e a r l y everybody b e l i e v e d i t , but  considering .  .  the  .  of  competing  sounds  as  I s h a l l not  be  streams  in  early  7  Christianity same  question  scope of  whose adherents may  things.  Church"  are  "Orthodoxy,"  or may  "proto-orthodoxy,"  a n a c h r o n i s t i c f o r a l l or  discussion.  "Early  not have b e l i e v e d  Catholicism"  part  refers  to  and  of  the  trends  these  "the  Great  period  under  which  are  a  p o s s i b l e explanation of t h i s phenomenon (see Chapter 11) , so i t s use  as a l a b e l would be question-begging  "Formative  Christianity"  f o c u s i n g on give t h i s  a s i n g l e stream. And  while  "normative C h r i s t i a n i t y " I shall  not  claim  "normative" a l s o c a r r i e s a connotation  i s largely  nature  diversity  context. I  am  would  for i t ,  f a r from denying normative s t a t u s t o c e r t a i n Pauline  formulations;  close:  early  stream a comprehensiveness  s i n c e I am  which  stresses  i n the present  its  inappropriate to  connotations  reflect  this the  of  approval  thesis.  "Mainstream" i s  eventual  "establishment"  of t h i s m a t e r i a l , i t s obvious c o n t i n u i t y with a great deal  of h i s t o r i c a l  C h r i s t i a n thought, and  image of  great  the  connotation  of  apostle. But  normative  status,  i t s power t o  "conform"  "mainstream" a l s o c a r r i e s and  i f pressed  too  the some  f a r would  make Paul a f r i n g e f i g u r e or a crank by c o n t r a s t . ° Cf. the d i s c u s s i o n of many of these same terms by H u l t g r e n Normative 2 f f . , which I have f o l l o w e d i n p a r t . 7  .  .  The danger o f anachronism i n the use o f " C h r i s t i a n , " " C h r i s t i a n i t y " and r e l a t e d words i s acknowledged, but I s h a l l use them n e v e r t h e l e s s . See d i s c u s s i o n at end of p r e s e n t chapter.  6  In the end has  I have chosen "mainline," as an expression which  many of the same connotations  normative  claim.  Pentecostals  as  "mainstream" but  and  Catholics  can  l a c k s the speak  "mainline Protestantism" as r e a d i l y as P r e s b y t e r i a n s do, implying the of  agreement with  same s p i r i t , Paul  Paul word,  I shall  without  wrong,  or  i t or  implying  fringe  i s p r o p e r l y an  without  s t a t u s f o r themselves;  c o n t r a s t mainline p o s i t i o n s with that mainline  v i c e - v e r s a . Because  of  authors  "mainline,"  were  in  those  right  spelled  and  as  one  a d j e c t i v e i n need of a noun t o modify,  s h a l l f r e q u e n t l y speak of "the mainline f a i t h " ; t h i s use of  I  "the  f a i t h " t o designate the content of d o c t r i n e i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the  "mainline"  primary  e s p e c i a l l y Chapter  5).  literature  I  shall  be  studying  (see  g  I should s t r e s s , i f t h i s i s not already c l e a r , t h a t I do not intend t o c l a i m t h a t t h i s mainline f a i t h c o n s t i t u t e s the of C h r i s t i a n i t y . convinced, paper,  f o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l reasons  that  doesn't),  I f C h r i s t i a n i t y indeed has  i t i s impossible  t h a t essence  than t h i s mainline f a i t h : that  every  detail  Christianity; it  covers  of  outside the  to maintain  is likely  an essence  to be  (and I  scope  of  consistently  both  essence am  this  that i t  s m a l l e r and  larger  smaller, because i t i s hard t o b e l i e v e the  mainline  faith  is  essential  to  l a r g e r , because i t i s e q u a l l y hard t o b e l i e v e t h a t  everything  of  importance,  as  i f Paul  or  John  had  nothing e s s e n t i a l t o c o n t r i b u t e . And while I s h a l l c l a i m t h a t the  Having e x p l a i n e d my reasons f o r c o i n i n g the somewhat odd e x p r e s s i o n "mainline f a i t h , " I s h a l l h e n c e f o r t h d i s r e g a r d i t s o d d i t y and s p e l l i t without q u o t a t i o n s marks.  7 mainline f a i t h goes back before Paul, I s h a l l not d i s c u s s whether it  i s truly  primitive;  that  is a  thesis  for  someone  else  to  write. METHOD AND I late  PRESUPPOSITIONS  shall  New  begin  the  search  Testament  and  early  f o r the mainline non-canonical  faith  Christian  which most o f t e n a t t r a c t the s o r t of suggestions The  New  Testament  writings  are  Acts,  with  with  the  writings  already  noted.  i t s much-disputed  9  account  of Paul's career and teaching;  Timothy,  2  regarded work  Timothy,  Titus),  as pseudonymous;  other  than  letters  to  Pauline  letters  Acts  mention  and  the  Paul's  o f t e n regarded 2  arguments  for  pseudonymity  Ephesians  than or  of  not,  drift  P a s t o r a l s and dynamic  Thessalonians.  i n the  in  case these  from  elsewhere.  pseudonymity  of two  the 11  Paul's  2 Peter, the genuine  or  I the the  am  are  less  case  but  only New  the  pseudonymous:  letters  Testament  faith  a as  other  with  Colossians  have  Pauline  Colossians,  impressed  of  (1  widely  three  P a s t o r a l s ; more  mainline  As is  as  name  pseudonymous  name. Excluded  and  theological  and  10  Ephesians  pseudonymous  bearing  the P a s t o r a l E p i s t l e s  and  NT the NT  important,  very  different  found  in  the  f o r 2 Thessalonians, i t s suspected quite  distinct  from  that  of  the  The Gospel of Luke, w r i t t e n by the same author as A c t s , might w e l l shed l i g h t on the theology of the l a t t e r work, but I have excluded i t because i t does not share e i t h e r the p o s t E a s t e r s e t t i n g o r the e x p l i c i t treatment o f Paul c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of my l i t e r a t u r e . 3  1 0  E.g. Hanson 2 f f . , Hultgren I - I I Tm Beker 64 f . , Hanson 7.  17.  8 P a s t o r a l s or of Colossians and NT Ephesians, and not r e l e v a n t t o my My those  purpose.  non-canonical "Apostolic  Polycarp's  letter  particularly  12  literature  Fathers"  who  consists  of  mention  Paul:  t o the P h i l i p p i a n s ,  and  the  the  writings  13  1  seven  of  Clement, letters  of  14  I g n a t i u s g e n e r a l l y accepted because  as genuine.  i t i s g e n e r a l l y considered  different  author  15  2 Clement  to  be  a  a discussion  of the mainline  faith  80-120  CE  (see  Chapter  2) .  I  1 6  of  a l s o f i t w i t h i n the same time frame as my around  later  work  "the  church."  author  of  2  Peter,  They  canonical l i t e r a t u r e : shall  the s i x i n d i v i d u a l s presumed t o have produced the  a  and thus f i t w e l l  refer  to  c a n o n i c a l and non-canonical w r i t i n g s as "our l i t e r a t u r e , "  "Pastor,"  by  and does not mention Paul. These works are a l l  ( i n l a t e r terms) orthodox C h r i s t i a n w r i t i n g s , into  i s excluded  them  "Clement,"  these and  to  ("Luke," the Ignatius  and  Polycarp) as "our authors." How  is  literature?  A  the  mainline  simplistic  faith  definition  to  be  would  identified run  as  those teachings with respect t o which our authors 1) agree among themselves, and 2) d i s a g r e e with Paul.  Roetzel 144 f f . , Beker 72 f f . 3  • Lindemann " A p o s t o l i c " 27.  4  Grant 5, Richardson 81 f f . , Lake 168 f f .  5  Grant 44, 46, Lake 126 f . , Richardson  6  Grant v f f . , Richardson 16 f .  183.  in  our  follows: A l l  9 Simplistically  a p p l i e d , such  a definition  t h e s i s t o a premature h a l t . As w i l l would  not  be  prepared  unanimously h e l d by  to  our  argue  authors  reason  to  use  simplistically. reasonably  which  authors  a  "Mainline" and  other  wrote,  while  p e c u l i a r i t i e s and expect  any one  mainline f a i t h their  is a  is flatly  definition, such  single  point  opposed by,  nor  to  apply  expressions  to a t r a d i t i o n  retaining  or t o a f f i r m  or  their  are  it most  w i t h i n which own  our  theological  agendas; i n other words, there i s no reason  of them, s t i l l  writings.  diametrical  to refer  there  I  l e t t e r s . However, there i s no  so , s i m p l i s t i c  understood  this  emerge i n l a t e r chapters,  that  even unknown t o , Paul's undisputed  would b r i n g  to  l e s s a l l s i x , simply t o embody the every mainline b e l i e f  explicitly  -  Similarly,  it  is  o p p o s i t i o n between our  not  reasonable  authors  on  the  to  one  in  expect  hand  and  Paul on the other, and at any r a t e , as l a t e r chapters w i l l show, such d i a m e t r i c a l o p p o s i t i o n i s seldom i f ever found A more reasonable  set of c r i t e r i a  f o r mainline  i n practice.  teachings,  then,  i s t h a t they should be 1) general or r e c u r r e n t i n our l i t e r a t u r e ,  and  2) i n d i s c e r n i b l e c o n t r a s t or t e n s i o n with Paul's teachings. These through with  10,  two  undisputed  criteria my  will  be  used  inventory of the  qualifications. letters  counts  content  First, as  extensively  not  "Paul's  of our  in  Chapters  literature,  everything teachings."  in Paul  makes i t c l e a r t h a t he "received" (paralambano) c e r t a i n (1 Cor 15:3, the Jerusalem  c f . v. 11), and that h i s two leaders James and  Peter  "who  3 but  Paul's himself  teachings  rather tardy v i s i t s to were a p o s t l e s before  10 me"  r e v e a l e d no s e r i o u s discrepancy between h i s gospel and  (Gal 1:17-19, 2:2,  6-9).  There i s no reason  theirs  to suppose t h a t h i s  p e r s o n a l " r e v e l a t i o n of Jesus C h r i s t " of Gal 1:12  i s intended t o 17  cover h i s e n t i r e knowledge of C h r i s t i a n teaching. a good many passages i n the undisputed scholars  to  be  of  pre-Pauline  from 1 Cor  origin:  for  15,  or NT  Rom  1:3  be  considered  by  Paul,  cannot  Pauline,  and  indeed  sometimes  will  with  agreed  example,  that  f.  stands  characteristically  note  (in origin,  in  the  use  and  of  teachings; t h a t they  just  Such m a t e r i a l , though  in  Pauline  characteristically  a  certain  thought.  degree  These  p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n t h i s t h e s i s : t h a t they  Pauline  by  19  accepted  tension  there are  l e t t e r s widely  18  cited  And  to  the  some degree above  i n content)  criteria  are pre-Pauline w i l l  to be  of  passages are  will  identify  non-  be  of  mainline  of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n  determining the o r i g i n of the mainline f a i t h . Secondly,  these  criteria  between the mainline faith  defined  modified, be  a  our  take  entirely  non-diametrical  c o n s t r u c t . As authors  obvious,  faith  and  focus  and  in  terms  of  disagreement  i s both  on  disagreement  Paul's p o s i t i o n s . And  a historical  Paul  exclusively  a  as the inventory of our  a  disagreement just  reality, priori  mainline  (even  the  can  only  suggested)  common ground likely  and  between  empirically  l i t e r a t u r e w i l l demonstrate.  one obvious example, everyone i n v o l v e d b e l i e v e d Z i e s l e r 19 f . , Fitzmyer " P a u l i n e " 1386.  in  1 7  18  54.  1 9  Bornkamm 140,  E. Sanders Paul 22,  78,  Ziesler  Bornkamm 116,  B a r r e t t Paul 24, Dodd 14,  92.  Schoedel  9 n.  To the  11 resurrection.  But  reconstructing in  a  the concern of t h i s fully  enumerating  its  accounting f o r t h e i r Following literature  rounded  a  thesis  picture  differences  of  brief  3,  creedal  matters:  not  s o much i n  mainline  Pauline  faith  as  thought  and  origin. chapter  2) ,  (Chapter  Chapter  the  from  I  of  shall  introduction  to  assemble  rather  will our  a  3 through  i n v e n t o r y of i t s teachings, i n Chapters these,  lies  9.  d e a l w i t h what i n our day authors'  positions  on  our  primary lengthy  The  first  w o u l d be  God,  the  of  called  status  of  J e s u s , t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n and  o t h e r such s u b j e c t s , w i t h o u t w h i c h  no  account  any  of  the  beliefs  of  early  Christian  stream  would  be  inventory w i l l  focus  on  complete. The more  remaining  specific  myself,  topics  see  not  In to  of  each  criteria.  to The  respect  I shall  those  cast  of  commentators,  between those  the net  the  which  characteristic  before are  or  to  of  so  narrowing  found  I  teachings  somewhat b r o a d l y ,  relevance,  teachings  (Chapter enough  C h r i s t has t o o f f e r , role  "doctrine,"  which  and  4) . The  to  cover  word  of in  "sound  "salvation"  modern  u n d e r s t a n d i n g s , and t o embrace our  characterized  to  as the  f i t  the  t o p i c s are:  broad  The  this  differences  literature  anything  Salvation sense  our  case  miss  discussion  with  noteworthy  characteristic Paul.  s i x chapters of  as  well  i s used as  literature's positions  in  a  ancient on what  by what means, and t o whom. doctrine  varying  (Chapter degrees  teaching,"  by  "the  5) . a  Our  literature  strong  faith"  and  is  concern  for  other  such  12 expressions,  which  on  examination  do  not  turn  out  to  be  e x c l u s i v e l y c r e e d a l concepts. The of  Christian l i f e  Christian  undisputed  living  (Chapter 6). Our l i t e r a t u r e ' s reveals  letters,  both  striking  contrasts  i n frequency  of  vocabulary  with  Paul's  occurrence  and i n  meaning. Judaism  (Chapter  Christian history Christianity shall  7) .  One  of the major  i s the working  relates  of  out of an understanding  t o Judaism.  q u e s t i o n some standard  themes  Here  and i n l a t e r  interpretations  early of how  chapters  as they  I  relate to  our l i t e r a t u r e and t o Paul. Apostolicity  (Chapter  a p o s t l e s , but the concept  8) .  Our  literature  is  full  of  seems t o have come some d i s t a n c e from  Paul's use of the term. The p o r t r a i t of Paul (Chapter 9). Commentators such as those cited and  earlier role,  i n this  as w e l l  chapter  o f t e n suggest  as h i s theology,  have  that been  Paul•s  person  submerged  or  d i s t o r t e d by our l i t e r a t u r e . I  shall  complete  this  inventory with a chapter  those teachings t h a t meet the mainline c r i t e r i a (Chapter 10).  Next,  I shall  briefly  examine  summarizing  d i s c u s s e d above  and r e j e c t  three  common explanations f o r the o r i g i n of t h i s m a t e r i a l (Chapter 11): t h a t i t c o n s i s t s merely i n what l e s s e r minds make of the "hard t o 20  understand" all  a matter  (2 Pt 3:14) r e l i g i o u s of the descent  into  genius "early  of Paul;  that  i t  is  C a t h o l i c i s m " with i t s  Hanson 50, Roetzel 153, Grant 66 f . , a l l i n p a r t .  13 loss  of  the  increasing polity;  2 1  imminent  expectation  formalization and  that  of  i t comes  C h r i s t i a n i t y which opposed  of  worship, from  a  out  to  faith  had  an o r i g i n  however, " P e t r i n e "  doctrine  and  and  Jewish-Christian  its  church "Petrine"  .  Paulinism  Instead, I s h a l l argue  parous i a  and then compromised with Paulinism,  23  lost  the  or  even  •  triumphed  over  •  22 24  Paulinism.  (Chapters 12 through 14) t h a t the m a i n l i n e  earlier  than our  literature  which  was  i n a J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n sense, but was  l e s s Jewish than Paul's own  not,  i n fact  theology: the b e l i e f and p r a c t i c e of  the H e l l e n i s t mission of Acts 11:19 f . I shall  conclude with an Afterword o f f e r i n g  a few  comments  on the s i g n i f i c a n c e of my f i n d i n g s f o r a broader understanding of the  history  of  early  Christianity,  e s p e c i a l l y the reading of the New an Appendix  comparing  the  Testament  role  of  Paul,  and  as a h o l y book; and  the content of C o l o s s i a n s and NT  Ephesians  t o the m a i n l i n e f a i t h as i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s t h e s i s . A few a d d i t i o n a l notes: — T h i s t h e s i s accepts what I take t o be c r i t i c a l that  the P a s t o r a l s  well  after  particularly  and  the death  orthodoxy:  2 Peter are pseudonymous works  of Paul  i t s account  (and of Peter) ;  of Paul's career and  2 5  that  produced  Acts,  teachings, i s as  21  Dunn 344, c f . Kasemann 237. 2 2  F.C. Baur, c i t e d by Dunn 341.  2 3  Goulder  24  185. .  .  .  .  Brown and Meier v m , 215 f . , Achtemeier 63. Hanson 2 f f . , H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 17, Sidebottom 99 f . , R e i c k e 143 f f . 2 5  and  14 f i c t i o n a l i z e d as the author  (whom I s h a l l i n t r a d i t i o n a l  fashion  2 6  c a l l "Luke") found necessary literature,  but most  c o n t a i n s purportedly the theology seven  Philemon  —  significantly  letters  Galatians, will  and t h a t a l l our  the P a s t o r a l s  and  Acts,  "Pauline" m a t e r i a l which i s i n t e n s i o n with  o f the seven undisputed  undisputed  Corinthians,  f o r h i s purposes;  —  NT  Pauline l e t t e r s . Only  NT  Romans,  Philippians,  be t r e a t e d  l  1  as r e l i a b l e  these  Corinthians,  Thessalonians  sources  2  and  f o r Pauline  thought. I do not, however, accept that a l l these assumptions are 27  as unproblematical  as they are o f t e n portrayed,  and t h i s  issue  w i l l be touched upon b r i e f l y i n the Afterword. —Any  originality  interpretations  this  thesis  may  of our post-Pauline  claim  authors,  i s limited especially  to  as a  group, and t h e i r l i n k t o the H e l l e n i s t mission. No c l a i m whatever i s made o f o r i g i n a l i t y i n Pauline s t u d i e s ; f o r t h i s I have r e l i e d on stock i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Paul by acknowledged P a u l i n e s c h o l a r s such  as E.P. Sanders,  C.K. B a r r e t t , Joseph  Z i e s l e r , and by s c h o l a r s of our primary it  i s t o compare  particular,  that  accepting  literature  stock  Fitzmyer  and John  l i t e r a t u r e whose business  t o Paul.  identifications  This  includes, i n  of c e r t a i n  passages  i n t h e undisputed  l e t t e r s as pre-Pauline. A l l comparisons between  Paul's  letters  undisputed  case-by-case  basis,  and our l i t e r a t u r e w i l l  and no  "essence"  or  be made on a  "centre"  of  Pauline  theology w i l l be presupposed or i d e n t i f i e d . 26 27  Haenchen 98 f f . , Achtemeier 62 f f . , V i e l h a u e r •  passim.  E.g. Roetzel 131 f o r the pseudonymity of the P a s t o r a l s .  15 —I  s h a l l not consider i n any  our authors they  systematic way  have chosen t o incorporate Paul  have  done.  That  question  i s well  i n the way  worth  why  the reasons  a  (or ways)  thesis  of  its  28 own. —I  s h a l l use the words " C h r i s t i a n " and  f r e e l y than i s sometimes done i n New The  same w i l l  "church."  o c c a s i o n a l l y be  All  consciously  our  primary  true  Testament s t u d i e s nowadays. with  literature  C h r i s t i a n (even  " C h r i s t i a n i t y " more  i f only  such  is  Acts  r e l a t e d words  more and  or  less  as  self-  Ignatius a c t u a l l y  use the word), so there i s no danger of anachronism i n r e f e r r i n g to  i t a c c o r d i n g l y . There i s a danger of anachronism i n applying  " C h r i s t i a n " t o the undisputed e a r l y events and  traditions,  Pauline and  letters  and  t o other  very  I acknowledge t h a t danger,  but  i n view of the main focus of t h i s t h e s i s any a l t e r n a t e term would l o s e i n c l a r i t y whatever i t might gain i n p r e c i s i o n . — T h e system of abbreviations f o r the works of the A p o s t o l i c Fathers two  and  the  reasons:  letter between  rather  to  canonical emphasize  than  canonical  addressees by  Pauline the the  epistles  identity  has  of  the  recipient,  and  that  of  and  non-canonical  been chosen f o r writer  to  same versus  Roman type. Thus, "IgPol" i s Ignatius' l e t t e r t o Polycarp,  "Poly"  l e t t e r to the P h i l i p p i a n s , and  c a n o n i c a l l e t t e r to the P h i l i p p i a n s . A f u l l may  of  the  italic  i s Polycarp's  use  each  to d i s t i n g u i s h  letters  some c l e a r e r means than the  of  "NT  Phil"  l i s t of  be found f o l l o w i n g the t a b l e of contents. Cf. MacDonald passim, a l s o Babcock passim.  i s Paul's  abbreviations  16 —Except  as  noted,  Standard V e r s i o n  f o r the  Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y texts  are  edition Lake's  translations New  B.  edition  Aland for  United  et  the  al)  language.  bibliography. are  Clinton  Standard  My  and  (Greek  and  the  New  from Kirsopp  Apostolic  The  the  for  the  by  revised  Testament  and  Fathers,  including  also  cited  are  Concordance  Testament,  Exhaustive  only)  Greek  New  texts  Analytical New  Lake's  Fathers.  listed  a u t h o r i t i e s f o r word usage i n the New  of  Revised  from  of Polycarp's l e t t e r extant only  ancient  Morrison's  Version  cross-index, Testament  Other  from  Bible Societies' fourth  Apostolic  L a t i n t e x t of those portions that  Testament  e d i t i o n f o r the  taken from the  (ed.  are  John  Goodspeed's Index P a t r i s t i c u s and  in  to  Concordance Kohlenberger  to et  the al.  in the  Testament  the  English  in  the  Revised  with  Greek  Greek Edgar  New J.  H e i n r i c h K r a f t ' s C l a v i s Patrum  Apostolicorum serve the same f u n c t i o n f o r the A p o s t o l i c  Fathers.  17  CHAPTER 2; THE PRIMARY LITERATURE THE PASTORAL EPISTLES The Titus — two  so-called Pastoral Epistles —  a r e New Testament l e t t e r s purportedly w r i t t e n by Paul t o  o f h i s proteges.  Paul  1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and  wrote  these  A majority of New Testament s c h o l a r s deny letters,  1  while  a  minority  accept  his  2 authorship. S k e p t i c s p o i n t t o an impressive l i s t  of d i f f e r e n c e s between  the P a s t o r a l s and the undisputed Pauline l e t t e r s : 3  both  stylistic  and substantive;  church s t r u c t u r e ; historical  5  details  undisputed  4  i n rhetorical  and i n t h e o l o g i c a l emphasis.  6  technique;  letters  (Tt 1:5), are d i f f i c u l t or with  Acts.  7  in  In a d d i t i o n , the  of the P a s t o r a l s , e s p e c i a l l y  journey by Paul t o Crete the  i n vocabulary,  .  a  missionary  t o square  Defenders  of  with  Pauline  authorship concede much of t h i s ,  but deny t h a t i t i s d e c i s i v e .  In  agrees  particular,  nearly  everyone  E.g. Dibelius-Conzelmann H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 17. 1  2  there  are  1 f f . , K a r r i s x i f . , Hanson 11,  E.g. Fee 1, K e l l y 34, Guthrie P a s t o r a l 55 f .  3  Hanson 2 f . 4  Beker 40 f .  5  Hultgren I - I I Tm 15.  6  Hanson 3 f . , Beker 43 f f .  7  Hultgren I - I I Tm 15 f f .  8  E.g. Fee 1, K e l l y  viii.  theological  18 elements  i n the  P a s t o r a l s which  are  not  classically  though on the other hand i t i s widely agreed come from  an  theological  environment  will  be  3  t h a t the P a s t o r a l s  genuine P a u l i n i s m .  1 0  The  letters  are  aspect of the P a s t o r a l s f o r t h i s t h e s i s .  The  elements i n t e n s i o n with the undisputed  the most important Pastorals  i n f l u e n c e d by  Pauline,  treated  as  pseudonymous,  though  certain  r e s e r v a t i o n s w i l l be mentioned i n the Afterword. Commentators usually dating  date  who  them  regard  between  90  the  Pastorals  and  110  CE.  i s accepted here. Ephesus, or a t any  11  as  pseudonymous  The  conventional  r a t e A s i a Minor,  an area with a strong Pauline t r a d i t i o n and a known church similar  to  that  of  the  P a s t o r a l s , i s the  likely  as  polity  location  for  12  their  composition.  ACTS The the New which  Acts of the Apostles i s the t r a d i t i o n a l  name given t o  Testament n a r r a t i v e of the spread of e a r l y  Christianity,  begins  with  the  a f t e r the r e s u r r e c t i o n  ascension  of  (1:1-11) and  Jesus  into  heaven  ends with Paul's  40  days  arrival  in  E.g. Fee 14, K e l l y 16 f f . , though both f a v o r P a u l i n e authorship. 9  E.g. Z i e s l e r 140, c f . 127, Wilson Luke 3 f . , though both deny P a u l i n e a u t h o r s h i p . 1 0  So e.g. Hanson 12 f . , H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 29 f . ; d i f f e r e n t l y Koester 305, Bauer 222 f . , 226 f . , s u g g e s t i n g dates as l a t e as mid-second century. 1 1  12  Hanson 19; so a l s o Hultgren I - I I Tm 20. I s h a l l not e x p l o r e Wilson's t h e o r y t h a t the P a s t o r a l s were w r i t t e n by the author of A c t s (and of Luke) (Wilson Luke 1 and passim), though I s h a l l c i t e Wilson's comments on the comparative t h e o l o g y of the P a s t o r a l s , A c t s and the undisputed P a u l i n e e p i s t l e s a l o n g w i t h those of other commentators.  19 Rome and h i s two-year house a r r e s t there chief  (28:30 f . ) . Paul i s the  p r o t a g o n i s t of 16 of the 28 chapters,  including  the l a s t  13. It  i s agreed  by  nearly  a l l commentators  that  Acts  was 13  written That  by t h e same author  author  beloved  as the Gospel  has t r a d i t i o n a l l y  been  according t o Luke.  identified  p h y s i c i a n " of C o l . 4:14, Paul's  sole  as  "Luke, the  companion a t 2 Tm  4:11 and h i s fellow-missionary i n s e v e r a l s e c t i o n s of the Acts narrative  (the "we" s e c t i o n s , 16:10-17; 20:5-8, 13-15; 21:1-18; 14  27:1-28:16  ).  While  some  maintain t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , objection  modern 1 5  commentators  many others r e j e c t  i s t h a t the preaching and conduct  continue it;  of Paul  1 6  to  the main  i n Acts i s  incompatible both t h e o l o g i c a l l y and h i s t o r i c a l l y with Paul's own account written  i n h i s undisputed e p i s t l e s and hence c o u l d not have been by  an  eye-  (or ear-) witness.  That  the  theological  emphasis o f A c t s i s , a t the very l e a s t , d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h a t of the undisputed Pauline l e t t e r s i s a c e n t r a l assumption  of t h i s  t h e s i s , but what t h i s f a c t may say about authorship i s a separate matter and w i l l not be decided here. Proposed  dates  f o r Acts  vary  from  the e a r l y  18  17  60s CE  to  around 135 CE. I t i s accepted here t h a t Acts was w r i t t e n a f t e r 13 .. ... E.g. Haenchen v n , 81, Munck xv, Conzelmann A c t s x x x m . 14  L i s t from D i l l o n 722.  15  E.g. Hengel Acts 66; Bruce Acts 19. 1 6  17  iR  E.g. Haenchen 112 f f . , D i l l o n 723, Liidemann 6. Bruce Acts 22, Munck l i v . Koester 310.  20 Paul's  death  (leaving  it  unmentioned  for  literary  and  19 apologetical enough  to  letters  20  reasons  ) and  account and  the  for  a l s o a f t e r Mark's gospel,  the  absence  presence of a t 21  Clement and the P a s t o r a l s :  of  references  but  early  to  Paul's  least possible allusions ... 22  i n the v i c i n i t y of 80 CE.  in 1  There i s  no consensus on the place of w r i t i n g . 2 PETER This  New  Testament  "Simeon  Peter"  (1:1).  intended  i s the most prominent of the  Jesus  epistle It  presents  leaves  no  itself  doubt  as  that  written the  12 d i s c i p l e s who  by  "Peter" followed  d u r i n g h i s m i n i s t r y , s i n c e the l e t t e r r e f e r s t o what  (Peter,  James  (1:16-18, beloved  and  c f . Mt  brother"  John)  saw  17:1-8). and  claims  and  The  heard  at  the  "we"  transfiguration  letter  refers  to  Paul  t h a t Paul  agreed  with  as  "our  the w r i t e r ,  c o n t r a r y t o the d i s t o r t i o n of Paul's "hard t o understand"  letters  by "the ignorant and unstable" (3:15 f . ) . Few of  present-day  s c h o l a r s accept the d i s c i p l e Peter as  2 Peter. Arguments against a u t h e n t i c i t y  include a  author  number  of  f e a t u r e s suggesting a l a t e r date than Peter's death i n the 60s: a t h i r d - p e r s o n , apparently past-tense, reference t o "your a p o s t l e s " So, e.g., B a r r e t t "Controversies" 234, 2 0  240; D i l l o n  767.  Cf. Gamble 41, B a r r e t t Acts 2 f f .  Hanson 13 f o r the P a s t o r a l s , Grant 39 f o r 1 Clement; d i f f e r e n t l y Haenchen 3 f f . , s k e p t i c a l of a l l b e f o r e J u s t i n . 2 1  So, approximately, Conzelmann A c t s x x x i i i , 80-100 CE; Haenchen 9, 86, e s t i m a t i n g 75 CE, both c i t i n g t h e o l o g i c a l grounds. 2 2  21 a t 3:2,  i n c l u s i o n of Paul's l e t t e r s as " s c r i p t u r e " a t 3:16,  a tense s h i f t as  current  "overdone"  i n which what i s prophesied a t 2:1-3  at  2:10  touches  ff. of  In  2 4  addition,  authenticity  such  the  and  i s discussed  commentators as  23  point  to  transfiguration  25  scene; no new  •  use of a v a r i e t y of known t r a d i t i o n s about information;  2 6  Peter, with  the l e t t e r ' s concern f o r the c o n t i n u i t y of  Peter's message a f t e r h i s death a t 1:12-15;  27  a H e l l e n i s t i c Greek 28  style  too  erudite  relationship,  for a  possibly  Galilean  that  fisherman;  and  a  of dependence, with the  literary  epistle 30  29  Jude.  2  Peter  will  be  treated  as  pseudonymous  here,  of • •  with  r e s e r v a t i o n s t o be considered b r i e f l y i n the Afterword. Dating, CE  3 1  on  t o 130 C E .  the assumption 32  of pseudonymity,  I s h a l l date the l e t t e r a t c. 100,  f o r the author t o know of a c o l l e c t i o n 3:16)  and 23 24  ranges  matching  i n argumentation  Sidebottom 100, Neyrey  from  l a t e enough  of Paul's l e t t e r s  Plutarch's  De  sera  (2 Pt numinis  1017.  Sidebottom 99 f .  25  Sidebottom 99. 2 6  Reicke 143, Neyrey  2 7  Reicke 143.  1017.  Reicke 143 f . Sidebottom 68 f . , Neyrey 1018; d i f f e r e n t l y R e i c k e x x x v i , s u g g e s t i n g Jude and 2 Peter both drew from an e a r l i e r source. 2 8  2 9  3 0  For contrary arguments see H i l l y e r 9 f f .  3 1  Reicke 144 f .  3 2  Sidebottom 99.  90  vindicta  of slightly  earlier  date." " 3  5  Rome" * and A s i a  Minor"  3  have  been suggested a s p l a c e s o f o r i g i n . 1 CLEMENT The  letter  usually  known a s 1 Clement was w r i t t e n  from t h e  C h r i s t i a n community i n Rome t o t h a t i n C o r i n t h , t o admonish r e s p o n s i b l e f o r an "abominable certain (3:3,  upstarts  44:3 f f . ) .  had  and u n h o l y  deposed  duly-appointed  sources,  including  Chapter  9) .  at least  Clement  and S y r i a ,  from  church  Christian,  two u n d i s p u t e d  was  c e n t u r i e s t o have a temporary Egypt  (1:1) whereby officials  I t t a k e s 65 c h a p t e r s t o do s o , i l l u s t r a t i n g i t s  argument w i t h numerous examples  1  sedition"  those  Jewish  Pauline  sufficiently  a n d pagan  l e t t e r s (see  esteemed  in  early  p l a c e i n t h e New T e s t a m e n t canon i n  b u t i t s t e x t was l a t e r  lost  i n t h e West and n o t  36  recovered Greek  until  1628.  manuscripts  Alexandria  ( c . 200  plus  The c u r r e n t Greek extensive  CE), as w e l l  text  citations  as  Latin,  i s based by  Syriac  on two  Clement  of  and C o p t i c  37 versions. The  l e t t e r d i d n o t o r i g i n a l l y b e a r t h e name o f an i n d i v i d u a l  (the mention manuscripts  o f "Clement" i n t h e f i n a l i s regarded  as a s c r i b a l  3 3  N e y r e y 1017 f . , c f . Gamble 41.  3 4  R e i c k e 14.  3 5  Elliott  verse i n nearly a l l extant 38 interpolation ), but there  129, Lindeman A l t e s t e n 396.  36 R i c h a r d s o n 39 f . 3 7  38  Lake 5 f f . L a k e ad l o c ,  R i c h a r d s o n ad  loc.  23 i s no evidence t o dispute i t s a t t r i b u t i o n t o a c e r t a i n Clement by 39  Dionysius o f C o r i n t h , likely  an important  Irenaeus official  and Eusebius.  T h i s Clement was  i n the Roman church,  but not a  40  monarchical bishop. 1 Clement i s u s u a l l y dated t o 96 CE, j u s t a f t e r t h e end of Domitian's  p e r s e c u t i o n , on the b a s i s  that  the "misfortunes and 41  c a l a m i t i e s " of 1:1 r e f e r t o that p e r s e c u t i o n ; 90s  remain  a probable  date  f o r the church  f a i l i n g t h a t , the setting  described,  42  though p o s s i b i l i t i e s range from about 75 t o 110 CE. is  accepted here.  No serious  doubt  exists  that  A 90s date  t h e l e t t e r was  w r i t t e n from Rome. THE LETTERS OF IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH Ignatius bishop  of  of Antioch,  Syrian  late  Antioch,  first  wrote  to  or e a r l y  second  s i x churches  century and one  i n d i v i d u a l while being taken under guard from A n t i o c h t o Rome t o face martyrdom i n the arena. The l e t t e r s s t r e s s the importance of church u n i t y under a s i n g l e l o c a l bishop, and combat d o c e t i c and Judaizing  heresies;  i n addition,  Ignatius  pleads  C h r i s t i a n s not t o attempt t o save him from martyrdom.  with  Roman  43  Brown "Rome" 160 f . ; Lake 3. Brown "Rome" 163 f . Clement appears on Roman C a t h o l i c p a p a l l i s t s as t h e f o u r t h pope, but n e i t h e r t h a t c l a i m nor t h e p a r a l l e l c l a i m t h a t 1 Clement was an e x e r c i s e o f Roman a u t h o r i t y over t h e C o r i n t h i a n church w i l l be d i s c u s s e d here. 4 0  4 1  So Brown "Rome" 160, Richardson 33.  4 2  Lake 4 f .  4 3  Lake 166 f . , Richardson 74 f f . , Grant 51 f f .  24 The  first  collection  was  evidently  complete,  of Ignatius' l e t t e r s , made  by  not n e c e s s a r i l y  h i s friend  and  colleague  Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna i n A s i a Minor and addressee o f the one individual then  letter.  is a  The t e x t u a l  complicated  pseudonymous a d d i t i o n a l ones  i n the fourth  reconstructions scholars  from  one,  history  involving  of the l e t t e r s the c r e a t i o n  since  of s i x  l e t t e r s and i n t e r p o l a t i o n of t h e genuine  century,  further  Greek,  Latin  medieval  and  forgeries,  other  i n t h e 19th century and t o a l e s s e r  versions.  extent even  and Some today 45  have considered as few as three of the l e t t e r s t o be genuine. Scholarly  o p i n i o n has favored the genuineness  o f seven  letters  46  since  the late  Ephesians,  19th century  Magnesians,  and those  Trallians,  Smyrneans and t o Polycarp —  letters  Romans,  —  t o the  Philadephians  and  are accepted here.  Eusebius, w r i t i n g i n the fourth century, g i v e s t h e 10th year of T r a j a n (107 or 108 CE) as the date of I g n a t i u s ' martyrdom, but 47  without  s t a t i n g h i s evidence.  Modern s c h o l a r s g e n e r a l l y accept 48  the  reign  of Trajan, 98-117 CE, as the time  of t h e l e t t e r s , 49  some tending toward the l a t e r years of the r e i g n . l a t e r years of Trajan, a f t e r  A date i n the  108, i s accepted here. The l e t t e r s  44  Richardson 81, Grant 47. Richardson 81 f f . , Lake 167 f f . , Meier 73 n. 163, a l l i n disagreement with t h a t view. 4 5  46  Richardson 82 f . 4 7  Grant 48.  48  Grant 48, Lake 166, Richardson 75. 49  . . So Corwin 3, Paulsen 4, Meier 73 n. 163.  25 t o Ephesus, Magnesia,  T r a l l e s , and Rome were w r i t t e n from Smyrna, 50  those  to Philadelphia  and Smyrna and t o Polycarp from  Troas;  both a r e c o a s t a l c i t i e s i n A s i a Minor. Ignatius quotes e x t e n s i v e l y from undisputed P a u l i n e l e t t e r s , p r i m a r i l y 1 C o r i n t h i a n s , and i s regarded by some commentators as a  Paulinist,  but with  perfect understanding.  no  suggestion  of e x c l u s i v e  loyalty  or  51  POLYCARP The  letter  of Polycarp t o the P h i l i p p i a n s  was apparently  w r i t t e n i n response t o a request from the church a t P h i l i p p i f o r advice from him and f o r copies of I g n a t i u s ' l e t t e r s . Polycarp,  bishop of Smyrna, i s himself the addressee  I t s author, o f one of  I g n a t i u s ' l e t t e r s as w e l l as the subject of an extant account of h i s martyrdom, now g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d by s c h o l a r s t o have taken .  place  52  i n 155 o r 156 CE;  he i s quoted  i n the account  of h i s  martyrdom as saying he had then been a C h r i s t i a n 86 years  (MarPol  9:3) . The  letter  pastiche  of  otherwise.  i s devoid  other  early  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  of  originality  Christian  writings,  Polycarp appears  .  and  i s largely canonical  to cite  .  sometimes  called  a Paulinist.  .  The e p i s t l e ' s .  50  .  most  .  Lake 166, Paulsen 3, both c i t i n g Eusebius. 5 1  Grant 57 f f . ,  121 f f . ,  130, Koester 281 f f .  5 2  Shepherd  5 3  Grant 66 f . , Shepherd 125.  5 4  E.g. Turner 10.  121, c f . 144, c f . Lake 280.  and  almost the  e n t i r e c a n o n i c a l Pauline corpus i n c l u d i n g the P a s t o r a l s ; 54  a  53  .  he i s .  .  distinctive  26  feature  is  its  comment  on  Valens,  apparently deposed f o r t h e f t . d e f e c t i v e Greek manuscripts, .  and  .  5  sentence  sometimes written  of  thought  before  two  has  and  four of i t s 14  are  the  extant  present  Ignatius' death  and  only  and  has  no  Eusebius,  chapters  the  The  debate  on  chapters p l u s in  this  Latin.  13  remainder .  h i s martyrdom.  r e l i a b i l i t y and  survived i n eight  lengthy quotations by  56  after  presbyter  .  another that  Philippian  letter  5  a Latin translation,  final  The  a  and of  .  the  It 14  the  is  were letter  .  p o i n t hinges  on  the  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a passage extant only i n L a t i n  bearing on  this  thesis,  so no  position  i s taken.  A  date s h o r t l y a f t e r t h a t of Ignatius' l e t t e r s i s accepted  for a l l  parts  it  •  of  Polycarp's  •  letter,  o r i g i n a l l y one l e t t e r or  5 5  Lake  two.  regardless  of  whether  was  57  281.  So e s p e c i a l l y H a r r i s o n 311 f . , 206, a l s o Lindemann A l t e s t e n 87, Corwin 9 f . ; d i f f e r e n t l y Paulsen 111 f . , Shepherd 124 f . 5 6  315,  So Shepherd 122, c f . Corwin 110; d i f f e r e n t l y H a r r i s o n g i v i n g a date around 135 CE f o r the f i r s t 12 c h a p t e r s .  27  PART I I ; INVENTORY OF PRIMARY LITERATURE CHAPTER 3; CREEDAL CONTENT — In  each  of the next  GOD. JESUS. THE HOLY SPIRIT seven  chapters,  I  shall  survey the  p o s i t i o n s taken by our authors on a t o p i c on which t h e mainline faith,  as d e f i n e d  something entirely  to  i n this  say. In  thesis,  each  might  case,  I  be  shall  expected first  t o have  concentrate  on our l i t e r a t u r e , with l i t t l e or no r e f e r e n c e t o Paul's  views. I s h a l l then provide a summary f o r each chapter which does take Paul  i n t o account,  i n an attempt  to identify  which our l i t e r a t u r e  i s g e n e r a l l y agreed  the  i n Chapter  level  specified  1) ,  over  as good  p o s i t i o n s on  a g a i n s t Paul (at candidates  t o be  considered mainline teachings. The  present  chapter  concerns  matters:  what  included  i n the c l a s s i c a l  convenience  our l i t e r a t u r e  I have  has t o say about  creeds.  f o r organizing  what  these  This  called  teachings  i s , o f course,  topics;  no  creedal later only  implication  a is  intended t h a t any of our authors had anything l i k e the systematic outlook o f the f a t h e r s of Nicaea. BINITARIAN AND TRINITARIAN FORMULAS The  components of l a t e r t r i n i t a r i a n theology —  Son and Holy S p i r i t — seldom  i n that  formulations  1  can be found i n a l l of our l i t e r a t u r e , but  formulation. B i n i t a r i a n  predominate.  most o f the l e t t e r s  the Father,  1  "God and Jesus  These a r e found  Christ"  i n the greetings of  (1 Tm 1:1 f . , 2 Tm 1:2, T t 1:4, 2 P t 1:2, 1  Cf. Hanson 153.  28 Clem i n s . ; IgEph i n s . , IgMag i n s . , IgRom i n s . , IgSm i n s . , IgPol 2  ins.;  .  Poly  blessings  (1  ins.),  as  well  Clem  65:2,  as  occasionally  IgEph  20:21, 28:31, c f . Schwartz  21:2)  15;  1 Tm  and 2:5,  i n the  concluding  elsewhere  (e.g.  Acts  IgTr 12:2,  Poly  12:2;  c f . Poly 2:1 ). 3  T r i n i t a r i a n references are l e s s common. The most s p e c t a c u l a r of  these i s IgMag 13:1,  r e f e r r i n g p r e c i s e l y t o "the Son  and  the  4 Father and the S p i r i t , " 5  .  a l l manuscripts, (en  huio  kai  en,  .  .  found i n n e a r l y  i s disputed on v a r i o u s grounds:  patri  preposition  but the reading, though  .  kai  en pneumati) , by  c o n t r a s t s Father and  t h a t the Greek  the double  Son  with  use  Spirit,  6  of or  the even  7  t h a t " S p i r i t " i s a secondary a l t e r a t i o n ; i n the f o l l o w i n g verse, "to C h r i s t , and t o the Father, and t o the S p i r i t , " "the S p i r i t " 8  .  9  i s r e j e c t e d by many t r a n s l a t o r s . our l i t e r a t u r e are 1 Clem 46:6  .  .  Other t r i n i t a r i a n  ("one  God,  references i n  and one C h r i s t , and  S p i r i t of g r a c e " ) ; 1 Clem 58:2  ("God... the Lord Jesus  the Holy S p i r i t " ) ;  ("God  1 0  2  Corwin 116 f .  3  Turner  IgEph 9:1  our  Christ...  [the Greek l a c k s  361.  4 Grant 121, Paulsen 56. 5  Schoedel 131 and n. 13, 4 and n. 23.  6  Schoedel 130 f . , Corwin 143; d i f f e r e n t l y Paulsen 56.  7  Schoedel  Q  131.  So Paulsen, Richardson.  •  So Lake, Schoedel. 1 0  Grant 118, Grant and Graham 91.  one  'our']  29  Father...  Jesus  Christ...  the  Holy  Spirit ); 1 1  and,  1 1  more  12  questionably,  IgTr  ins.  IgPhd  i n s . mentions  God t h e Father,  C h r i s t and the Holy S p i r i t w i t h i n a s i n g l e verse, but i n a l e s s strikingly  parallel  way  than  the passages  previously  cited;  similar  loose groupings are found a t IgPhd 7:2  Spirit)  and a t 1 Clem 16:2, 42:3; IgEph 18:2, and T t 3:4-6 ( a l l  God,  C h r i s t , S p i r i t ) ; the passage  (Father, C h r i s t ,  i n T t 3 i s considered by Hanson  t o be genuinely t r i n i t a r i a n but t o have i t s o r i g i n  in liturgical 13  t r a d i t i o n r a t h e r than i n the theology of the Pastor. THE FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT Of t h e components of the (eventual) T r i n i t y , God i s r e f e r r e d to  as Father  i n a l l our l i t e r a t u r e  r e f e r e n c e s a r e not e s p e c i a l l y father"  (theos  greeting  o f each  used  once  sonship),  in 2  latter  theos  pater  called 1 1  i n the P a s t o r a l s  only  i n the  (1 Tm 1:2, 2 Tm 1:2, T t 1 : 4 ) .  Peter  (1:17,  i n Greek,  times  closely  tied  i n with  by I g n a t i u s : IgEph  Schoedel  It  is  Christ's  i n s . , 9:1, 21:2  "God the F a t h e r " ) ; i n s . , IgPol  .  .  .  IgMag i n s . ,  i n s . God i s a l s o  " f a t h e r , " "the Father" e t c . (as d i s t i n c t Corwin 142 f . , Schoedel .65 f . and n. 6. .  14  "God our Father" by Lake but s t i l l  i n s . , 1:1; IgSm  12  but the  frequent. The expression "God the  appears  two t r a n s l a t e d  5:2; IgPhd  Polycarp,  letter  and s e v e r a l  (the  3:1,  pater)  except  from  "God t h e  .  So Lake, c a p i t a l i z i n g " S p i r i t " i n t r a n s l a t i o n ; however, t h e Greek en sarki kai pneumati suggests a p a r a l l e l i s m o f f l e s h and s p i r i t as common nouns r a t h e r than a t r i n i t a r i a n meaning o f " s p i r i t , " so Schoedel 137. 1 3  Hanson 40.  1 4  Cf. Guthrie P a s t o r a l 47.  30  Father")  three  times  i n Acts,  a l l early  and  never  placed  Paul's mouth (1:4, 7; 2:33); seven times i n 1 Clement 19:2,  23:1,  nearly  29:1,  a l l of  35:3,  which  56:16) ;  are  1 5  expression "God  i n close  literature,  though  the  i t might  association  (Holy) be  8:3,  and more than 40 by I g n a t i u s ,  opposed t o independent a c t i o n by the F a t h e r . The  (7:4,  Christ  IgEph 9:1,  suitable  to  i s unknown  be  supported  i n our by  the  God  46:6,  IgMag 13:1. Nothing i n our remaining authors i s  f o r demonstrating  some passages  the  divinity  of  the  Spirit,  though  a s s o c i a t i n g the a c t i o n of the S p i r i t w i t h t h a t of  lend themselves t o such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the l i g h t of  d o c t r i n a l d e f i n i t i o n s : T t 3:4 us through  as  1 6  Spirit"  argued  with  s t r o n g e s t of the t r i n i t a r i a n formulas c i t e d e a r l i e r : 1 Clem 58:2;  in  renewal  f . , i n which "God  by the Holy S p i r i t ,  and  our S a v i o r " saves  2 Pt 1:21,  those "moved by the Holy S p i r i t  spoke from God."  "the S p i r i t  17  of the Lord," 8:39;  later  "the S p i r i t  i n which  Acts r e f e r s to  of Jesus,"  16:7;  and as a d i s t i n c t e n t i t y unknown t o c e r t a i n d i s c i p l e s a t Ephesus but  received  Jesus,"  by  19:1-6  them  upon  baptism  " i n the  (pneuma anarthrous,  however,  name  of  except  Polycarp's s o l e apparent reference t o the Holy S p i r i t 5:3,  the at  v.  Lord 6).  i s a t Poly  t r a n s l a t e d by Lake as "every l u s t warreth a g a i n s t the S p i r i t  (Greek kata  tou pneumatos) ," with a c a p i t a l  1 5  Cf. Grant  1 6  Corwin 117 f . , c f . Schoedel 18.  S;  Lake t r e a t s  the  116.  17 So NRSV, so a l s o Haenchen, Conzelman A c t s ad loc., but a n a r t h r o u s i n Greek, pneuma kuriou, so perhaps b e t t e r "a s p i r i t of t h e L o r d , " c f . BDF 134; a r t i c u l a r , however, a t 8:29, t o pneuma, i n the same n a r r a t i v e and w i t h the same r e f e r e n t .  31 verse as a c i t a t i o n of 1 Pt 2:11, the s o u l  which p i t s  (psuche) , as w e l l as of Gal 5:17,  the  flesh  against  which p i t s the  flesh  18  a g a i n s t the (Holy) JESUS AND  Spirit.  HIS TITLES  Jesus i s c a l l e d "son" once i n 2 Pt  (1:17), quoting the v o i c e  from heaven i n the t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n s t o r y ; twice u n e q u i v o c a l l y i n Acts  (9:20, 13:33, the l a t t e r an a p p r o p r i a t i o n of Ps. 2:7),  placing  this  characteristically  mouth;  plus  "Son  19  (NRSV mg.), the  text;  20  of Man"  Pauline  a t 7:56,  and  expression  p o s s i b l y "son"  g e n e r a l l y , however, r e j e c t e d as a l a t e r once i n 1 Clem  in  (36:4, a c i t a t i o n  both  Paul's at  8:37  addition to  of Ps  2:7  and/or  21  Heb.  1:5,  plus  "child,"  I g n a t i u s : IgEph 4:2, of  God"  as one);  20:2  pais,  at  59:2,  4;  (counting "the Son  IgMag 8:2,  13:1;  and of Man  s i x times and  the  IgRom i n s . (twice); IgSm  by Son 1:1.  22  Jesus The  i s never c a l l e d  expression  the substance 1:1,  "God may  "son"  the  Son"  i n the  Pastorals  i s unknown i n our  be taken t o be  implied by  by  Polycarp.  literature,  IgRom i n s . and  i n each of which Jesus i s separately c a l l e d  i n the same verse, and by IgMag 13:1,  or  "God"  and  but IgSm "son"  i n which "son" i s used i n a  t r i n i t a r i a n (or a t any r a t e t r i a d i c ) formulation. Fitzmyer " G a l a t i a n s " 789. 1 8  19  M a r s h a l l A c t s 173, Wilson A c t s 75 f . , c f Ludemann 116; however, though c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y P a u l i n e , t h i s usage i s not d i s t i n c t i v e l y P a u l i n e . See summary of t h i s chapter. 20  Conzelmann Acts 69, Marshall Acts  165.  21  So Lake ad loc., Richardson ad loc. (but "son" a t v. 4), Grant 117; d i f f e r e n t l y Grant and Graham ad loc, "servant." BAGD l e a n s t e n t a t i v e l y t o "son" over " s e r v a n t . " 22  Hanson 3.  32  That  Jesus  i s God  i s most c l e a r l y s t a t e d i n our  literature  23  •  by I g n a t i u s ,  as noted  other  passages,  e.g.  18:2,  "our  Jesus  God,  i n the preceding paragraph  IgEph i n s . , "Jesus the  Christ"  Christ  and our  i n several God";  (Ignatius having  IgEph  inserted  an  a t t r i b u t i o n of d i v i n i t y i n t o what otherwise c l o s e l y resembles the probably pre-Pauline "descended from David" formula a t NT Rom f.  2 4  and  );  IgRom 3:3,  Polycarp  megalou  have  theou  translated  "our God, one  kai  "our  Jesus C h r i s t . " The P a s t o r a l s , 2 Peter  disputed  soteros  great  1:3  reference  hemon Iesou  God  and  Savior  each.  Tt  2:13,  Christou, Jesus  is  tou  usually  Christ,"  25  but  2 6  sometimes 1:1,  tou  "the theou  great  God  hemon kai  and  our  soteros  Savior Iesou  Jesus  Christ."  Christou,  is  2  Pt  similarly  27  translated  "our God  and  Savior Jesus C h r i s t " by NRSV,  the placement of the possessive a d j e c t i v e a f t e r "God" after  " S a v i o r " seems t o separate the two "  Grant 125 f . , Corwin 130 f f . ,  elements.  Schoedel  28  but  here  r a t h e r than Poly  12:2,  39.  24 Lmdemann " A p o s t o l i c " 37. So NRSV, NIV, NEB/REB, TEV, JB/NJB, NASB, NKJV; NAB mg.; so a l s o Hanson 184 f . , G u t h r i e P a s t o r a l 212, H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 165, Fee 196, a l l r e l y i n g i n v a r i o u s ways on the most n a t u r a l r e a d i n g of the immediate Greek p h r a s i n g , so a l s o Brown, Jesus 17; but c f . BDF 145, "two phrases i n a p p o s i t i o n , " n o t i n g , however, t h a t the phrases may be separated. 2 5  So KJV, NAB, NRSV mg., NEB/REB mg., TEV mg., JB/NJB mg., NASB mg.; so a l s o K a r r i s 117, K e l l y 246 f . , D i b e l i u s Conzelmann 143, on the b a s i s of the g e n e r a l low c h r i s t o l o g y of the P a s t o r a l s . 2 6  So a l s o NIV, JB/NJB, NAB, TEV, NEB/REB, NASB, NKJV, Sidebottom 104 f . , Reicke 150, H i l l y e r 158, Neyrey 1018. 2 7  So KJV, NRSV mg., NAB mg., "our God and the S a v i o r Jesus C h r i s t ; " c f . Brown Jesus 15, 22, n o t i n g the s e p a r a t i o n but n e v e r t h e l e s s t r a n s l a t i n g "our God and S a v i o r " on t h e 2 8  33 "our  Lord  and God Jesus  Christ,"  contrasted moreover with the 29  Father,  i s dependent on the L a t i n  text  i n the absence o f the  chapter  i n s u r v i v i n g Greek manuscripts.  Some L a t i n MSS omit the  c r u c i a l e t deum; Grant  supports the i n c l u s i o n o f e t deum on the  b a s i s t h a t i t s removal i s a s c r i b a l harmonization Latin  manuscripts  also  o f Polycarp i n  containing inauthentic/interpolated 30  I g n a t i a n l e t t e r s with a lowered c h r i s t o l o g y . Acts, though of g e n e r a l l y s u b o r d i n a t i o n i s t / a d o p t i o n i s t / 31  exaltation divinity NRSV  christology,  e.g. 2:36,  a t 3:15, where Jesus  "the Author  of L i f e , "  3 2  might  i s called  be argued  ho archegos  t o imply tes zoes,  but BAGD p r e f e r s "leader,  ruler,  33  prince"  f o r archegos,  salvation  r a t h e r than  and with  Marshall  the r e s u l t 34  Nicene  reading w i l l  implied  hardly  stand  up.  equates  "life"  of c r e a t i o n , .  .  with  so such  a  .  Divinity  could  a l s o be  a t 20:28, i n which God has obtained the church  dia tou 35  haimatos tou ldiou, most l i t e r a l l y "blood of h i s own" but analogy o f 1:11, tou kyriou hemon kai soteros, "our L o r d and Savior. 11  29  A t e x t " r e c h t ungenau und f e h l e r h a f t , " Paulsen 111; d i f f e r e n t l y Shepherd 124, "trustworthy." Grant 68, so a l s o Lake, ad loc, w h i l e n o t i n g t h e o m i s s i o n i n some manuscripts; d i f f e r e n t l y Paulsen, ad loc, Shepherd, ad loc, both o m i t t i n g "and God" without comment. 3 0  C f . Haenchen 92; Hengel A c t s Conzelmann A c t s x l v i . 3 1  3 2  63; Wilson Luke 77 f . ;  So a l s o NIV, NAB; NASB mg.  C f . JB/NJB, KJV/NKJV, NASB, REB " p r i n c e o f l i f e , " TEV "one who l e a d s t o l i f e , " NEB "him who has l e d t h e way t o l i f e . " 3 3  3 4  M a r s h a l l Acts 91 f .  3 5  So NRSV mg., NAB mg., NEB/REB mg.  34 possibly "with  "with  the  h i s own  blood  of  blood,"  36  though 37  h i s own  Son."  sometimes  Many  translated  manuscripts  also  38  attribute  this  action  t o the Lord  r a t h e r than  t o God,  which  would e l i m i n a t e the c l a i m of d i v i n i t y f o r C h r i s t a t t h i s p o i n t . 1 Clement has no e x p l i c i t Christ,  3 9  inferred  statement  attributing divinity to  and o f f e r s only such support f o r t h e d o c t r i n e as may be from  the p r e v i o u s l y - c i t e d  trinitarian  formulas  a t 46:6  and 58:2, but, while suggestive, these stop w e l l s h o r t o f c a l l i n g Jesus "God.  11  Ignatius e x p l i c i t l y describes C h r i s t as p r e - e x i s t e n t : IgMag 40  6:1,  "from  e t e r n i t y with the Father"  (pro aionon  para  patri).  Various passages i n the P a s t o r a l s are taken by some commentators to  imply pre-existence: grace given us i n him before t h e ages (2  Tm 1:9 f .  4 1  ) , h i s coming i n t o the world  (1 Tm 1:15 ), h i s being 42  43  revealed  i n the f l e s h  (1 Tm  3:16).  But the author  does not  develop  t h e p o i n t , and because of h i s use o f v a r i o u s formulas So NRSV mg., so a l s o NIV, NASB, NAB, NEB/REB, KJV/NKJV, JB; c f . TEV mg., " h i s own death." 3 6  So NRSV, NJB, so a l s o M a r s h a l l A c t s 334, more t e n t a t i v e l y Conzelmann A c t s 175; c f . TEV, " s a c r i f i c i a l death o f h i s Son." 3 7  38  TEV  mg. 39 40 4 1  So UBS mg., so a l s o NEB/REB, NIV mg., NJB mg., NAB mg., Cf.  Grant 117.  Schoedel 114, Corwin 137. K e l l y 163.  42  Hanson 61. 4 3  Fee 93.  35 with  "no  sign  of  theological  reflection,"  44  i t i s not  to  be  45  assumed t h a t he i s c o n s c i o u s l y promoting t h i s d o c t r i n e .  Similar  i s the only l i k e l y reference i n Polycarp, "Jesus C h r i s t has come i n the f l e s h , " and  (7:1), a c i t a t i o n moreover of 1 Jn 4:2  l i k e those passages  more concerned  with C h r i s t ' s  his  coming.  attributing Spirit" the  Clement  Psalm  34  (1 Clem 22:1  Lord  Christon)  Jesus at  C h r i s t o l o g y . The  to ff ) ,  would  seems  him  to  imply  "through  the  but h i s statement  Christ"  64:1  flesh  .  46  with  f , 2 Jn 7  (ho  eklexamenos  seem t o go  better  than  .  .  pre-existence  (Lake,  'his')  t h a t God ton with  an  Holy  "chose  kurion  out  Iesoun  adoptionist  only p o s s i b l e references t o p r e - e x i s t e n c e i n 2  Peter are t h i n i n the extreme: h i s " e t e r n a l kingdom" a t 1:11 his  in  "coming" a t 1:16,  both emphasizing  and  f u t u r e r a t h e r than past. 47  Jesus i s not presented as p r e - e x i s t e n t i n A c t s . Jesus i s c a l l e d Lord (kurios) 2:36,  16:31, 1 Tm  IgEph 7:2, (the  1:2,  6:3,  2 Pt 1:8,  IgPhd i n s . , Poly 1:1,  Father)  by  a l l our  by a l l our authors, e.g. Acts  7:2;  authors  2:20,  1 Clem i n s . , 12:7,  "Lord" i s a l s o used of  except  Polycarp  and  God  possibly  48  Ignatius, and  e.g.  possibly  2 Pt 3:15,  IgEph  17:2.  1 Tm Jesus  6:15, i s also  Acts 2:39, called  1 Clem  Christ  by  60:1, every  author and i n every document. C h r iLuke s t " (or " C h r i s t Jesus," Dibelius-Conzelmann 9, c"Jesus f . Wilson 85 f, 4 4  4 5  Hanson 61,  4 6  Cf- Paulsen  4 7  Wilson Luke 78,  4 8  Sidebottom  123. 120.  125.  88.  36  as  throughout fairly or  49 i n the P a s t o r a l s ) outnumbers p l a i n  i s more common  i n our l i t e r a t u r e  plentiful.  Polycarp,  Ignatius.  5 0  except  "Jesus" i s never  only  once  "Jesus"  f o r Acts, where i t i s a l s o found  alone  (1:2) i n 2 Peter  On the other hand, " C h r i s t "  i n the P a s t o r a l s  and three  i s never  found  times i n standing  alone as a proper name (as f r e q u e n t l y i n Paul's undisputed works) i n 2 Peter or A c t s , "Christ"  5 1  and only once i n the P a s t o r a l s (1 Tm 5:11).  standing alone s l i g h t l y  outnumbers "Jesus  Christ/Christ  Jesus" i n 1 Clement but i s r a r e i n Ignatius and Polycarp and f a r outnumbered 52  name.  by  "Jesus  Christ/Christ  Jesus,"  .  Jesus i s c a l l e d "the C h r i s t " i n Acts  also  as a  proper  (9:22, 17:3 e t c . ) ,  53  54  1 Clem 42:1 f . and IgEph 18:2. "the  Christ"  (the "anointed  The s o l e I g n a t i a n r e f e r e n c e t o  one") i s explained by Corwin  r e f e r e n c e t o h i s a n o i n t i n g , which had j u s t been mentioned 17:1);  by Schoedel  as a (IgEph  as r e f l e c t i n g "an o l d e r (perhaps a d o p t i o n i s t )  55  tradition." Jesus called  i s a s s o c i a t e d with s a l v a t i o n by a l l our authors, and  "savior"  explicitly  by a l l except  Clement,  typically i n  the present tense and o f t e n as a conventional-sounding t i t l e : e.g Wilson Luke 87. 5 0  Grant 124.  5 1  Conzelmann Acts 74.  5 2  Corwin 110 f . , Schoedel 84.  5 3  Cf. Schwartz 17 f .  5 4  Grant 124.  5 5  Corwin 110, Schoedel 84.  37  2 Tm  1:10,  T t 1:4  1:1,  IgMag  i n s . , IgPhd  does,  however,  e t c . , 2 Pt 1:11  say  9:2,  the  e t c . , A c t s 5:11,  IgSm 7:1,  elect  are  Poly  saved  ins.  13:23, IgEph 1 Clem  5 6  through  Jesus  again a present, ongoing work (hoi sozomenoi dia Iesou Clement's only use (59:3), and three  of the  title  soter  a p p l i e s the  58:2  Christ, Christou).  term  to  God  the m a j o r i t y of uses i n the P a s t o r a l s i n c l u d i n g a l l  i n 1 Timothy a l s o apply t o God.  Jesus  i s a s s o c i a t e d with  judgement by a l l our authors, e x p l i c i t l y a t 2 Tm  4:1,  Acts  17:31  1 Clem  13:2  and  Poly 2:1,  with looser a t t r i b u t i o n s a t 2 Pt 3:7,  and  IgSm 6:1.  His humanity i s mentioned i n v a r i o u s ways by a l l  our authors except 2 Peter, with the i n c l u s i v e human anthropos 1 Tm  2:5,  the male aner  57  a t Acts  17:31,  and  at  references to h i s 58  flesh  at  1  Clem  32:2,  stresses  his  language,  e.g. IgEph 7:2  born... God  humanity  49:1  and  Poly  frequently  in  7:1,  while  varied  and  i n man...," IgEph 20:2 IgTr  9:1  "truly  "the Son of Man  born."  mentioned by the Pastor at 2 Tm and  s e v e r a l times  by  insistent  "both f l e s h and s p i r i t , born and y e t not 59  God,"  and  Ignatius  Ignatius  2:8,  and the Son of .  Christ's  D a v i d i c descent  i n Acts e.g.  (e.g. IgRom 7 : 3 ) ,  a t 13:22  6 0  2  Peter or Polycarp, and remarkably not by Clement, who devotes A c c o r d i n g t o Paulsen (25, 114), i n I g n a t i u s and P o l y c a r p i t i s a t r a d i t i o n a l d e s i g n a t i o n out of keeping w i t h t h e i r own t h e o l o g y .  a  5 6  5 7  Wilson Luke 78,  88.  5 8  Paulsen  5 9  Grant 123,  6 0  Cf. Schwartz 17.  6 1  Grant 122 f . , Schoedel  120. 126, Corwin 92.  186.  not  f., by  61  but  is  38 lengthy  chapter  (18)  to  David  without  d e s i g n a t i n g him  as  an  ancestor of C h r i s t . DEATH AND  RESURRECTION  Jesus' references expect.  death seem  i s referred less  References  to  numerous  by  and  to Christ's  a l l our  authors,  prominent  death  than  are missing  but  one  in  the might  unexpected 62  places,  so t o speak:  the Areopagus speech  c r e e d a l summary a t 1 Tm  3:16.  i n Acts  17  and  the  In a d d i t i o n , the r e f e r e n c e i n 2  63  Peter i s p a r t i c u l a r l y oblique, a c r i t i c i s m of those who  "deny the  Master  despotes),  who  bought  them"  (2:1:  ho  agorasas  autous 64  "bought" being a reference t o the c r u c i f i x i o n c l e a r enough t o those who t o those who  already knew the s t o r y and  d i d not. The  is  2:8),  crucified  (2:23,  13:28  Clem he  2:6),  " i f we have died with him" (2:23, anaireo,  prospegnumi, 3:15  i s "come t o death"  as p a r t of a passage  2:36,  apokteino,  "risen  meaningless  from the dead"  (2 Tm  2:11). In Acts, he  4:10  stauroo)  5:30  or  killed  diacheirizomai).  In 1  (16:9), " d e l i v e r e d t o death"  (16:13)  applying I s a i a h 53 t o C h r i s t . References t o  the p a s s i o n are, however, abundant i n I g n a t i u s ,  6 5  who  f o r example  r e f e r s t o "the death of the Lord" (IgEph 19:1), says C h r i s t truly  crucified  (stauroo)  and  V i e l h a u e r 36. Ziesler  139.  So a l s o H i l l y e r 182 f . Corwin 170 f .  be  P a s t o r a l references are a l s o somewhat  o b l i q u e : Jesus "gave h i m s e l f " (1 Tm (2 Tm  which would  died"  (IgTr 9:2)  and  was  "was  "truly  39  nailed"  (IgSm  1:2,  the cross  having  been  mentioned  i n the  previous v e r s e ) . Polycarp r e f e r s t o C h r i s t ' s " s u f f e r i n g of death" (1:2),  "who bare our s i n s i n h i s own body on the t r e e "  allusion  t o 1 Pt 2:24 ). 66  Only  Polycarp  (7:1) (an a n t i d o c e t i c  67  68  reference our  ) and Ignatius (several times, e.g. IgEph 9:1)  authors  three  (8:1, an  mention the cross  times  execution  refers  (5:30,  to a tree  10:39,  (stauros)  as a noun, while  (dendron)  13:29)  among Acts  as t h e instrument  and the Pastor,  2  Peter  of and  Clement use n e i t h e r word. The  resurrection i s at least  though again 2 Peter as  a present  mention  reality,  o f h i s death  remaining dead  i s extremely  authors  oblique: r e f e r e n c e s t o C h r i s t 69  especially a t 2:1  presumed by a l l our authors,  3:18,  despite  (see preceding  make i t e x p l i c i t :  Jesus  IgTr  resurrection  9:2), (1  the  Clem  apostles 42:3),  were  the  from the  and  by  first  aorist,  references,  but Jesus  transitive,  himself  rose  Jesus'  passion  and  (IgMag 11:1), God r a i s e d  Jesus up (Poly 1:2, c i t i n g Acts 2:24). God r a i s e d Jesus or anistemi  The  (Acts 2:24, 13:30,  reassured  birth  r e s u r r e c t i o n took p l a c e i n P i l a t e ' s time  paragraph).  was r a i s e d  (2 Tm 2:8), God r a i s e d him from the dead  etc.,  the i n d i r e c t  (egeiro  so BAGD) i n most of these (anistemi,  second  i n t r a n s i t i v e , so BAGD) a t Acts 17:3 (edei... anastenai 6 6  Lake 292, Paulsen 121.  6 7  Paulsen 120.  6 8  Corwin 170, c f . Grant 124.  6 9  So a l s o H i l l y e r 226 f . , Sidebottom 126.  aorist,  ek nekron,  40 "it  was necessary  [ f o r the Messiah]... t o r i s e  IgRom 6:1 (ton di' hemas anastanta, possibly  Poly 9:2  (ton...  from t h e dead"),  "him who rose f o r u s " ) , and  hupo tou theou  70  anastanta).  A t IgSm  71  2:1 he " r a i s e d h i m s e l f " (anestesen  heauton).  SUMMARY: PAUL AND THE MAINLINE FAITH Our and of  literature's  the d i v i n i t y  varied  positions  on t r i n i t a r i a n  and pre-existence of Jesus, and the s p o t t i n e s s  i t s r e f e r e n c e s t o h i s Davidic descent  Christ"  exclude  formulas  a l l these  from  further  and s t a t u s analysis  as  as "the mainline  b e l i e f s i n the sense d e f i n e d i n t h i s t h e s i s . A much g r e a t e r p a t t e r n of agreement i s found concerning the use  of b i n i t a r i a n  formulas,  the fatherhood  of God, t h e use of  " C h r i s t " as a proper name, Jesus' humanity, Jesus as judge, and the  resurrection.  literature differ  In none  of these  t h i n g s , however,  from the Pauline l e t t e r s . A l l seven  does our undisputed  l e t t e r s use b i n i t a r i a n formulas i n t h e i r g r e e t i n g s (NT Rom 1:7, 1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, G a l 1:1, 3, NT P h i l 1:2, 1 Thess 1:1 f . , Phmn 3).  A l l call  God " f a t h e r "  (e.g. NT Rom  1:7, NT P h i l  4:20 and  o f t e n ) . A l l use " C h r i s t " as a proper name (e.g. 1 Cor 1:10, G a l 1:7  and o f t e n ) .  Paul  also  makes C h r i s t  truly  human  (Gal 4:4, 72  "born o f a woman"), a s s o c i a t e s him with judgement and  stresses h i s resurrection  (2 Cor 5:10)  (e.g. NT Rom 6:4, 2 Cor 1:9, G a l  70  So Paulsen "der... von Gott h e r a u f e r s t a n d , " so a l s o Schoedel 182 n. 3; d i f f e r e n t l y Lake, "was r a i s e d by God," Richardson, BAGD, BDF 49. 71  So Lake, Richardson, Grant 123; c f . Corwin Schoedel 181 f . , 225 and n. 1, Paulsen 92. 7 2  Z i e s l e r 30.  118, 255,  41 1:1,  1 Thess 1:10,  1 Cor 15:12  f f . ) ( t h i s l a s t , t o be sure, based  on a pre-Pauline passage a t 15:3  f f . , but made p a r t of Paul's  own  Perhaps the most s t r i k i n g t e n s i o n between our l i t e r a t u r e  and  argument).  the  undisputed  Pauline  treatment  of  the  death and  see a t l e a s t  letters  i n c r e e d a l matters  crucifixion.  A l l our  authors  is in  mention  their  Christ's  some s a l v i f i c s i g n i f i c a n c e i n i t . But  the  73  emphasis  i s modest  Polycarp  stress  i n comparison  the  passion  at  to  Paul.  a l l , and  Only it  is  Ignatius worth  and  asking  whether t h i s aspect of t h e i r theology i s due t o P a u l i n e i n f l u e n c e (see Chapter gives  the  example,  2). Besides, i t may passion  sees  the  the  be doubted whether even Ignatius  significance  crucifixion  as  Paul  does;  somewhat i n the  Corwin,  for  shadow of  the  74  incarnation contrast, •  .  .  as Paul's  God's  saving  chief  .  act  letters  in  Ignatius'  a l l stress  .  thought.  Christ's  death  In or  75  c r u c i f i x i o n i n the most i n s i s t e n t manner. As Jesus  already noted,  as  a l l our  authors  " s a v i o r " i n the present tense,  except and  Clement  refer  to  Clement's r e f e r e n c e  to s a l v a t i o n through C h r i s t i s a l s o i n the present. While Paul of course  regards Jesus  undisputed  as the key  to salvation,  only once i n h i s  l e t t e r s does he c a l l Jesus " s a v i o r " (NT P h i l 3:20, 76  are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus C h r i s t " ) 73  and on only  Cf. Wilson Luke 23 f . f o r Acts and the P a s t o r a l s . Corwin 172 f . , c f . a l s o Schoedel 182 n. 3 f o r a somewhat p a r a l l e l d i s c u s s i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c r u c i f i x i o n and r e s u r r e c t i o n i n I g n a t i u s . 7 4  7 5  Fitzmyer "Pauline" 1395,  7 6  Hultgren I - I I Tm  36.  Bornkamm 158 f f .  "we one  42 other occasion does he d i r e c t l y speak of Jesus as saving 5:9,  "much more... w i l l we  are  future  concept  references,  be saved through him  and  indeed  a  .  "son."  i s of  interest  Ignatius  distinct  t h a t our  leads  the  .  occasions. The  two  using  and  2  Peter  use  the  word  over 77  literature.  seldom  the  calls  expression  c l e a r e s t uses i n A c t s  of four) are placed by the author  letters  .  literature  list,  both  dynamic, f u t u r e - o r i e n t e d  the more s t a t i c concept most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of our It  Rom  [Christ]");  of s a l v a t i o n predominates i n the undisputed ,  (NT  Jesus on  six  (of a maximum  i n the mouth of P a u l . Clement  once  each  and  in  both  cases  in  s c r i p t u r a l a l l u s i o n s ; Polycarp and the P a s t o r a l s , s u p r i s i n g l y t o the  modern  reader  at  least,  frequently,  calling  Jesus  undisputed  letters  (NT  exceptions).  "son"  and  than  be  15  However, as the  1:3  (proportionately) use  inaccurate to  a l l . Paul times  and  and  uses in  78  f., 79  treat  five  word  of  his  are  in a  the  probably  as Paul makes l e s s of the  and  as  1 John (absolutely)  "son" more than  the  the  Philemon  expression i s found  of, f o r example, "Lord,"  Hebrews  would  at  Philippians  p r e - P a u l i n e formula a t NT Rom term  not  use  of  "son"  Paul does, i t as  a  Pauline  d i s t i n c t i v e and questionable a t best t o regard i t s i n f r e q u e n t use as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of our non-Pauline mainline f a i t h , however much one  might  wish  to  know why  the  Pastor  and  Polycarp  omit  f a m i l i a r a term. 77  .  Cf. Z i e s l e r 74, Dibelius-^Conzelmann F i t z m y e r "Romans" 844, Wilson Luke 21. 78  Bornkamm 7 9  Ziesler  116. 41.  10, Bornkamm  220,  so  43  CHAPTER 4: SALVATION Though I have chosen this  chapter,  passages  I  shall  " s a l v a t i o n " as the t i t l e  not  limit  i t s scope  where the Greek verb sozo  ("to  to  and  an  save")  t o p i c of  exegesis  or noun  soteria  ("salvation") and t h e i r cognates are found i n our l i t e r a t u r e , even attempt actually  t o d e f i n e e x a c t l y what those m u l t i f a c e t e d  mean  in  their  original  context.  nor  concepts  Rather,  1  of  I  use  " s a l v a t i o n " i n roughly i t s modern E n g l i s h sense, a good u l t i m a t e 2  outcome, meanings "who  .  which  is  broad  i n addition  gets  to  enough such  t o heaven?" The  significance o f f e r e d , how  of  the  to  cover  popular  topic  of  modern  the  Christ-event to  the  New  Testament  understandings  chapter,  humanity:  then,  what  as  i s the  is  being  i t comes t o be o f f e r e d , and who w i l l r e c e i v e i t .  For a l l our authors s a l v a t i o n i s t i e d t o C h r i s t , and a l l of them use the language of atonement or e x p i a t i o n f o r h i s work. He gave h i m s e l f as a ransom (1 Tm 2:6). He i s "the Master who them" (2 Pt 2:1). He died f o r us, or f o r our s i n s 21:6,  49:6;  the Lord)  IgRom 6:1,  IgSm 1:2,  7:1 ; 3  (1 Clem  Poly 1:2,  9:2).  16:7,  God  obtained the church with "the blood of h i s own"  20:28 NRSV mg. , see a l s o d i s c u s s i o n above, Chapter 1  bought  (or  (Acts  3), c l e a r l y a  Cf. Z i e s l e r 73 f . .  2  .  .  T h i s of course tends t o imply a good individual outcome and thus t o s l i g h t the c o l l e c t i v e nature of New Testament s a l v a t i o n . But t h e r e i s p l e n t y of concern f o r i n d i v i d u a l outcomes i n the New Testament and i n our l i t e r a t u r e (even i n P a u l , e.g. 1 Cor 5:5, c f . E. Sanders Law 109), and i t i s the i n d i v i d u a l element t h a t I am emphasizing here. 3  Schoedel 182 n. 3.  44  r e f e r e n c e t o C h r i s t and the c r u c i f i x i o n , however much i t s d e t a i l s might  be  affected  by  divergencies of  t e x t or  r e f e r e n c e s t o Jesus' blood at 1 Clem 7:4, REPENTANCE AND All  12:7,  21:6,  our  authors  often  in  make at l e a s t  the  transgressions.  49:6.  an  implied l i n k  plural  Forgiveness  and of  for sin  conceived  sins  is  between  of  and  1:9  as  explicitly  r e f e r s to the c l e a n s i n g of past s i n s .  Poly  2:3  Christian the  speak  life,  Christian  forgiveness, repentance  of  forgiveness  the  life. but  Ignatius  they  do  and  the  what  mention  repentance.  is  and  context  Pastor  specific on  26:18.  1 Clem 50:5 f f .  but a l s o make being f o r g i v e n by God do  of  current  the goal of not  At  2  mention Tm  2:25  i s l i n k e d with coming t o know the t r u t h , which i s i n  t u r n l i n k e d with s a l v a t i o n at 1 Tm to  in  the  (hamartia),  o f f e r i n Paul's preaching of the gospel a t Acts 13:38 2 Pt  cf.  FORGIVENESS  C h r i s t - e v e n t and forgiveness of or repentance most  translation; 4  2:4;  the s i n i n question seems  be heresy r a t h e r than any indulgence of the f l e s h , but the  two  5  are not r i g o r o u s l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n the P a s t o r a l s . half  a dozen references to repentance;  context  of  discussion repentance  local concerns  church  quarrels,  non-Christian  but  at  humanity  IgEph in  1 Clement (chapters 7 and  by Polycarp. Grant 117. 4  5  Beker 40 f . , Hultgren I-II Tm  45.  10:1  the  general  and  Repentance i n an  apparently s a l v i f i c sense i s mentioned a l s o i n Acts (3:9), and  has  most of these are i n the  i s made a c o n d i t i o n of f i n d i n g God.  26:20), 2 Peter  Ignatius  (e.g. 11:18, 8), but  not  45  All  uses of hamartia,  s i n , i n our l i t e r a t u r e appear t o r e f e r  to  s i n s as t r a n s g r e s s i o n s , a c t u a l l y or p o t e n t i a l l y p l u r a l  Tm  5:22,  Acts 22:16, 2 Pt 1:9,  with the exception of Poly 6:1 apparent  1 Clem 59:2, ("we  a l l owe  as  a  Pauline  d o u b t f u l 1 Clem 16:11 which  8  1:2),  the debt of s i n " ) ,  an  6  sin  53:10  Poly  a l l u s i o n although the source i s unknown, which seems t o ,  treat  IgSm 7:1,  (e.g. 1  ("an  could,  reified  7  entity,  and  offering for sin"),  but  probably  the  much  more  an a l l u s i o n to Is  does  not,  imply  is  roughly  such  a  reification. FUTURE PROMISE Salvation  ( i n my  broad  sense)  eternal l i f e  (zoe aionios)  at  f . , Acts 13:46-48, IgEph 18:1,  1 Tm  2:10  1:15  i n most of our  ( e t e r n a l g l o r y ) , T t 1:2,  2 Pt 1:11  equated  literature, a l s o 1 Tm  with  especially 6:12,  2  Tm  ( e t e r n a l kingdom), 1 Clem g  35:2  (immortality, athanasia),  IgPol 2:3.  Polycarp does not  the expression " e t e r n a l l i f e " ;  he does use world  Poly 5:2  Shepherd "age"),  "life with  (aion,  Lake "world,"  t o come."  of  his  (Christ's)  delay a t 3:1-13. God 3:20). C h r i s t Lake ad  c f . 1 Tm  t o come, 4:7  f. ,  A l l our authors await a f u t u r e event a s s o c i a t e d  s a l v a t i o n , most notably  promise  or age  use  will  2 Peter, reminding coming"  send Jesus  i s coming as judge loc.  7  So Lmdemann " A p o s t o l i c " 43. 8  Lake ad  loc.  9  Corwin 171,  c f . 165.  and  explaining  as Messiah  (2 Tm  readers  4:1,  an  of  apparent  (Christos,  Poly 2:1,  "the  Acts  c f . Acts  46 10:42). God has f i x e d a day f o r judgement (Acts 17:31); c f . 2 Tm 1:16  f f . , 4:8,  parousia.  The  1 0  "on  that  day,"  Lord  will  come  a  stock  reference  suddenly  (1  Clem  t o the 23:5,  a p p r o p r i a t i o n of Is 13:22 LXX and Mai 3:1 ). The saved 1:L  made manifest 12  Clem 50:3  " a t the v i s i t a t i o n  ). These are the l a s t  of the kingdom  resurrection 2:2;  11:1).  w i l l be  of C h r i s t "  .  A l s o i n the f u t u r e i s the general  (2 Tm 2:18, 1 Clem chapters 24, 26, IgTr 9:2,  c f . also  Acts  23:6,  (1  days and we ought t o f e a r the  13  wrath t o come (IgEph  an  24:15,  26:6-8,  i n which  14  Paul  Poly is  portrayed as embracing the Pharasaic hope of the r e s u r r e c t i o n of 15  the dead while only h i n t i n g a t t h a t of Jesus  ) .  NOT BY WORKS With t h e exception of 2 Peter, which does not address the i s s u e e x p l i c i t l y , a l l our authors a t some p o i n t make s a l v a t i o n or r e l a t e d concepts  a matter of f a i t h  or grace as opposed t o works  (erga): 2 Tm 3:15 ( f a i t h ) , 2 Tm 1:9 (grace r a t h e r than works), T t 3:5 f f . (grace and mercy rather than works); Acts 15:9 f f . ( f a i t h and  grace  as opposed t o the Law, a p o s i t i o n  placed  i n Peter's  mouth, though Liidemann sees i t as a c o n s c i o u s l y Pauline touch on Luke's p a r t ) , Acts 26:18 ( s a n c t i f i c a t i o n by f a i t h , 1 6  1 0  K e l l y 210.  1 1  Grant and Graham 49.  1 2  Grant 112.  1 3  Cf. Corwin 155, Schoedel 71.  1 4  Corwin 240.  1 5  1 6  Paul quoting  Conzelmann Acts 206 f . , 210; M a r s h a l l A c t s 364, 392. Liidemann 167 f .  47 Jesus  i n an  account  of  their  Damascus encounter);  1  (being made righteous by f a i t h r a t h e r than "deeds" — 17  any  other of a l i s t  (grace and  of v i r t u e s  God's w i l l  Clem  32:4  ergra —  or  ); Poly  1:3  18  ); IgPhd 5:2  (faith  r a t h e r than works, i n a confused  citation 19  of  NT Eph 2:8  f . or p o s s i b l y of t r a d i t i o n a l Pauline m a t e r i a l  ).  HUMAN EFFORT Nevertheless, a l l our authors make s a l v a t i o n i n some degree a matter  of human e f f o r t .  portrayed  as  something  For the Pastor, g o d l i n e s s  in  which  one  s t r u g g l e , holds promise f o r the l i f e pastor  expects  judgement rendered.  a  (2 Tm 20  "crown 4:8),  Those who  and those who  of  which  can  train  t o come (1 Tm  (eusebeia),  and  toil  and  4:7  ff.).  The  at  the  righteousness"  (dikaiosune)  sounds  reward  like  have d i e d with  a  Christ  endure w i l l r e i g n with him  will  (2 Tm  2:11  for services live  with  him  f . ) ; "dying"  21  with  Christ  i s probably  a  baptismal  with him would seem t o be a matter virtues,  f o r Timothy himself as  women (1 Tm one  reference,  but  enduring  of performance. R o l e - s p e c i f i c  a teacher  (1 Tm  4:16)  and  for  2:15), a l s o conduce t o s a l v a t i o n , though as f a i t h i s  of those  virtues  the  reference i s presumably  restricted  to  22  C h r i s t i a n women. Grant 119, 1 7  18  1 9  Corwin Paulsen  Lindemann " A p o s t o l i c "  33.  240. 115.  So Hanson 156; d i f f e r e n t l y H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 139 f . , r e a d i n g dikaiosune here i n a P a u l i n e sense as "a g i f t bestowed f r e e l y by God." 2 0  2 1  22  H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm Fee 75 f .  122,  K e l l y 179 f .  48  For  2  defilements well  Peter,  becoming  of the world"  as d o c t r i n a l  once  (2:20),  faults  again  entangled  a process  involving  ( c f . 2:13 f . ) , counts  i n "the moral as  as t u r n i n g away 23  from  "the way  with  loss  of righteousness"  of s a l v a t i o n .  and the "holy  commandment,"  The p o i n t of the delay  of t h e Lord's  coming i s t o provide an opportunity f o r moral p u r i t y hence s a l v a t i o n  (3:14) and  (3:15).  In Acts, Paul not only c a l l s  f o r repentance  wish t o stand w e l l when the world i s judged  f o r those  who  (17:30 f . ) , but a l s o  demands "deeds (ergra) c o n s i s t e n t with repentance"  (26:20).  The r o l e of human e f f o r t i s e s p e c i a l l y n o t i c e a b l e i n 1 Clem, who  says  (26:1),  God w i l l that  we  p l e a s e almighty (ergon)  raise  "those  are "bound God" (62:2),  (34:3,  an  him  i n holiness"  (del, on compulsion,  so BAGD) t o  that we are rewarded  f o r our work  allusion  who  to  served  Prov  24:12  among  other  24  parallels  ),  that  those  who  obey  God's  commandments" w i l l be e n r o l l e d among the "saved" must perform  "all  agiasmou panta,  the deeds of s a n c t i f i c a t i o n "  "decrees  and  (58:2), t h a t we  (poiesomen ta tou  l e t us do a l l t h a t which i s of h o l i n e s s )  (30:1),  and roundly t h a t we should be " j u s t i f i e d by deeds, not by words" (ergois  dikaioumenoi,  context suggests lip  this  me logois) last  (30:3),  though  reference i s probably  the p a r a n e t i c a c r i t i c i s m of  s e r v i c e and should not be s e t i n o p p o s i t i o n t o s a l v a t i o n by  faith.  25  2 3  24 2 5  Sidebottom 117. Lake 64. Lindemann " A p o s t o l i c " 33, c f . Grant and Graham 56 f f .  49 Polycarp raise  up  i s similar:  those who  do  Lord i n t h i s world world,  and  God  his will  (aion,  punish  "age") w i l l  i f they are  (ean politeusometha  the  d i s o b e d i e n t but  (2:1 f . ) ; those who  Shepherd  r e i g n with him  community"  will  axios  r e c e i v e the  "worthy  autou,  citizens  i f we  BAGD] w o r t h i l y of him), provided, however, we  p l e a s e the  will  next  of h i s  live  have f a i t h  [so  (5:2), 26  combining more  ideas found a t 1 Clem 21:1  detailed  level,  and  almsgiving f r e e s  2 Tm  us  2:11  from  ff.;  death  at a  (10:2,  a  c i t a t i o n of Tob 4 : 1 0 ) . 27  Human e f f o r t p l a y s a much smaller r o l e f o r I g n a t i u s , but he still  sees  endurance  as  a  means t o  "attain  unto  God"  (IgMag  28  1:3)  and h i s forthcoming martyrdom as the key t o h i s own  hope  t o " a t t a i n t o Jesus C h r i s t " (IgRom passim, esp. 5:3). FOR  BELIEVERS All  Peter deny  our  authors  i s again the  connect  salvation  with  belief,  oblique: threatening d e s t r u c t i o n  Master  (2:1),  a  "radical  rejection"  though  f o r those rather  2 who  than  a 29  temporary Explicit 12:7,  denial links  32:4  harlot's  such  include  (the belief  as  Peter's  1 Tm  1:16,  former, in  God  however, as  2 6  Paulsen  2 7  Lake 294, Paulsen  2 8  Schoedel 105 f . , Corwin  2 9  Sidebottom  a  118.  112.  123. 255.  in  the  Acts 16:31 a  synoptic and  reference  foreshadowing  gospels.  often, to of  1 Clem  Rahab  the  Christian  50  redemption), IgTr 2:1 and 9:2, two  and Poly 1:3 and 2:1 (these l a s t  being somewhat muddy on the nature of the l i n k ) .  UNIVERSALISM AND ELECTION Two of our authors make some suggestion t h a t s a l v a t i o n might extend beyond b e l i e v e r s , but none of these references  stands up  s t r o n g l y on examination. In t h e P a s t o r a l s ,  s e v e r a l passages s t r e s s a u n i v e r s a l  aspect  of s a l v a t i o n . God's grace brought s a l v a t i o n t o a l l (Tt 2:11); God wants a l l t o be saved ransom  for a l l  especially  of  references  (1 Tm 2:3 f . ) ; C h r i s t gave himself  (1 Tm  2:6); God  believers  (1 Tm  to " a l l "  i s the s a v i o r  4:10).  as a counterblast  Some  as a  o f a l l , but  commentators  see  t o g n o s t i c i z i n g ideas  that  31  salvation  is  "especially universal inclusive  only  f o r the  believers"  as s t r e s s i n g  salvation, rather  than  enlightened.  construing exclusive;  32  belief  Hultgren  but not r u l i n g out  "especially," Hanson  reads  malista,  construes  as  malista 33  as  "to be p r e c i s e , " i n e f f e c t l i m i t i n g s a l v a t i o n t o b e l i e v e r s . 1  Clem  translated,  32:4  says  God  but Greek pantes,  has  justified  better  " a l l men  "everyone,"  [sic as  so a l s o  BAGD]  30  Corwin 240. H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 164, K a r r i s 61; c f . Hanson 61, s u g g e s t i n g a l s o t h a t t h e author of t h e P a s t o r a l s i s l e s s p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h p r e d e s t i n a t i o n than Paul because he i s l e s s Jewish than P a u l ; c f . a l s o K e l l y (63), drawing a c o n t r a s t w i t h s p e c i f i c a l l y Jewish ideas l i m i t i n g s a l v a t i o n t o t h e r i g h t e o u s . 3 1  H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 84, c i t i n g 1 Tm 5:8, 17; G a l 6:10, P h i l 4:22; so a l s o BAGD. 3 2  Hanson 92, f o l l o w i n g T.C. Skeat " E s p e c i a l l y t h e Parchments: A Note on 2 Tim. 4.13," J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s (new s e r i e s ) 30, 1979, pp 173-7. 3 3  51 from  the  beginning  of  the  world"  by  faith.  appear t o be,  however, that  everyone who  was  justified  by  that  was  done by  all  things,  faith,  faith. and  34  not  At 20:11  more  The  was  meaning  in fact  everyone was  would  justified  justified  and  it  . . . i s described as doing good "to  God  especially  (huperekperissos,  BAGD  "quite  beyond a l l measure") to [ C h r i s t i a n s ] , " which, however, focuses  on  beneficence r a t h e r than on s a l v a t i o n . References  suggesting  predestination  are  scattered  our  l i t e r a t u r e , but nowhere i s great s t r e s s l a i d  the  Pastorals,  salvation  (2 Tm  addition,  the  sees  the  Lord  that  "the  on the  idea.  e l e c t " may  knows those who  predestination.  are  term  i s a c i t a t i o n of Num  (2 Tm  statement  16:5  LXX  In  2:19). Hanson  f o r b e l i e v e r s , with  The  35  his  In  obtain  e l e c t are a l s o mentioned at Tt 1:1.  a conventional  of  knows h i s own"  works so  2:10). The  " e l e c t " as  implication  Pastor  through  that  little  "the  Lord  a p p l i e d t o orthodox  36 b e l i e v e r s w i t h i n the church. 1 Clem 1:1, the  e l e c t , but  subject  2:4, at  6:1,  2:4  of s t r i v i n g  46:4,  the  "day  49:5,  58:2  s a l v a t i o n of  and  night,"  the  and  seems more r h e t o r i c a l than otherwise: the are  God's e l e c t , as  virtuous 34  due  i f e l e c t due  178.  59:2  elect i s s t i l l  at 46:4 innocent  their  a l s o mention  the and  Hanson 131;  the  expression righteous  v i r t u e rather  t o t h e i r e l e c t i o n . A l l these uses of eklektos  So a l s o Grant and Graham 3 5  to  and  than seem  58.  d i f f e r e n t l y Guthrie  P a s t o r a l 156,  Kelly  36  Dibelius-Conzelmann 113, K a r r i s 26, Hanson 137, K e l l y 18 6; but G u t h r i e P a s t o r a l 162 f . a l s o hears resonances of predestination.  52 more conventional Ephesus "elect  than  doctrinal.  i s predestined and  Agathopous  37  for glory  worthy of God" i s described  (IgTr  as  an  In  Ignatius,  (IgEph  ins.),  ins.), "elect  and  the  that  church at  at  Tralles  h i s companion Rheus  man"  (IgPhd  11:1);  these  38  references, sounding  too,  i s the  seem merely reference  conventional.  at Acts  13:48  39  eternal 4:28,  life."  Also  t o those  conventional"destined  God's p r e d e s t i n a t i o n i s a l s o spoken of  but t h i s i s a p r e d e s t i n a t i o n of events and not of  HEAVEN AND  for  •  at  Acts  people.  HELL  References to heaven and h e l l as f u t u r e d e s t i n a t i o n s are at most i m p l i c i t with the  i n our  literature;  t h a t meaning. At glorious  place  7) .  Polycarp,  4 0  "with the Lord  too,  1 Clem 5,  which  "passed from the world  the  was  due"  taken up  places  names do  not  i t i s s a i d t h a t Peter his  and was  place  Paul,  (v.  4)  and  appear  "went t o that  Paul  i n t o the Holy P l a c e "  Ignatius  and  i n 'the place which i s t h e i r due'"  other  (v.  martyrs  (Poly 9:2,  an  Ignatius hopes t o " a t t a i n t o " God  or  (IgRom, 2:2 and o f t e n ) , and describes t h i s as " b i r t h , " D i f f e r e n t l y Grant and Graham 20, f o l l o w i n g W.C. van Unnik, Revue d ' h i s t o i r e e t de p h i l o s o p h i e r e l i q i e u s e s 42 (1962), 237-246, i n seeing a r e f e r e n c e t o God's p l a n of salvation.  as  41  a l l u s i o n t o I Clem 5:4).  .  Christ  3 7  38  Cf. Corwin 191, arguing t h a t the church r a t h e r than i n d i v i d u a l s i s c a l l e d " e l e c t " i n I g n a t i u s ; she e x p l a i n s the r e f e r e n c e t o Rheus Agathopous as based on t h a t i n d i v i d u a l ' s own impending martyrdom. 39  Conzelmann A c t s 106,  Ludemann  40  Grant and Graham 25 f . 4 1  So Lake 294,  Paulsen  122.  156.  53 " l i v i n g " and as  he  as " r e c e i v ( m g ) pure l i g h t , "  a l s o hopes t o r i s e  those  experiences  parousia.  may  after  await  Ignatius  falling  not  also  only  threatens  (IgRom 6:1 asleep his  f.)  42  though  (IgRom 4:2  martyrdom  false  f.)/  but  the  teachers  with  43  "unquenchable f i r e "  (IgEph 16:2).  In 2 Peter, new  heavens and  new  e a r t h are awaited a f t e r the o l d ones are destroyed  the  "day  saved  of God"  will  (3:12  live  on  f . ) , though even so the  new  earth  by f i r e  i t seems l i k e l y  rather  than  in  a on  the  the  new  44  heavens; 1:18,  3:5)  apparently, hell  other references t o heaven or heavens i n 2 Peter do  not  concern  unrighteous  (the verb tartaroo,  a  destination.  Sinful  humans have been and without  (e.g.  angels  will  be  cast  a noun) t o await judgement  and, into (2:4,  45  9),  an apparent reference to " i n t e r i m punishment";  but  nothing  i s s a i d of a continuing r o l e f o r h e l l a f t e r the judgement. Heaven i s mentioned about two (7:49) and the  earth  of the  dozen times i n Acts,  exalted Jesus  (2:2),  but  never  (3:21) or  as  an  as the simply  eternal  abode of  God  what i s above  destination  for  Christians. SUMMARY: PAUL AND Our  THE MAINLINE FAITH  literature's  predestination,  and  references  t o heaven and  hell  to are  universalism, too  too weak t o be pursued f u r t h e r i n t h i s context. Schoedel 181 f f . , Corwin 252 f . 43  Corwin  173.  4 4  Reicke  182.  4 5  Sidebottom  114.  to  i n c o n s i s t e n t or  54 Our  literature  eternal l i f e , or grace all  does have a p a t t e r n of agreement  the awaiting of a f u t u r e event,  concerning  s a l v a t i o n by f a i t h  as opposed t o works, and the n e c e s s i t y f o r b e l i e f , but  these t h i n g s are a l s o found  i n the undisputed  l e t t e r s (e.g. 46  NT  Rom  2:7,  1  Thess  4:16  f . , NT  Rom  1:16,  Gal  3:22  respectively). Atonement language such also  to  be  found  as t h a t found  i n Paul's  i n our l i t e r a t u r e i s  undisputed  letters,  but  almost  e n t i r e l y i n pre-Pauline formulations l i k e NT Rom 3:25, 1 Cor 15:3 47  and G a l 1:3 f . to  .  H i s own c h a r a c t e r i s t i c thought  goes beyond  expound on how C h r i s t i a n s are incorporated i n t o C h r i s t ' s  this death  48  as a means o f breaking the power of s i n (e.g. NT Rom 6:5-11  ), a  49  concept And  l i t t l e pursued while  literature,  i n our l i t e r a t u r e .  forgiveness and repentance  the  sole  reference  to  figure  largely  forgiveness  in  i n our Paul's 50  undisputed though  letters  i t may  righteousness 51  be  noted  that  (dikaiosune,  73. s o t e r i o l oZ gi ye .s l e r Only 4 6  i s a c i t a t i o n of Psalm 32 a t NT Rom 4:7 f ,  once  v. does  this 6), a  Paul  i s made key  refer  equivalent  concept  i n Pauline  t o repentance  4 7  Meyer 119, Z i e s l e r 92, E. Sanders Paul 78.  4 8  E. Sanders Paul 79 f . , c f . Z i e s l e r 91 f f . ,  to  in a  V i e l h a u e r 44  f. 49 50  Hanson 42, V i e l h a u e r 45, Z i e s l e r 142 f . E. Sanders Paul 76.  Z i e s l e r 88, Bornkamm 151; c f . B a r r e t t Paul 100, d e f i n i n g P a u l i n e j u s t i f i c a t i o n as " r a d i c a l f o r g i v e n e s s . " C f . a l s o NT Rom 3:25, "passed over the s i n s p r e v i o u s l y committed," Z i e s l e r 92 f . ; d i f f e r e n t l y B a r r e t t Paul 100, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t 5 1  55 general  salvific  Cor  f . and  7:9  problems,  sense 12:21  though  salvation  at  (NT Rom  2:4;  r e f e r to the  both  stake,  appear  to  other  uses of the  term at 2  c o r r e c t i o n of i n t r a - C h r i s t i a n place  explicitly  so  unrepentant at  7:10).  offenders' Strikingly,  repentance i s not made a c o n d i t i o n of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n with God  a t NT Rom  "Sin," referring  hamartia,  to  undisputed  5:10  f . , 11:15, 2 Cor 5:18. in  our  transgressions,  letters  and  literature  i s usually  (katallage)  52  usually  i n the  r e f e r s to a r e i f i e d  plural  singular  power, as  and  in  the  at NT  Rom  Paul  use  53  3:9,  1  Cor  hamartia (e.g.  in  1 Cor  15:56, Gal the  3:22.  plural  15:3,  or  Only the  probably  o c c a s i o n a l l y does  singular  pre-Pauline;  54  to  mean  2 Cor  transgression  11:7,  Gal  1:4,  55  a l s o probably  pre-Pauline.  I t i s t h i s concept of s i n as a power  which makes repentance somewhat beside  the p o i n t f o r Paul,  since  l i b e r a t i o n , r a t h e r than mere forgiveness or atonement, i s what i s 56  needed;  •  •  the necessary human response i n v o l v e s not  only  turning  from e v i l , as i n repentance, but a l s o a more r a d i c a l t u r n i n g from r e l i a n c e on human goodness. p a s s i n g over, paresis, has a weaker meaning than aphesis. 57  52  forgiveness,  • • Sanders P a l e s t i n i a n 468.  Z i e s l e r 63, 76 f . ; c f . Bornkamm 151, Wilson Luke 46 f . , E. Sanders Paul 35 f f . , 79, Fitzmyer "Romans" 839. 5 3  5 4  Z i e s l e r 20,  92,  Bornkamm 113,  5 5  E. Sanders Paul 80,  5 6  Z i e s l e r 76,  5 7  B a r r e t t Paul  Dodd 11,  E. Sanders P a u l Fitzmyer  E. Sanders Paul 79 f . 102.  78.  "Pauline"  1386.  56 Our is  not a l t o g e t h e r  ff., who  l i t e r a t u r e ' s l i n k between s a l v a t i o n  and human endeavor  missing from Paul's teaching:  where judgement repays "each one's deeds" do good r e c e i v e  truth"  receive  eternal  "wrath  life  and f u r y " ;  59  is  attributed passages  given  the  5 8  importance  to circumcision.  are p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y  than i n our l i t e r a t u r e ,  (erga),  while those who  "obeying the commandments of God" Law )  e.g. NT Rom  cf also  "obey not the  (probably God's w i l l , and/or  Yet i t seems safe less  and those  1 Cor 7:19,  formerly  frequent  2:6  where  not the  mistakenly  t o say t h a t  i n Paul's  such  writings  and more d e c i s i v e l y outweighed by those  s t r e s s i n g s a l v a t i o n as God's d e l i v e r i n g a c t i o n .  6 0  I employ "judgement" here as a c o r r e l a t i v e term t o " s a l v a t i o n , " as commonly i n 20th century C h r i s t i a n i t y , so t h a t judgement i s t h e process which determines who a c h i e v e s o r r e c e i v e s s a l v a t i o n ( i n the E n g l i s h sense o f " s a l v a t i o n " i n use i n t h i s c h a p t e r ) ; c f . 2 Pt 3:7, 15 ( O ' C o l l i n s 913). E. Sanders i n s i s t s t h a t judgement and s a l v a t i o n are never c o r r e l a t i v e s f o r P a u l and t h a t punishment but not s a l v a t i o n i s a t stake i n judgement (E. Sanders P a l e s t i n i a n 515 f f . ) ; but i n NT Rom 2:5-8 i t seems c l e a r t h a t e t e r n a l l i f e (v. 7) w i l l be a t s t a k e when God's judgement i s r e v e a l e d (v. 5 ) . Cf a l s o Fitzmyer "Romans" 836. 5 9  Z i e s l e r 114 f . Z i e s l e r 73 f . , B a r r e t t Paul 56 f .  57  CHAPTER 5: THE ROLE OF DOCTRINE One o f the most s t r i k i n g is  i t s abundance  doctrinal  of expressions  orthodoxy.  faith,"  used  article  but appears  showing  at least  a  Pre-eminent among these  by a l l our authors  cognate verb pisteuo manner  characteristics  (2 Pt 1:1  o f our l i t e r a t u r e strong  concern f o r  i s he pistis, lacks  "the  the d e f i n i t e  t o have the same meaning ) . Pistis  and the  1  are o c c a s i o n a l l y used i n our l i t e r a t u r e  superficially  resembling  the c l a s s i c a l  ina  Pauline  2  sense  of d e f i n i t i v e  through faith by  faith  i n me  i n Christ  3  i n Christ,  e.g. 2 Tm 3:15, " s a l v a t i o n  Jesus;" Acts  26:18,  [or by  any  of various  .  IgTr 9:2, " h i s Father s h a l l r a i s e  who b e l i e v e  "sanctification  by  [Jesus];" 1 Clem 32:4, "[we] are not made righteous  ourselves...  faith";  trust  4  (pisteuo)  i n him." Pistis  virtues] .  .  but .  up i n C h r i s t  i s a l s o used,  through Jesus us  more often,  5  t o denote one v i r t u e  among others:  e.g., 1 Tm 4:12, 1 Clem 35:2,  IgEph 3:1, Poly 13:2; c f . 2 Pt 1:5, Acts 14:9. 6  Of found 1  2  interest  7  here,  however, i s the frequent use o f  i n a l l our authors, Sidebottom 104.  t o denote  either  pistis,  the content  H u l t g r e n 1984 15, 35 f . ; c f . Haenchen 112 f . , Bultmann  89. 3  Grant and Graham 58. 4  Corwin 240.  5  H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 15, Bultmann 112.  6  Corwin 240 n. 23.  7  Sidebottom 107.  of  58 Christianity renounce  or a l l e g i a n c e t o i t :  the f a i t h " ;  teaching;"  1 Tm  c f . e.g. Acts  e.g. 1 Tm  "some  4:6, "words of the f a i t h 13:8, 14:22,  will  and sound  16:5; 2 Pt 1:1; 1 Clem 10  9  22:1;  4:1,  IgEph 10:2, c f . 16:2; Poly 3:2, 4:2 f . Nearly  effect,  a score  of other words are used t o much t h i s  alone o r i n various combinations.  "truth,"  1 Tm  explicit  c o n t r a s t with heresy); hodos, "way," Acts  "word," Poly  2:4  and o f t e n  Thus we have  7Z2;  hodos  11  i n the P a s t o r a l s , IgEph  same  aletheia, 6:2 (an  19:9;  logos,  tes aletheias,  "way  of t r u t h , "  2 Pt  tes aletheias,  "word of t r u t h , "  2 Tm  12  2:2,  1 Clem 35:5; logos  2:15,  c f . Poly 3:2; pistos  ho logos,  4:9.  Other such words include didache,  1:9,  of f a l s e  teaching  "the saying i s sure," 1 Tm "teaching,' Acts 17:19, T t  a t IgEph 9:1; didaskalia,  " d o c t r i n e " or  "teaching," 1 Tm 6:3, of f a l s e d o c t r i n e a t IgEph 17:1;  epignosis,  "knowledge,"  paradosis,  1  Tm  2:4,  2  Pt  1:2,  1  Clem  " t r a d i t i o n , " and i t s cognate verb paradidomi, 2:21;  1 Clem p  9  7:2, c i t e d  i n Poly  13  7:2;  59:2;  "hand down," 2 Pt  sophia,  "wisdom," 2 Pt  Hanson 41, Conzelmann A c t s 112. Corwin 239 f .  Paulsen, 116, equates the " f a i t h g i v e n you" o f P o l y 3:2 t o t h e " f a i t h t h a t was once f o r a l l e n t r u s t e d " o f Jude 3. 1 0  The many uses of logos i n Acts a r e omitted from t h i s study s i n c e t h e predominant meaning i n t h a t book i s t h e i n i t i a l p r e a c h i n g o f t h e g o s p e l , and no use i n A c t s appears t o correspond t o a body of a u t h o r i t a t i v e d o c t r i n e as i n o t h e r i n s t a n c e s c i t e d i n the present chapter (e.g. P o l y 7:2, 2 Tm 2:15). The uses o f logos i n 2 Peter, v a r i o u s l y d e n o t i n g a p r o p h e t i c word (1:19), d e c e p t i v e words (2:3), and an a c t o f d i v i n e power (3:5), a r e a l s o o u t s i d e the scope o f t h i s t h e s i s . 1 1  1 2  Sidebottom  113, H i l l y e r 183.  13 Grant and Graham 28.  59 3:15,  Poly  reference  to  quotation, specific  3:2,  wisdom  38:2,  in  1  appears  Clement  to  n e g a t i v e l y at  3:9,  IgMag 9:1;  1:4,  IgEph  refer  been  BAGD), 1 Tm  6:20;  A l s o on t h i s l i s t 2:1,  IgTr  Acts  18:25  6:1;  16  kanon,  14  wisdom not to  gnosis,  1 Tm  oikonomia,  20:1;  has  hugies,  attributing  C h r i s t i a n content);  Clem 36:2,  "what  both  a  to  human  "standard,"  1  the  dispensation,  1  Tm  7:2;  often  hugiainon  "sound," used of d o c t r i n e or f a i t h ,  archeia,  "the  paratheke,  15  "deposit,"  "heresy,"  "accurately"  participle  inviolable charters,"  1 Tm  1 Tm  so 8:2.  2 Pt  (of t e a c h i n g ) , and  1:10,  17  athikta  1:5,  "teaching of C h r i s t , " IgPhd  the adverb akribos, 3:2;  Pt  1  are the negative term hairesis,  f , Poly  without  "mystery,"  Clem  (traditionally  2  only  scriptural  virtue  musterion, or  (the  a  "knowledge,"  6:20;  christomathia,  Paul  tied  (divine) plan  entrusted"  to  adjective T t 2:8;  ta  .  used with  irony  by  I g n a t i u s i n s e t t i n g C h r i s t i a n teaching above Jewish s c r i p t u r e s at IgPhd 8:2; where  Paul  boule, tells  Schoedel 15  "purpose," i n i t s s p e c i f i c use his  listeners  he  has  shown  at Acts  them  "the  20:27, whole  96.  Grant and Graham 28.  Schoedel ad loc. and n. 58 t r a n s l a t e s " f a c t i o n , " as a t NT 2 Cor 11:19 NRSV, but says I g n a t i u s ' meaning i s i n t e r m e d i a t e between the P a u l i n e meaning of d i s c o r d and the f a l s e d o c t r i n e r e f e r r e d t o i n 2 Peter. 1 6  17  Lake's s i n g u l a r , " c h a r t e r , " has no apparent . j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n the Greek.  60 purpose of God" and 2 Pt 2:21  18  and  entole,  "commandment," used  at  t o denote the whole C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n .  1 Tm  6:14  used  more  19  Many of these words are approximate synonyms and  20  or  less  and  interchangeably, e s p e c i a l l y  Polycarp.  logos,  For  didache),  example,  along  with  three the  i n the P a s t o r a l s , such  synonyms  participle  2  Peter  (didaskalia,  hugiainon  and  the 21  adjective  pistos,  are  used  in  a  S i m i l a r l y , Polycarp squeezes sophia, pistis  single  verse  akribos,  at  logos,  i n t o a one-sentence d e s c r i p t i o n of Paul at  Tt  1:9.  aletheia  3:2.  and  22  DOCTRINAL DETAILS Though much Pastorals,  i s made of  such  i t i s o f t e n impossible  concepts, f o r the  especially  reader  to  in  the  learn  any  23  d e t a i l s of the d o c t r i n a l content r e f e r r e d t o .  Often the v a r i o u s  terms  of  with  false  teaching, d i v i s i v e n e s s  doctrinal  orthodoxy  are or  contrasted  s p e c u l a t i o n (e.g.  where those with " i t c h i n g ears" w i l l r e j e c t  unspecified  2 Tm  4:3  f.,  "sound d o c t r i n e " and  exchange "the t r u t h "  f o r u n s p e c i f i e d "myths"); c f . the c o n t r a s t  of  unspecified " e v i l  "the  faith"  with  d o c t r i n e " i n IgEph  9:1-  So a l s o Wilson Luke 63. H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 112, Sidebottom 117, so a l s o BAGD; c f . a l s o IgMag 4:1, " a c c o r d i n g t o the commandment," kat' entolen, i n the s i n g u l a r , s i m i l a r l y I g T r a l 13:2, IgSm 8:1, t r e a t e d , however, as i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e with I g n a t i u s p l u r a l usages of entole by Schoedel 110 and Corwin 106 n. 19. 1 9  1  20  Hanson 182,  G u t h r i e P a s t o r a l 130.  2 1  G u t h r i e P a s t o r a l 198 f .  2 2  Cf. de Boer Fee 180.  52.  61 10:2. no  A t other times orthodoxy  specific  content  i s praised  i n general terms with  a t a l l (e.g. 2 Tm  1:13  a,  "hold  t o the  standard o f sound teaching that you have heard from me"). In some cases, however, s p e c i f i c  doctrinal  c o n c l u s i o n s can  be drawn from the context i n which such terminology i s used. In the P a s t o r a l s , the creedal fragment one mediator...  ransom f o r a l l " ) i s i d e n t i f i e d with  (v. 4 ) . A s i m i l a r taken  up  a t 1 Tm 2:5 f . ("one God...  fragment  i n glory")  a t 1 Tm 3:16  i s identified  r e l i g i o n " and with "the t r u t h "  "the t r u t h "  ("revealed i n f l e s h . . .  with  "the mystery  o f our  (v. 15). (Grammatically, C h r i s t is  the mystery through the use of the r e l a t i v e pronoun hos.) At 2 Tm 2:17 f . , Hymenaeus and P h i l e t u s have "swerved from the t r u t h " and are  "upsetting  resurrection  the  faith  of  1 Tm 4:1-5 that  "the f a i t h " l:13b-15  by  has already occurred; thus,  t h a t the r e s u r r e c t i o n i s s t i l l from  some"  preaching i t i s sound  t o come. S i m i l a r l y ,  i t i s "the t r u t h "  that  the  doctrine  one may  infer  (v. 3) and s p e c i f i e d by  (v. 1) that marriage and food are good, and from T t  that  those  "sound  i n the f a i t h "  (v. 13) w i l l  reject  "Jewish myths" and p u r i t y laws. These l a t t e r two r e f e r e n c e s are, however, moving away from and toward  as i t i s u s u a l l y  f e a t u r e of the P a s t o r a l s t h a t  content  is  the  occurrence  of  also  provides some  five  "sure ( i . e .  trustworthy) sayings" introduced or confirmed by pistos literally  "faithful  i s the word."  These  five,  based  punctuation and paragraphing, are: (1) that C h r i s t sinners  understood  morals.  A unique doctrinal  doctrine  ho  logos,  on NRSV  came t o save  (1 Tm 1:15); (2) that a s p i r a t i o n t o be bishop i s a d e s i r e  62  for  a noble  task  (1 Tm 3:1); (3) t h a t g o d l i n e s s holds  promise  both f o r t h e present l i f e and the l i f e t o come (1 Tm 4:8 f . ) ; ( ) 4  that  i f we d i e with  through  Christ  a c r e e d a l fragment  we s h a l l  live  with  him, and so on  (2 Tm 2:11); and (5) t h a t having been  j u s t i f i e d by C h r i s t ' s grace, we are h e i r s t o the hope o f e t e r n a l life  (Tt 3:7 f . ) . Some of these  have  a  very  marginal  claim  sayings,  to  be  especially  considered  1 Tm 3:1,  "doctrinal."  Moreover, t h e "sure saying" a t 1 Tm 3:1 could apply r a t h e r t o the previous remark about women being saved 2:15,  and the Greek  24  punctuation  by c h i l d b e a r i n g a t 1 Tm  and UBS  Greek  p o i n t s t h e sure saying a t T t 3:8 t o the remainder  paragraphing  o f t h e verse's  request t h a t the r e c i p i e n t " i n s i s t on these t h i n g s , " though t h i s seems poor m a t e r i a l f o r a sure have  no  common  restricted pistos to  element  saying. These sayings  i n content  and  t o p r e - e x i s t i n g m a t e r i a l used  ho logos  are not  appear t o necessarily  by the author; r a t h e r ,  i s simply a device used t o give added seriousness  t h e author's comments and perhaps cannot  even be s p e c i f i c a l l y 25  t i e d t o any one passage preceding or f o l l o w i n g i t . In  Acts, Paul gives e x p l i c i t responses  questions Way"  about  (he hodos),  chapter world  h i s teaching 24:14.  (didache),  17:19,  In the Areopagus  and about "the  speech  i n Athens,  17, h i s teaching i s t h a t God made (and encompasses) the and  a l l peoples,  needs  nothing,  worshipped with i d o l s or i n temples,  Hanson 63 f . , 91, Fee 79.  i s not a p p r o p r i a t e l y  and has l e f t  So NRSV mg., Dibelius-Conzelmann 2 5  t o a c t u a l o r implied  28 f .  i t t o humanity  63 to  seek  him, but has now made a new r e v e l a t i o n  confirmed  by  26  Jesus  27  resurrection,  1  Before t h e governor  t o be followed by judgement  Felix,  "the Way" he worships of  (17:24-31).  chapter 24, he says t h a t according t o  the God of I s r a e l , b e l i e v e s i n the content  t h e Law and the prophets,  and expects  God t o r a i s e the dead  (24:14 f . ) . H i n t s of d o c t r i n a l content may a l s o be seen passages:  (he hodos tou kuriou)  (v. 28) ;  accurately"  when  o f the Holy  John": baptism  of John  resistance of  2 8  "the Messiah i s  i s explained  to  him  "more  and A q u i l a , he seems t o l e a r n of  (v. 25, "he knew only  i n which  are baptized  r e c e i v e the S p i r i t ,  that  i n the name of Jesus, and perhaps a l s o the  Spirit  c f . 19:1-7,  rebaptism) .  the Way  (v. 26) by P r i s c i l l a  the need f o r baptism role  and teaching " a c c u r a t e l y " about  (v. 15) seems t o include preaching  Jesus"  other  (1) At Acts 18:24-28, A p o l l o s ' knowledge o f the "Way of  the Lord" Jesus  i n three  "disciples" i n Jesus'  also  t h e baptism of  knowing  only the  name and l e a r n  of and  though u n l i k e these A p o l l o s does not r e q u i r e  (2) At  Acts  19:8  f . , "the Way"  which  meets  (v. 9) seems t o include Paul's teaching on the kingdom  God (v. 8 ) ; no e l a b o r a t i o n i s given.  (3) In Acts  20:17-35,  Jesus i s not mentioned by name i n t h i s passage, but i t has a l r e a d y been made c l e a r i n v. 18 t h a t Paul preached "Jesus and t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n " i n Athens. 2 7  C f . Liidemann  191 f .  Conzelmann A c t s 158. Haenchen, 554 f f . , argues t h a t " a c c u r a t e l y " and "more a c c u r a t e l y " a r e c o n t r a d i c t o r y i n t h e c o n t e x t and a r e p a r t of a d e l i b e r a t e l y m i s l e a d i n g attempt t o s u b o r d i n a t e A p o l l o s t o Paul v i a Paul's co-workers P r i s c i l l a and Aquila. 2 8  64  Paul's  farewell  included for  speech  i n "the  at  the  role  of  God's  and  (w.  tou  29  idiou),  grace  and  ff.). All  d o c t r i n a l l y , and as a c o n t r a s t  which  might  (v. 27)  include  the  f a i t h toward our (v.  church with "the blood of h i s Own" haimatos  elements  whole purpose of God"  "repentance toward God  21),  Miletus,  24),  God's  be need  Lord Jesus" purchase  (v. 28 NRSV mg.;  (v.  of  his  Greek dia  tou  perhaps even the future coming of heresy  this  material,  however,  Conzelmann sees the reference  is  rather  thin  t o "whole counsel"  t o the Gnostic p r a c t i c e of t e l l i n g the whole s t o r y 29  only t o  initiates.  From Ignatius' that  Christ's  cross,  death  ("inviolable that  the  l e t t e r s , one  can  death brought us  life  and  are  resurrection  charters,"  IgPhd  fleshly reality  of  8:2),  i n f e r t h a t the (IgMag 9:1),  "mystery" i s that  absolute  articles  and  i t i s the  Christ's  that  death  a l s o e s s e n t i a l to C h r i s t i a n i t y (IgSm 5:1  and  Christ's of  faith "truth"  resurrection  is  f . , c f . h i s chapters  1-8  30  passim); also  references  linked to  to  heresy  at  IgEph  subsequent a n t i - d o c e t i c  6:2  and  polemic  IgTr  6:1  (IgEph 7:2;  are IgTr  31  ch.  9-11  Christ in  the  ).  an  Similarly,  Polycarp  e s s e n t i a l part  beginning"  (ho  2 9  Conzelmann Acts  3 0  Schoedel 124,  of  ex  3 2  209,  54.  Cf. Paulsen 120  arches  174.  31  Corwin  "the  f.  233  f.  makes  the  fleshly reality  word which was  delivered  hemin paradothenta  logos,  of  to  us  Poly  65 DOCTRINE AS CONDUCT Results doctrinal  of such  a  expressions  survey  seem  of what  meager  as  I  have  long  identified  as  as  i t s scope i s  r e s t r i c t e d t o the s o r t of o n t o l o g i c a l and c r e e d a l matters I have been  considering.  literature  However,  i s that  expressions,  much  including  i n v o l v e s not d o c t r i n e  a  remarkable  feature  of the content  he pistis,  associated  aletheia  i n the creedal  of  all  with  and even  our  such  hairesis,  sense, but r a t h e r  conduct.  For example, a t 1 Tm 1:9 f f . , a long l i s t of v i c e s , from l y i n g t o parricide,  are described  hugiainousa  didaskalia)"  as "contrary that  conforms t o the gospel;  5:8,  those who do not take care  have  "denied  illustrate  the f a i t h "  the  (he  a t 1 Tm  of t h e i r r e l a t i v e s are s a i d t o  (he pistis).  Pastorals*  t o the sound teaching  These examples may  much-remarked  tendency  to  indeed give  a 33  Christian  r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n f o r ordinary  nevertheless,  "bourgeois  the tendency t o r e l a t e "the f a i t h "  morality";  and other  such  terms t o conduct, as d i s t i n c t from dogmatic theology, i s found i n a l l our authors, and the content i s by no means always bourgeois. 2 Peter already  discussed.  definite  article  "receives" discussed 33  uses a long s t r i n g of the d o c t r i n a l l y - c h a r g e d words  i n this  (lagchano), already.  .  These begin with pistis  .  34  construction,  equivalent  a t 1:1 — but as  i n meaning t  Others include epignosis  l a c k i n g the  something  t o he  pistis  one as  .  (1:2 and o f t e n ) , a •  Dibelius-Conzelmann 74 f . ; Bultmann 118 f . ; K a r r i s 63 f f . , 84 f . , K e l l y 17, Fee 17 f . , a l l u s i n g t h e e x p r e s s i o n w i t h reservations. Sidebottom 104, but n o t i n g t h a t t h e verb used s t r e s s e s God's grace r a t h e r than "handing down"; so a l s o H i l l y e r 157, BAGD. 3 4  66 word  used  for a  particularly  r e l i g i o u s or moral things  35  strong  form  of  knowledge  which may be s a i d t o form  of  the c h i e f  36  theme  of the e p i s t l e ;  hairesis  (1:5, 3:18),  (2:1), hodos tes aletheias  the former would  gnosis  (2:2), entole  case "handed down," paradidomi);  also  seem  righteousness"  probable  (2:21)  t h a t hodos  i s intended  aletheia  (1:12),  (2:21,  and sophia,  3:15. I t  tes dikaiosunes,  t o be  3:2, i n  "way of  interchangeable  with  37  hodos tes aletheias.  Nevertheless, the d o c t r i n a l content of the  l e t t e r i s minimal,  confined l a r g e l y t o an i n s i s t e n c e t h a t the day  of  come d e s p i t e any delays  the Lord  will  or doubts  (3:3-10);  beyond t h a t , we have only the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the heresy as "bombastic  nonsense"  p o i n t of the l e t t e r ,  (2:18)  and other  found  "without  abuse.  and the ultimate content  "wisdom," "knowledge" and the r e s t , be  such  spot  or blemish"  destroys a l l things with  fire  C l e a r l y the  of "commandment,"  i s that the b e l i e v e r s  should  (3:14) when the Lord's day  (3:10).  The way of righteousness 38  and t r u t h i s the l i f e of " h o l i n e s s and g o d l i n e s s " (3:11). At A c t s far  more b r i e f l y ,  expects  as p a r t  the r e s u r r e c t i o n ,  maintain and  24:14 f f . , Paul makes much the same p o i n t , though  a clear  other people  conscience 39  (v. 16) .  of h i s explanation therefore  [en touto)  (aproskopos .  His f a i l u r e  3 5  H i l l y e r 159, so a l s o BAGD.  3 6  Sidebottom 105.  3 7  H i l l y e r 208.  3 8  Sidebottom  3 9  Schwartz 20 f .  123 f . , H i l l y e r 220.  of the Way:  suneidesis)  he  tries  he to  toward God  t o g i v e any j u s t  cause  67 for  offence  Jewish  (w.  piety  12, 18), as w e l l perhaps  (w.  12,  17),  are  as h i s observance  presented  as  examples  of of  a p p r o p r i a t e behavior according t o a good conscience i n the l i g h t 40  of the coming r e s u r r e c t i o n  and judgement.  Similarly,  p o i n t of Paul's "teaching" i n the Areopagus speech  the r e a l  i s that i t i s  time t o foresake i d o l s , t u r n t o the t r u e God, and be prepared f o r the appointed judgment day (Acts 17:29-31). Clement o f f e r s which  several  i s i n Christ"  such  i s said  examples. At 22:1, "the f a i t h  to  "confirm"  an  exhortation to  v i r t u e s of v a r i o u s kinds (ch. 21-22). At 35:5, the "way o f t r u t h " 41  is  c o n t r a s t e d t o a catalogue of v i c e s .  And i n a passage which  i s anything but bourgeois, the "immortal knowledge" (he gnosis, God  36:2) i s equated  with an apprehension  athanatos  of the majesty of  and of C h r i s t so overwhelming that our only response  can be  42  t o t a l l o y a l t y and obedience Ignatius, two  chapters  bishop  warning  (ch. 3 6-37).  against heresy  to contrasting  and the "ordinances  peaceful Christians  and  inoffensive  alike  such  a t IgTr  heresy  with  of the A p o s t l e s "  f f . , devotes  obedience (ch. 7)  t o the  and with  toward  Christians  and non-  (ch. 8) before a t t a c k i n g  i t s docetic  doctrinal  content (ch. 9-11).  behavior  6:1  43  M a r s h a l l Acts 378. Grant and Graham 62. Cf. Grant and Graham 63 f . Cf. Schoedel 146 f f . , esp. 147, 152.  68 Polycarp's  letter,  "righteousness"  (3:2),  to  as  he  himself  be  taken  in  a  says,  moral  is  rather  about than  a  44  classically entirely  Pauline  an  sense,  exercise  and  in  indeed  moral  paranesis,  d o c t r i n a l content, e.g. references to J e s u s used  primarily to  doctrinally  intensify  significant  the  moral  1  letter with  its  almost limited  r e s u r r e c t i o n at  admonitions.  passage, the  is  2:1,  Even  i t s most  a n t i - d o c e t i c 7:1,  i s aimed  not merely at the d e n i a l of "Jesus C h r i s t come i n the f l e s h " also  at  the  resurrection the  Lord  morally and  for  pernicious  judgment —  his  own  consequences  Yet  what  d o c t r i n a l expressions  are used f r e e l y and  with  (3:1,  truth," 5:1).  45  (3:2), "the f a i t h " "Knowing then that  3;  SUMMARY: PAUL AND  4:1),  (3:2, 'God  w o r t h i l y of h i s commandment and summary as any of the  the  "whosoever p e r v e r t s the  lusts."  "righteousness"  of  I  have  almost  e.g.  as  interchangeably  "wisdom,"  "word  4:2,3), "the commandment" i s not mocked,' we g l o r y " (5:1)  of  o r a c l e s of  classified  of  (4:1,  ought t o walk  would be  as good a  letter.  THE MAINLINE FAITH  While there i s no p a t t e r n of agreement i n our t o what c r e e d a l d e t a i l s  count as  t h a t c o r r e c t d o c t r i n e i s important as w e l l as c r e e d a l i m p l i c a t i o n s .  Lindemann " A p o s t o l i c " 44. 4 5  denial  but  Cf. de Boer 52.  literature  " d o c t r i n e , " there and  that t h i s  as  i s agreement  has  behavioral  69 Doctrinal letters: 1:27;  "the  48  expressions are not unknown i n Paul's faith"  "the form  paradothete  at  Gal  1:23,  NT  Phil  46  1:25,  undisputed 47  NT  Phil  of teaching t o which you  tupos didaches)  a t NT  Rom  were e n t r u s t e d " (hos 49 6:17; " t r a d i t i o n s " at 1  50  Cor  11:2,  15:14  c f . 15:3;  (though  stressing falsify  "knowledge"  negatively  accurate  at  content  1 at  God's word"), Gal 6:6  t r u t h " a t NT Rom  2:8,  6:16,  at  "mystery"  Gal 5:7, 1  Cor  (gnosis) Cor  2  positively  a t NT  "word"  a  sense  refused  to...  8:1),  Cor  4:2  ("we  in  ("taught the word"), "follow t h i s r u l e "  4:1  ("stewards  of  Rom  "obeying  (kanon) a t Gal.  God's  mysteries," .  mysteries because newly revealed r a t h e r than because e s o t e r i c Paul a l s o  the  i n s i s t s on the i n v i o l a b i l i t y of h i s own  51  ) .  gospel a t Gal  52  1:8  f.  "faith," and  But  expressions,  and  especially  i t has  been  argued  that  such  NRSV " f a i t h , " but Greek he pistis,  48  Hultgren I - I I Tm  15.  Guthrie P a s t o r a l 49 f .  49  Z i e s l e r 20, Fitzmyer "Romans" 849. 5 0  Z i e s l e r 20, Fitzmyer "Pauline"  1386.  51  Ziesler  35.  5 2  Beker 85 f .  5 3  Beker 22 f f . , c f . Bornkamm 117 f .  RSV  use  of  letters,  systematization i s  t o Paul's whole method of argumentation.  faith." 47  this  are p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y r a r e i n Paul's undisputed  indeed  foreign  these  53  "Faith,"  rightly  "the  for  70 Paul, i s most c l a s s i c a l l y a t r u s t i n g "yes" t o God,  54  not a creed  or t h e o l o g i c a l system. The  tendency  doctrinal  in  concerns  undisputed  letters,  the t r u t h  (NT Rom  our  with  literature  conduct  is  to also  equate not  or  unknown  as seen i n the above r e f e r e n c e s 2:8,  Gal 5:7). But  this  conflate  is a  in  the  t o obeying  proportionally  l e s s e r concern i n Paul than i n our l i t e r a t u r e , and the dynamic i s quite  different.  In  our  literature  Christian  morals  are  often  portrayed as p a r t and p a r c e l of the gospel ("a new  law,"  says,  non-canonical  somewhat  authors,  unkindly,  in  reference  c f . a l s o 1 Tm 1:9 f f . ,  55  6:14,  to  our  Ziesler  2 Pt 2:21), or a t most as  an e s s e n t i a l l y human response t o the h o l i n e s s of the r e v e l a t i o n through  Christ  Christian 5:17),  Rom  morals  a  (e.g. Gal 4:3-7),  6:14)  result, that  are  36,  37) . In  consequence  the major of  a  new  Pauline  letters  creation  (2  Cor  a t r a n s f e r from the dominion of other powers t o t h a t of  56  Christ  (1 Clem  58  and  57  a l i b e r a t i o n from the power of s i n (NT  as such e s s e n t i a l l y  the work of C h r i s t .  the human r o l e approaches a vanishing p o i n t ,  it  becomes  a  problem  both  for  Paul  and  Z i e s l e r 84, c f . Bornkamm 144 f f . ,  5 5  Ziesler  5 6  E. Sanders  5 7  Ziesler  5 8  B a r r e t t Paul 90.  5 9  E. Sanders  1407. 142. 102.  83.  103.  As  a  so much so for  commentators t o describe i t without f a t a l l y o v e r s t a t i n g  5 4  5 9  modern  i t (e.g.  Fitzmyer " P a u l i n e "  71 NT  Rom  4:1-6).  This i s not a problem f o r our authors,  simply u r g i n g t h e i r  readers  t o go  out  and  do what God  who has  are told  them t o do.  Z i e s l e r 84; c f . B a r r e t t ' s acknowledgment of t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n d e f i n i n g "the obedience of f a i t h , " NT Rom 1:5, ( B a r r e t t Paul 135, c f . a l s o E. Sanders' d i s c u s s i o n of Paul's d i f f i c u l t i e s i n promoting what amounted t o Jewish e t h i c s among G e n t i l e c o n v e r t s while r e p u d i a t i n g Law-observance (E. Sanders P a u l 89).  72  CHAPTER 6: THE CHRISTIAN LIFE In t h i s chapter the c o n t r a s t with Paul must be drawn a t an e a r l i e r stage than i n preceding chapters, because a t many p o i n t s the use o f Pauline vocabulary with a non-Pauline specifically concepts  at issue.  for daily  undisputed  Our  Pauline  letters:  conscience"  (eusejbeia) ,  and good works  i t s cognates,  self-control, sensibleness.  stresses  a  variety  of  l i v i n g d i f f e r i n g n o t i c e a b l y from usage i n the  "good/clear  and  literature  meaning w i l l be  righteousness  (agathos/katharos (agatha/kala  variously translated decency,  modesty,  (dikaiosune),  suneidesis),  godliness  erga) , p l u s  sophrosune  i n the NRSV as prudence, self-discipline  and  1  RIGHTEOUSNESS AND UPRIGHTNESS Dikaiosune used  and i t s cognate  by a l l our authors  verb  i n something  dikaioo  are occasionally  resembling  the c l a s s i c a l 2  Pauline  sense  of "a g i f t  of r i g h t - s t a n d i n g with  3:7 d e s c r i b e s C h r i s t i a n s as " j u s t i f i e d (dikaioo)  God."  Thus T t  by h i s grace,"  3  apart  from  works.  free"  (dikaioo)  A t Acts  13:39, Paul  says  believers  by Jesus where the Law could not f r e e  are  "set  (dikaioo)  them, h e l d by many commentators t o be a conscious P a u l i n e  touch  E.g. Hanson 2 f . 2  Fee 24, c i t i n g NT Rom 5:17.  Hanson 192 f . , Hultgren I - I I Tm 34, G u t h r i e P a s t o r a l 218 f . , Dibelius-Conzelmann 150, Beker 42; t h e l a t t e r two suggest any P a u l i n i s m i n t h i s verse may be a t t r i b u t e d t o i t s o r i g i n i n t r a d i t i o n r a t h e r than the P a s t o r ' s own thought. 3  73 4  .  by the author.  2 Pt 1:1,  of our God  Savior Jesus C h r i s t " may  and  .  "through the righteousness bear  (dikaiosune)  a P a u l i n e sense of  "God's saving a c t i v i t y , " but more l i k e l y r e f e r s t o God's f a i r n e s s in  distributing  "not  gifts.  made righteous  (again dikaioo) gate  among  followed,  by  the  (dikaioo) faith;  many  however,  "righteousness"  1 Clem 32:4  by  in  6  by  clearly  s t a t e s t h a t we  ourselves," but  c f . 1 Clem 48:4,  Christ  available  which  a  non-Pauline  the  clearly same  verse.  are  is  "in  Ignatius  are  justified  i s the  only  righteousness,"  m o r a l i z i n g use says  he  is  of not  7  j u s t i f i e d by h i s own  s u f f e r i n g s (IgRom 5:1).  Polycarp r e f e r s to  C h r i s t as "the pledge of our righteousness" (Poly 8:1). Nevertheless, more  commonly  dikaios 10:22 "way  dikaiosune  refer  to  and  upright  i t s cognates i n our  literature  moral  adjective  behavior.  i s a p p l i e d t o Lot at 2 Pt 2:7  The  f . , to C o r n e l i u s at  and t o s u i t a b l e candidates f o r bishop at T t 1:8, of righteousness"  (2 Pt 2:21)  Acts  while  i s a matter of " r i g h t  the  living"  9  rather  than  of  justification  by  faith.  1 Clem d e s c r i b e s  Peter  and  Paul as "righteous p i l l a r s " (5:2), and equates righteousness So M a r s h a l l A c t s 228, an a c c u r a t e touch; Conzelmann A c t s 106; Liidemann 154, Haenchen 412, i n a c c u r a t e ; d i f f e r e n t l y Munck 123, p r e - P a u l i n e " J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n dogma." 5  Sidebottom  104,  cf. Hillyer  158.  6  Lindemann " A p o s t o l i c " 33, Grant and Graham  58.  D i f f e r e n t l y Schoedel 179, suggesting I g n a t i u s ' c i t a t i o n of 1 Cor 4:4 masks a very un-Pauline c o n v i c t i o n t h a t he w i l l be j u s t i f i e d by martyrdom. 7  Q  Lindemann " A p o s t o l i c " 44. 9  Hillyer  208.  74 with good deeds of  the church  conduct  (30:7).  Ignatius p r a i s e s the "righteous nature"  a t Ephesus i n a context  (IgEph  1:1  f.).  Polycarp  1 0  devoted  speaks  t o i t s members *  of  the  "armor  righteousness" i n the context of conventional moral advice 4:1  ff.).  In  1 1  distinguished ff.),  the  from  Pastorals,  those  who  the  commit  "innocent" various  (dikaios)  crimes  (1 Tm  righteousness can be pursued along with other v i r t u e s  of  (Poly are 1:9 (2 Tm  2:22), and one can be t r a i n e d i n i t (through s c r i p t u r e reading, 2 Tm 3:16). GOOD CONSCIENCE All  our authors  conscience 23:1,  as a worthwhile  before  governor  except  the  2 Peter  mention  possession.  Paul  Sanhedrin,  and  at  good  claims  24:16,  appears  12  or  clear  i t a t Acts  speaking  F e l i x . Before F e l i x he implies t h a t h i s c l e a r  prepares him f o r the coming r e s u r r e c t i o n . he  a  t o the  conscience  Before the Sanhedrin  t o apply the expression t o h i s e n t i r e  life  t o date,  13 c o v e r i n g a Jewish as w e l l as a C h r i s t i a n context. In pure  the P a s t o r a l s , good conscience c o n t r i b u t e s , along with a  heart  and  sincere  faith,  to  love  (1 Tm  1:5), and i s  bracketed with f a i t h as a n e c e s s i t y f o r f i g h t i n g "the good f i g h t " 1 U  C f . Paulsen 25.  1 1  C f . Lindemann " A p o s t o l i c " 44.  1 2  Haenchen 655, M a r s h a l l 378, Munck 230.  13 Haenchen 637, c f . Ludemann 243, c f . a l s o 2 Tm 1:3, i n which P a u l o r pseudo-Paul a p p l i e s the e x p r e s s i o n t o h i s a n c e s t o r s ' worship as w e l l as h i s own; d i f f e r e n t l y M a r s h a l l (Acts 362), who says the c l a i m before the Sanhedrin i s intended to cover o n l y Paul's C h r i s t i a n phase.  75 (1 Tm 1:18 f . ) ; i t i the  mystery  st  n  e  proper s t a t e i n which t o "hold f a s t t o  of the f a i t h "  (1 Tm  t e a c h e r s ' consciences are deadened  3:9). By  contrast,  false  (1 Tm 4:2, "seared with a hot  14  iron")  o r abandoned altogether (1 Tm 1:19), and t h e minds and  consciences  of  the corrupt  corrupted (Tt 1:15). Clement p r a i s e s a pure  and  unbelieving  are  themselves  (hagnos) conscience i n wives  (1 Clem  15  1:3)  and a good conscience  (41:1). (Poly  Polycarp  i n a l l members of t h e congregation  l i k e w i s e enjoins a pure  5:3), while  Ignatius  says  conscience  anyone  who  on v i r g i n s  disobeys  church  a u t h o r i t i e s i s "not pure i n h i s conscience" (IgTr 7:2). The similar found  word  "conscience"  does  not appear  i n 2 Peter,  idea seems t o be implied i n the author's  "without  judgment  spot  (3:14).  16  or blemish" The  cognate  (aspiloi  concern  but a t o be  kai amometoi) a t the  amomos  is  found  modifying  "conscience" a t 1 Clem 1:3. GODLINESS Eusebeia,  godliness, i s a way of l i v i n g p l e a s i n g t o God (1 17  Tm 2:2, 2 Pt 1:6 f . ) , " p u t t i n g l o y a l t y t o God above a l l e l s e . " Use  o f the word 1 4  eusebeia  i s limited  i n the New  Testament  So Hanson 87, G u t h r i e P a s t o r a l 104.  Gunaikes, Lake, Richardson, Grant and Graham "women," but c o n t e x t u a l l y almost c e r t a i n l y "wives." 1 5  Cf. Sidebottom 124, c i t i n g a " m o r a l i t y o f 'blamelessness'" here and a t 1 Tm 6:14 and i n t h e P a u l i n e 1 Thess 3:13, 5:23, NT P h i l 1:10. 1 6  17  .  •  H i l l y e r 166; Dibelius-Conzelmann 39.  76 18  p r e c i s e l y t o our l i t e r a t u r e — In  t h e P a s t o r a l s , i t has both  (translated 3:16)  "religion"  and moral  "worship," to  the P a s t o r a l s , Acts and 2 Peter. explicitly  religious  connotations  i n "the mystery of our r e l i g i o n "  connotations  (the cognate  eusejbed,  otherwise  used a t 1 Tm 5:4 f o r performing one's " r e l i g i o u s duty"  one's f a m i l y ) . I t i s something one can work a t (1 Tm 4:7) and  pursue along with other v i r t u e s  (1 Tm 6:11), and i s v a l u a b l e f o r  the sake of the l i f e t o come as w e l l as f o r t h i s l i f e In  a t 1 Tm  1 Clement eusebeia  with  sobriety  (translated  and gentleness  righteousness  (62:1).  Acts  " p i e t y " by Lake) i s bracketed  (1:2),  uses  (1 Tm 4:8).  peacefulness  the noun  only  (15:1),  and  deprecatingly  (3:12, Peter and John's d e n i a l that t h e i r own p i e t y had made the lame man walk) , but a p p l i e s the a d j e c t i v e (NRSV "devout") approval  t o C o r n e l i u s (10:2) and one of h i s s o l d i e r s  characteristically,  before  they  have  heard  with  (10:7)  the gospel:  —  while  eusebeia i s most o f t e n given a nominally C h r i s t i a n context i n our literature, stressed. 1:9),  1 9  i t s specifically "Ungodly,"  2 Peter  straightforward appears  asebes,  Christian i s used  (e.g. 2:5) and Clement term  content  is  i n the P a s t o r a l s  seldom (1 Tm  (e.g. 1 Clem  14:5) as a  of opprobrium. Neither eusebeia  nor asebes  i n Ignatius or Polycarp.  Dibelius-Conzelmann  39, Sidebottom 105.  Wilson Luke 50 f . , c f . Z i e s l e r 136; c f . a l s o Grant 38, n o t i n g t h a t f o r Clement, as a t 1 Clem 55, pagan v i r t u e s a r e g e n u i n e l y commendable. 1 9  77 GOOD WORKS The  Pastorals i n particular  about good works  (kala  erga)  are s u r p r i s i n g l y  enthusiastic  f o r Pauline or p u r p o r t e d l y Pauline  20  documents. 2:21,  C h r i s t i a n s are expected  t o perform  T t 3:14), e s p e c i a l l y women (1 Tm 2:10,  with approval t h a t good works are conspicuous as i n the undisputed Pauline l e t t e r s , works (2 Tm 1:9,  T t 3:5).  good works  (2 Tm  5:10); i t i s noted (1 Tm 5:25).  Still,  s a l v a t i o n i s not earned by  21  A s i m i l a r outlook i s found i n 1 Clem, who urges "good deeds" (erga)  (21:1,  33:1)  and even speaks of being " j u s t i f i e d by deeds"  as opposed t o words (30:3), but s t i l l  i n s i s t s on j u s t i f i c a t i o n by  22  faith  (32:4).  A t Acts  26:20 Paul  calls  f o r "deeds c o n s i s t e n t  with repentance,"  and Ignatius makes works p a r t o f g e t t i n g one's  eventual  (IgPol  works,  reward  however,  against t o erga,  23  6:2).  i s negative,  s a l v a t i o n by works  Polycarp's  a citation  (Poly 1:3).  i f r e l e v a n t here a t a l l ,  sole o f NT  reference t o 24  Eph 2:8 f .  2 Peter's only reference  i s a t best d i s m i s s i v e : on the  Dibelius-Conzelmann 47. Dibelius-Conzelmann 99, H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 169, G u t h r i e P a s t o r a l 216; Hanson 191 agrees i n substance but says Paul would not have used the language o f T t 3:5. 2 1  2 2  Grant  119,  Lindemann " A p o s t o l i c " 33, Grant and Graham  59. D i f f e r e n t l y Corwin 234 f . , suggesting the d e t a i l s o f t h e e l a b o r a t e m i l i t a r y metaphor i n t h i s l a s t passage s h o u l d not be p r e s s e d c o n t r a r y t o what she sees as I g n a t i u s ' " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c usage," i n which works are a consequence r a t h e r than a cause o f the C h r i s t i a n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h God. 2 3  2 4  Or P a u l i n e t r a d i t i o n , Paulsen 115.  78 day  of t h e Lord,  "everything done on [earth]  (ge k a i t a en aute  erga, e a r t h and the works i n i t ) w i l l be d i s c l o s e d " (3:10). PRUDENCE AND BOURGEOIS MORALITY Sophrosune nine  times  and i t s cognates,  i n the P a s t o r a l s 25  .  v a r i o u s l y t r a n s l a t e d , a r e used  compared  .  t o only  This virtue  .  letters.  in  (Tt 2:12, " s e l f - c o n t r o l l e d " ) ,  Tm 1:7, " s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e " ) , 1:8  "self-controlled"),  1  .  undisputed general  two i n P a u l s  i s recommended  f o r bishops  f o r older  for  .  Christians  f o r Timothy himself (2 (1 Tm 3:2 " s e n s i b l e " , T t  and younger  men  "prudent," 2:6 " s e l f - c o n t r o l l e d " ) , and three times  (Tt 2:2  f o r women (1  Tm 2:9 "decently," 2:15 "modesty"; T t 2:5 " s e l f - c o n t r o l l e d " ) . In 1 Clement i t i s used of the whole C o r i n t h i a n congregation (1:2, "sobriety")  and of Clement's  "prudent"),  and recommended f o r wives (1:3,  f o r t h e congregation  representatives t o Corinth  "circumspection") and  as a whole (62:2, " s o b r i e t y " ) . Ignatius a l s o  recommends i t t o C h r i s t i a n s a t large (IgEph 10:3, Polycarp 10:3,  t o widows  preserved  " s o b r i e t y " ) and  (Poly 4:3, " d i s c r e e t " ) and t o everyone  only  i n Latin,  sometimes has a connotation  sobrietas,  of sexual  26  f o r women  (63:3,  "sobriety"). self-control,  (Poly  The term especially  27  but p o s s i b l y a l s o f o r men.  In more general  terms,  and considered as "prudence," i t may be seen as p a r t of a move t o a  l e s s e s c h a t o l o g i c a l and more l a s t i n g  Christian  i n Luke's w r i t i n g s and the A p o s t o l i c Fathers. 25  Dibelius-Conzelmann  40, K e l l y 160.  Dibelius-Conzelmann  46, K e l l y 66.  2 6  2 7  2 8  K e l l y 76. Dibelius-Conzelmann  40 f .  28  ethic,  as a l s o  79 Vocabulary to  live  aside, C h r i s t i a n s are expected  according  t o what  i s often  i n our l i t e r a t u r e  described  as  "bourgeois  29  morality."  Dibelius-Conzelmann  citizenship  i n this  world,  describe the P a s t o r a l outlook as  though  opposed t o c i t i z e n s h i p elsewhere,  on C h r i s t i a n  principles,  as i n the undisputed  as  letters;  3 0  Reicke sees 2 Peter and r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e as c o n c e n t r a t i n g l e s s on  t h e events  of s a l v a t i o n  and more  on how t o get along i n 31  s o c i e t y while w a i t i n g f o r the parousia;  Brown c i t e s  appeal t o the o r d e r l i n e s s of the created universe l e v i t i c a l cult  (ch. 41), Roman s o c i e t y  Clement's  (ch. 20) , the  (ch. 61) and even the army 32  (ch.  37) as examples f o r an o r d e r l y ,  lasting Christian  A c c o r d i n g l y , o l d e r men should be temperate,  church.  s e r i o u s and prudent,  o l d e r women sober i n speech and i n d r i n k i n g h a b i t s , younger women good  housewives  younger  men s e l f - c o n t r o l l e d ,  t h e i r masters offer  and mothers  similar  and submissive  to their  slaves r e s p e c t f u l  lists.  Families  those who a r e already r i c h 6:18).  disputatious  and obedient t o  (Tt 2:2-10); 1 Clem 1:3, 21:6 f f . , Poly ch. 4, 5 should  take  care  members (1 Tm 5:4,8). No one should seek r i c h e s  (1 Tm  husbands,  Everyone  of t h e i r  (1 Tm 6:9 f.)  should be generous with t h e i r  should  be u s e f u l  (Tt 3:8 f . ) . A q u i e t l i f e  rather  than  own and  wealth  c l e v e r or  i s d e s i r e a b l e , and c i v i l  r u l e r s should be supported by prayer and obedience t o b r i n g t h i s Bultmann 118 f . ; c f . K a r r i s 63 f f . , 84 f . ; K e l l y 17, Fee 17 f . , a l l w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n s . 2 9  30  31 3 2  Dibelius-Conzelmann 39. • Reicke x x x v i f f . Brown "Rome" 171 f f .  80 about  (1 Tm  2:2,  1 Clem 60:2,  the l a t t e r a c t u a l l y b r a c k e t i n g the  need t o please e a r t h l y r u l e r s with the need t o p l e a s e God); Pt 3:14  "at peace," may  2:5,  be  SUMMARY: PAUL AND The sense,  are a l l good (1 Tm  done to make C h r i s t i a n i t y  8, 10; IgTr 8:2,  use  look  c f . Acts 2:47a).  to  outsiders  as  to  refer  dikaiosune  utterly  imagine [2  t o moral 38  (NRSV " j u s t " ) , our l i t e r a t u r e . connote  (Tt  THE MAINLINE FAITH  of  righteousness  to  bad  35  and  i t s cognates  contrary  to  the  in  a  Pauline  righteousness or j u s t i f i c a t i o n as a g i f t hard  4:3-5, 5:23). Nothing  moralizing  found i n a l l our authors, draws e s p e c i a l l y heavy f i r e  Hanson  2 34  be a s i m i l a r q u a s i - p o l i t i c a l r e f e r e n c e .  Food, wine, and marriage should  33  a Tm  more  un-Pauline  3:16]."  36  Yet  righteousness,  as  concept  of God's grace:  phrase  even  than  for  at NT  Rom  of  "It is  training  Paul, 37 5:7,  from  in  dikaios  can  NT  4:8  Phil  j u s t as the "Pauline" meaning may be found i n Indeed, i t i s arguable t h a t Paul means the word 39  justification  Nevertheless,  the  order  unquestionably  does  and of  reverse  uprightness frequency  that  of  the  simultaneously.  in  our  undisputed  Cf. Grant and Graham 94. 3 4  Reicke x x i v .  3 5  K e l l y 239,  3 6  Hanson 152,  3 7  Fitzmyer "Romans" 844.  3 8  Cf. a l s o K e l l y 140,  3 9  So B a r r e t t Paul  Fee 184,  Schoedel 150 f . , Corwin  a l s o 109 f . and o f t e n .  136.  204.  literature  226.  Pauline  81  letters,  i n which m o r a l i z i n g uses of  dikaiosune  and  i t s cognates  are r a r e . The  expression  "good  conscience,  w h i c h i s e v i d e n t l y i n h i s f a v o r , a t NT  he  treats  conscience  also  recommends  appeal  as  to  not  letters.  but  does  is  undisputed  1:12,  Paul  conscience"  the  fallible  at  found  in  the  of  his  testimony Rom  1 Cor  9:1,  8:7  2  Cor  f f . , cf.  40  4:4.  Paul  that  his  flock  (amemptos) a t C h r i s t ' s coming, 1 T h e s s 3:13, Phil  1:10,  treated  the  the  latter idea  reminiscent  of  of  2  blamelessness  blameless  c f . 1 T h e s s 5:23,  Pt  as  be  3:14,  where  equivalent  I  NT have  to  good  would  be  that  be  relied  41  conscience. conscience  The is  summary  significant  humanly s p e a k i n g Eusebeia  best  for  of  the  Paul,  but  a f t e r t h e manner o f our does  not  appear  in  matter not  to  on  literature. the  undisputed  Pauline  42 letters. negative  L i k e c e r t a i n o f our a u t h o r s , sense,  but  he  does so  P a u l does u s e  asebes  i n a p a r a d o x i c a l manner  in a  entirely  at  odds w i t h t h a t o f our literature: "Christ died for the * D i f f e r e n t l y Bornkamm 132, "an u n e r r i n g w i t n e s s t o t h e t r u t h , " t h o u g h s t i l l d i s t i n c t f r o m God's j u d g e m e n t ; c f . a l s o B a r r e t t P a u l 83. D i b e l i u s - C o n z e l m a n n (20) s e e i n t h e P a s t o r a l s t y l e conscience a p r i n c i p l e of o b l i g a t i o n almost d i a m e t r i c a l l y o p p o s i t e t o t h e concept o f c o n s c i e n c e as a p r i n c i p l e o f freedom f o u n d i n t h e u n d i s p u t e d l e t t e r s , b u t i t i s n o t c l e a r t o me t h a t the o p p o s i t i o n i s d i a m e t r i c a l . u  C f . S i d e b o t t o m 124; C o l l i n s 779 n o t e s t h a t f o r P a u l s u c h b l a m e l e s s n e s s comes f r o m God, a p o i n t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h my p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of m o r a l i t y t o the g o s p e l i n o u r l i t e r a t u r e and i n P a u l . 4 1  42  .  .  Hanson 90, s u g g e s t i n g t h e f r e q u e n t m e n t i o n o f eusebeia i s the epitome of the P a s t o r a l s ' un-Pauline theology, c f . S i d e b o t t o m 105, r e f e r r i n g t o 2 P e t e r : " p i e t y has r e p l a c e d t h e g l o r i o u s l i b e r t y o f t h e c h i l d r e n o f God."  82 ungodly,"  NT  Rom  5:6,  human r e l a t i o n s h i p  c f 4:5.  t o God,  While  Paul  our  stresses  literature  stresses  God's r e l a t i o n s h i p  a to  humanity. Paul i s capable of r e f e r r i n g p o s i t i v e l y t o "every good work" 44  (2 Cor 9:8)  and t o l i n k i n g judgement t o erga  "deeds,"  "works"),  RSV  ergra predominate  and  45  even so,  f o r Paul are most c l a s s i c a l l y  (e.g. Gal. 2:16),  such discounted by h i m .  2:6,  implicitly  NRSV  or n e u t r a l uses  even i n the undisputed l e t t e r s ;  g e n e r a l l y thought that erga of the Law"  indeed p o s i t i v e  (NT Rom  or e x p l i c i t l y ,  of  i t is "works and  as  46  The much-remarked "bourgeois m o r a l i t y " of our l i t e r a t u r e its  counterpart  in  e t h i c a l standards  Paul,  in his  appeal  to  commonly  (e.g. pagan condemnation of i n c e s t ,  vice l i s t s to c i v i l (1  Cor  (Gal 5:19-23, 1 Cor 6:9  authority 7:1-7),  Christianity  (NT Rom  and  look bad  5:1,  f . ) , his  f . ) , h i s concern f o r obedience  13:1-7),  h i s concern  accepted  1 Cor  the teachings of "nature" about h a i r length, 1 Cor 11:14  has  h i s approval of m a r i t a l  that  to outsiders  nothing  (1 Cor  10:32  be  done 47 f.).  sex  t o make However,  it  seems f a i r t o say that there i s l e s s of t h i s s o r t of t h i n g i n 48 the undisputed l e t t e r s than i n our l i t e r a t u r e . As with erga, 43 Kasemann 249. 44  Dibelius-Conzelmann  45  Fitzmyer "Romans" 841.  47.  46  Z i e s l e r 117 and elsewhere, c f . Fitzmyer "Romans" 841, " P a u l i n e " 1406. 47 Z i e s l e r 20, 118 f Schoedel 150. 48  Ziesler  20.  121, Fitzmyer " P a u l i n e " 1386,  83  the o p p o s i t i o n here i s f a r from d i a m e t r i c a l , but as so o f t e n , the undisputed l e t t e r s u s u a l i n our  assign  literature.  a l e s s e r r o l e t o human e f f o r t  than i s  84  CHAPTER 7: JUDAISM Our that  l i t e r a t u r e takes f o r granted C h r i s t i a n ownership of a l l  i s of value i n Judaism;  some of our  authors are  sharply  c r i t i c a l of any f a i l u r e on the p a r t of Jews t o see the matter i n this  light. T h i s a t t i t u d e i s most f u l l y developed i n I g n a t i u s '  as epitomized a t IgMag 10:3: faith  "For C h r i s t i a n i t y d i d not base i t s  on Judaism, but Judaism on C h r i s t i a n i t y ,  b e l i e v i n g on God was brought together i n i t . " prophets " l i v e d according t o Jesus C h r i s t " 2 9:2).  letters,  and every tongue Thus, the (Hebrew)  1  (IgMag  8:2,  c f . IgPhd  . P a t r i a r c h s , prophets, apostles and the church are t r e a t e d  as an unbroken  sequence  (IgPhd 9:1). Indeed, Ignatius appears t o  have as l i t t l e  knowledge or a p p r e c i a t i o n of Judaism qua 3  as the average modern C h r i s t i a n . "the  evil  leaven,  which  has  preaching  Judaizing  of  Judaism  Christians )  is  by  Judaism .  Accordingly, ongoing Judaism i s  grown o l d and  Jewish observance by C h r i s t i a n s The  .  sour" and continued  i s "monstrous" "the  equated  (IgMag  uncircumcised" with  snares of t h i s world" and i s t o be shunned  "the  wicked  10:2 f . ) . (presumably arts  and  (IgPhd 6:1). Even the  Hebrew S c r i p t u r e s , though s a i d by Ignatius t o c o n t a i n the gospel, Cf. Wilson Related 168. Schoedel 118 f f . ; Schoedel suggests, somewhat i m p l a u s i b l y , t h a t I g n a t i u s means "the prophets d i d not even keep t h e Sabbath" (p. 119). 2  3  Cf. Grant 106.  4  So Grant 97, Corwin 57 f f . , Schoedel 202 f .  85 are somewhat denigrated i n comparison with the gospel: "to me charters (IgPhd  (probably  8:2),  himself.  Hebrew  Scriptures )  t h a t i s , what really  counts  author Paul  of  of  h i s Jewish  the  as  Jesus  Christ"  scripture  Pastorals, presenting  Tarsus,  C h r i s t i a n worship  of God  ancestors  is  willing  to  i s Jesus  specified  the  1:3),  an apparent  Mosaic  as  "legitimately"  (nomimos, " l a w f u l l y " )  esoteric  use  of  exegesis  passage,  useful  Law,  commentators)  legitimate  a  the  Law  lacks  check  may  ("myths and  however,  as  his  the  current  "with a c l e a r conscience" with t h a t of  (2 Tm  as  himself  associate  c o n t i n u i t y of C h r i s t i a n i t y with Judaism. (not  are  6  The Jewish  the  the  be  a f f i r m a t i o n of  the  He a l s o p r a i s e s the  Law  but on  (1 Tm  so  read  evildoers  by  most  if  used  1:8). The r e f e r e n c e t o  contrasted with  i t s use  endless genealogies," v.  the  paradoxical  element  for  4);  the  in  the 9  classically  Pauline  portrayal  of  humankind  before  the  Law.  F i n a l l y , d e s p i t e u n c e r t a i n t i e s of d e t a i l i n exegesis, i t i s c l e a r that  for  scripture — On in  the  Pastor,  scripture  i s " i n s p i r e d by God"  —  this  context  the negative s i d e , the P a s t o r a l s oppose Jewish  certain  false  teachings,  particularly  5  So Lake 247,  6  So a l s o Grant 56, Schoedel  Jewish  (2 Tm 3:16).  in  Titus  elements with  its  Schoedel 207 f . 209.  So H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 109, K a r r i s 11 f . , G u t h r i e P a s t o r a l Fee 222; d i f f e r e n t l y Hanson 119, Dibelius-Conzelmann 98.  7  135,  in  Fee 45, Guthrie P a s t o r a l 70 f . 9  Dibelius-Conzelmann  22.  86 r e f e r e n c e t o "Jewish myths" and p u r i t y  (Tt 1:14  f.; c f . Tt  1:10,  s i n g l i n g out "those of the c i r c u m c i s i o n " f o r c r i t i c i s m , and 1:7,  Tt  purity  3:9,  referring  c o u l d be  an  t o misuse  allusion  to  of  normal  p r a c t i c e , t o l e r a t e d i n Paul's time  not  to  Law-observant  10  Law).  The  Jewish  (NT Rom  heresy i n the C h r i s t i a n community; refer  the  food  1  Tm  mention  of  laws whose  14), i s now  a mark of  on the other hand, i t could  Jewish  Christians  g n o s t i c i z i n g Jewish a s c e t i c s attacked elsewhere  but  to  i n the p a s t o r a l s ,  s i n c e the accusation that they " r e j e c t the t r u t h "  (Tt 1:14)  o v e r l y harsh t o apply t o the merely Law-observant.  11  The  "sincere  faith"  L o i s and Eunice (2 Tm Jewish  faith  Eunice  having  since  1:5),  of  Timothy's  a  grandmother  and  seems  mother,  i s l i k e l y t o be C h r i s t i a n r a t h e r than  i t i s unlikely  married  the  Gentile  they  and  were  Timothy  observant not  Jews,  having  been  12  c i r c u m c i s e d as a c h i l d Polycarp continue Christian ff.)  and  and  the  2 Peter have  pattern  use. a  (Acts 16:1  of  example  few  references t o  a p p r o p r i a t i n g Jewish  2 Peter c i t e s  bad  ff.).  good  (Balaam,  examples 2:15  Judaism,  but  background  for  (Noah and  f.)  from  Lot,  the  2:5  Hebrew  S c r i p t u r e s . He a l s o r e f e r s t o what appear t o be Hebrew prophecies .  .  t o make a C h r i s t i a n p o i n t (1:19 1 0  Hanson 178.  1 1  Kelly  1 2  Hanson 120.  f f . , 3:2).  13  Polycarp speaks  of  236.  H i l l y e r 181, 209, 211, Reicke 173; d i f f e r e n t l y Sidebottom 118, 120 f . , suggesting C h r i s t i a n p r o p h e c i e s may meant. 1 3  be  87 the prophets as f o r e t e l l i n g the coming of the Lord, and brackets 14  them with t h e a p o s t l e s (6:3).  He a l s o uses " G e n t i l e s "  a synonym f o r non-Christians (10:2, 1 Clement i s noteworthy Hebrew  Scriptures  ("sacred  (gens) as  11:2).  f o r i t s extensive c i t a t i o n s of the Scriptures,"  hiera  graphai,  53:1), p o s s i b l y i n a s l o p p i l y - c o m p i l e d a n t h o l o g y .  45:2,  F o r t y - n i n e of  15  the l e t t e r ' s 65 chapters a l l u d e t o books of the Hebrew S c r i p t u r e s or  deuterocanonical books  chapters  a r e dominated  included i n t h e LXX;  by  or  entirely  at least  16  taken  up  with  16 such  17  references.  These  are used  not only  behavior  (e.g. Abraham,  normative  f o r current Christian  which  the story  chapters  ch. 10, o r David, practice,  of the rod of Aaron  example f o r t h e need  f o r orderliness  40 f . , the p r a c t i c e  there  reappears  translated  i n cognate  as i n chapter  43, i n  (Num 17) i s c i t e d  as an  i n choosing m i n i s t e r s . In Temple  i n C h r i s t i a n worship,  "sacrifices" form  of edifying  ch. 18), but as  of the Jerusalem  g i v e n as an example f o r emulation word  as examples  (prosphorai,  (prosenegkontes  cult i s and the  40:2) s h o r t l y  ta dora)  to refer to  the blameless o f f e r i n g of s a c r i f i c e s by the e l d e r s who have now been improperly deposed by the C o r i n t h i a n C h r i s t i a n s 1 4  Paulsen 119.  1 5  Grant and Graham 10.  1 6  18  (44:4 f . ) .  Based on c i t a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d i n Lake's m a r g i n a l notes. .  17  As "dominated by" i s t o some degree a s u b j e c t i v e j u d g e m e n t a l s h a l l l i s t t h e chapters I have so i d e n t i f i e d : 4, 8-12, 18, 22, 26, 31, 43, 45, 51-53, 55. C f . a l s o Brown "Rome" 169, Richardson 37, Grant 96 f f . 1 8  Brown "Rome" 169 f f .  88 Clement  f e e l s f r e e t o use what i s t o be done "only i n Jerusalem"  (41:2)  Corinth.  Also  a p p r o p r i a t e d f o r C h r i s t i a n use are the prophecy of Is 60:17  LXX,  "I  as  will  a  model  make  (episkopous)  f o r what  thy  princes  righteous,"  [unspecified]  i s to  place,  done  peaceable,  restated  'I  be  will  as  in  and  thine  "scripture  establish  overseers  says  their  in  one  bishops  in 19  righteousness,  and  their  deacons  and the b l e s s i n g of Ps. 32:1 forgiven,  in faith,'"  f . (LXX 31:1  at  f.),  1 Clem  42:5;  a b l e s s i n g on the  a p p l i e d t o C h r i s t i a n s a t 1 Clem 50:7.  These  citations  are made i n a c l a s s i c a l l y Jewish manner, and the author shows not one  scrap of n e g a t i v i t y toward  .  20  anything Jewish;  indeed  Clement  21  i s o f t e n considered an exemplar of Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y . But i t i s not t o be thought that Clement Judaism,  makes Judaism,  as  normative f o r C h r i s t i a n i t y . His extensive quotations of  the Hebrew S c r i p t u r e s represent, not obedience, but the same s o r t of  proof t e x t i n g  Clement,  common  Bultmann  Testament  i n Christian  rightly  says,  pulpits  "quite  of  naively  our  own  day.  claims the  Old  as a C h r i s t i a n book," "a book of e t h i c a l models," whose 22  ritual  prescriptions  (except,  as  noted  are disregarded "as  above, when r i t u a l  a matter  material  can  of be  course" clumsily  appropriated f o r use i n C h r i s t i a n worship as a t 41:2). He s c r i p t u r e as b l i t h e l y  as he does,  quotes  f o r example, the myth of the  ^  Grant and Graham 71 f .  2 0  J . Sanders 219 f . , c f . Grant 97.  2 1  E.g. J . Sanders 219, Brown "Rome" 159 f f .  2 2  Bultmann 112.  89 Phoenix  (ch. 25 f . ) , t o which i n f a c t he subordinates  scriptural  23  citations  in his  suggestion  argument  in 1  Clement  f o r the  resurrection.  t h a t Judaism has  any  There  other  is  no  continuing  value than t o be used i n t h i s f a s h i o n . Acts  also paints  Christianity  as  in full  c o n t i n u i t y with  Judaism, though with c e r t a i n complications not found  i n the  rest  of  our l i t e r a t u r e . Both Peter and Paul preach C h r i s t on the b a s i s  of  Jewish  ff.)  expectations: f o r example, Peter c i t e s J o e l  and Psalm 16  Paul  makes  fulfilment Pisidian  (Acts 2:25  Jesus  a  savior  of promises t o  Antioch.  attributed  to  The  God's  f f . ) i n the Pentecost of  David's  Israel  preaching  of  redirection  of  intervention  Cornelius  (13:46,  Pisidian  and  speech, while  (13:23)  preaching (esp.  to  Jewish  Antioch;  18:6,  to  .  Peter's  rejection Corinth;  of  Paul's  28:26 f f . , .  );  even  then,  there  are  "thousands  b e l i e v e r s " among the Jews of Jerusalem Paul preaches  himself first  i s portrayed  a  .  25  Rome  and  Gentiles i s  10:1-11:18, .  )  2:16  (13:32 f f . ) i n h i s sermon i n  24  conversion  line  (Acts  as  an  of  •  [Christian]  (Acts 21:20). observant  Jew  t o the Jews of each community v i s i t e d  who  always  (9:20,  13:5  26 and  often) .  offending  He  i s w i l l i n g t o have Timothy circumcised t o avoid  potential  K. Aland  Jewish  hearers  (16:3),  an  action  97.  2 4  Haenchen 113,  362 f .  2 5  Conzelmann Acts 106,  2 6  Ludemann 117 and elswehere,  227, Haenchen 729. Marshall 230, Munck  126.  widely  90  regarded James'  as unthinkable f o r the r e a l Paul.  plan  to join  in a rite  presents  procedures  some d i f f i c u l t i e s  of  the  He goes along  of p u r i f i c a t i o n  N a z i r i t e s as proof of h i s own observance which  27  with  e r a , though  with  with  four  poor  (21:23-26), an account  respect  these  t o known  difficulties  Jewish  a r e not  28  insurmountable. lifelong  clear  He  claims  conscience  before  the high  before God  priest  (23:1),  t o have  a  an a f f i r m a t i o n of 29  continuity  between  h i s pre-Christian  and C h r i s t i a n  denies a l l offence against the Law or the Temple Continuity provided  by  compromise  between  the  Jewish  so-called  permitting  and  apostolic  Jewish-Gentile  the Law  decree table  .  imposing  Gentile  3  e a s i n g o f the requirements  he  (25:8). Christianity (15:20, .  The  is  29), a  fellowship  0  on G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n s .  life;  .  without .  elimination  or  o f the Law through C h r i s t i s based on  human i n a b i l i t y t o keep the Law (15:10 f . , 13:39).  31  SUMMARY: PAUL AND THE MAINLINE FAITH Despite s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n tone, as between f o r example Clement and Ignatius, a l l our authors, with the p a r t i a l exception 27  So Haenchen 480 f f . , Conzelmann A c t s 125; d i f f e r e n t l y M a r s h a l l A c t s 259 f . , Ludemann 176 f . 28  Conzelmann Acts 180, Haenchen 611 f .  29  Haenchen 637; d i f f e r e n t l y M a r s h a l l A c t s 362, a r g u i n g — i n my view most improbably — t h a t the c l a i m c o v e r s o n l y h i s Christian l i f e . Conzelmann A c t s 118 f . , M a r s h a l l A c t s 242 f f . , Munck 140 f . ; d i f f e r e n t l y Haenchen 469, arguing t h a t G e n t i l e c o n v e r t s were s u b j e c t e d p r e c i s e l y t o those p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Law which have always a p p l i e d t o G e n t i l e s l i v i n g among Jews, as r e c o r d e d i n Lev 17 and 18; s i m i l a r l y Segal 197 f f . 31 Schwartz 10 and 313 n. 35, Haenchen 113. 3 0  91 of A c t s , t r e a t Judaism as a back number. Everything of any value in  it —  scriptures,  ancestors,  even  the  unproblematically benefit,  while  heritage  at  progression trouble Acts,  or  a l l . From Judaism  come  from  cult  —  Christianity  Christianity  gratuitous  communities,  Temple  owned by  from  has  prophets, the Jewish observance  i s not  the has  is  and  been  troublemakers  t o be  point  smooth  intransigent  entirely  answerable  Christian  and  Jewish  of Paul's  used  for i t s  to  i t s Jewish  of  view,  natural,  with  the  and  authorities,  associated  and  any  as  in  Christian  as i n Ignatius.  E. Sanders sees i n Paul's w r i t i n g the "nucleus" of j u s t such an  appropriationist  treatment  of  Judaism,  which  has  of  course  32  dominated lend  C h r i s t i a n i t y down the c e n t u r i e s .  themselves  to  such  an  That Paul's w r i t i n g s  understanding may  be  v e r d i c t of h i s t o r y seems c l e a r ) ; but what Paul was seems  to  me  almost  approach  of our  letters,  NT  diametrically  literature.  Romans and  ( f o r once)  Paul devotes two  Galatians,  admitted  (the  a c t u a l l y doing  opposite t o  the  of h i s undisputed  t o debating the  relationship  33  between the o l d and  the new  covenants  —  that  i s t o say,  to  c o n s i d e r i n g , i n s t r i k i n g contrast t o our l i t e r a t u r e , p r e c i s e l y i n what way  C h r i s t i a n i t y might be answerable t o i t s Jewish h e r i t a g e ;  and while the r e s u l t s can hardly have been s a t i s f a c t o r y Christian  Jews, they are a f a r c r y from  d i s m i s s i v e n e s s of our l i t e r a t u r e . E. Sanders Law 209 f .  the benign  "The Jews" (NT Rom  to  or  hostile  9:24,  3 2  33  .  Cf. E. Sanders Paul 44, 117 f f . and passim; Paul 41 f f .  non-  Barrett  1 Cor  92 9:20) so  —  r e a l Jews whose r e l i g i o s i t y he understands  important  to  Paul s  thought  1  that  amounts t o a theodicy r a t h e r than i n j u s t i c e to Israel;  he  must  leave God  well  —  are  construct  what  under s u s p i c i o n  of  indeed, h i s e n t i r e work has been described,  i n Kasemann's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y c o l o r f u l phrase, .  detour t o the s a l v a t i o n of I s r a e l . "  34  as "a  The Jewish  colossal  s c h o l a r Boyarin  d e s c r i b e s Paul as "an important Jewish t h i n k e r . . .  [who]  lived  and  35  died  convinced that he was  description strength  applied  of  to  their  a Jew  any  of  living our  attributed  out Judaism";  authors,  extant  at  such  least  a  on  the  would  be  between  our  writings,  preposterous. A  particularly  literature  and  striking  the  undisputed  a t t i t u d e toward the Law Acts to  example  of  Pauline  divergency letters  found i n the P a s t o r a l s (1 Tm  meet  the  demands of  letters  (e.g.  the  Gal  Law 3:19  ff.),  the  Law  As  noted, Acts provides a p a r t i a l  t r e n d of our  literature.  implementation certainly Jewish 34 35 3 6  313  an  of  the  The  Law  unable central  i s , designedly, 3 6  exception t o the general  a p o s t o l i c decree, whether i t be or  a  compromise  instance of C h r i s t i a n i t y  h e r i t a g e . The  the  f f . ) and  f o r obedience; , i n the  unable t o meet the needs of humans f o r s a l v a t i o n .  10,  1:8  in  (15:10). In these c i t a t i o n s , humans are, r e g r e t t a b l y ,  Pauline  its  lies  same p o s i t i o n  being  with  the  Law,  an is  h e l d answerable  seems t o  be  i m p l i e d by  Kasemann 241. _  .  Boyarin 2. Haenchen 112 n. 35.  f . , Z i e s l e r 139, Wilson Luke 92,  to  Schwartz  93 Paul's p o r t r a y a l i n the l a t e r chapters as an observant is  willing  t o demonstrate p u b l i c l y  t h a t he  has  37  Jew  who  done nothing  to  38  undermine  the  Law  outrages t o Judaism  (21:21-26) i s based  and  whose  near-lynching  on e r r o r or falsehood. A c t s remains  g e n e r a l l y w i t h i n the approach described f o r the remainder literature,  with  Christianity  so  its  smooth  different  from  transition Paul's  39  matter 15:10.  i n Romans,  Nevertheless,  observance account  will  f o r the  of our  Judaism  agony  over  the  decree  and  explanation  and  survival  the  when of  the  issue the  Beker 57, B a r r e t t Paul  3 8  V i e l h a u e r 39 f .  3 9  E. Sanders Paul  117.  164.  the  of  at  Paul's  time  comes  to  mainline  faith,  of  which, according t o t h i s t h e s i s , Acts forms p a r t .  3 7  to  .  i t s P a s t o r a l - l i k e a t t i t u d e t o the Law  require origin  from  veritable .  and  over  94  CHAPTER 8: APOSTOLICITY In  our  literature,  unchallengeable  to  be  an  apostle  is  to  a u t h o r i t y . This remains t r u e whether the  hold apostle  i s Paul alone,  as i n the P a s t o r a l s ; the Twelve, as o f t e n i n the  early  of  chapters  Peter, Clement and  Acts;  Peter  and  Paul  as  special  cases  Ignatius; Paul as a s p e c i a l case i n A c t s  in 2 1  and  Polycarp; or a l l apostles without  s p e c i f i c a t i o n , as at times i n 2  Peter,  Polycarp.  Clement,  affirmed  Ignatius  implicitly,  undifferentiated  and  as  when  collectivity,  argument, as i n 2 Peter  (3:2,  they  and 15)  even the  (1 Tm  unanimity  treated  explicitly,  is  as  by  an  special  and perhaps i n t h e i r p o r t r a y a l  P a s t o r a l s , which use  and only t o r e f e r t o Paul  are  also  as a d e l i b e r a t i v e body i n Acts 15; and -  Their  i t i s never c o n t r a d i c t e d -  "apostle" only  1:1,  2:7;  2 Tm  i n the  1:1,  singular  11; T t 1:1),  2  3  have nothing t o say of r i v a l r y f o r a p o s t o l i c s t a t u s . APOSTLES AS COLLECTIVITY With the exception of the P a s t o r a l s , the  a p o s t l e s are most 4  often  portrayed  most .  striking 5  singular,  even  i n our in  literature  Acts,  where  where  the  as  a  "apostle"  plural  .  is  collectivity. never  awkward  appears from  a  This  is  in  the  I f i n d J e r v e l l and others p e r s u a s i v e t h a t P a u l does indeed count as an a p o s t l e i n A c t s ( J e r v e l l 378 f f . , c f . Liidemann 159) . See footnote 9, t h i s chapter. 1  2  Dibelius-Conzelmann 1, 8, 3  Cf. Wilson Luke 142  98.  f.  4  Cf. F a r k a s f a l v y , 124 and elsewhere. 5  Liidemann  159.  •  narrative  95 point  of  view:  answer the "except  e.g.  high  the  persecution.  5:29,  priest,  apostles"  7  "The  6  where and are  at  "Peter 8:1,  nearly  what are o f t e n c a l l e d "the twelve," appointment  of Matthias  the  apostles" a l l  where a l l the C h r i s t i a n s  driven  a p o s t l e s " are  and  out  of  Jerusalem  always  identified  t h e i r number made up by  t o replace the  traitor  Judas  by with the  Iscariot,  1:21-26. The only exception, the designation of Paul and Barnabas as a p o s t l e s a t 14:4, a  source  used  by  14 i s o f t e n dismissed as an importation from  Luke i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o h i s own  theology;  I  9  accept, however, t h a t the designation i s genuine. The  author  of 2 Peter claims t o be  the  apostle, singular,  "Simeon Peter," but a l s o t r e a t s the a p o s t l e s as a a  collectivity,  Haenchen 251.  I t i s o f t e n thought "except the a p o s t l e s " a t A c t s 8:1 r e a l l y means "except the Hebrews," i . e . Aramaic-speaking Jewish C h r i s t i a n s i n c o n t r a s t t o the Greek-speaking "Hellenists" a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the just-martyred Stephen: Hengel Between 13; c f . Liidemann 93; Conzelmann A c t s 61, Haenchen 297, M a r s h a l l A c t s 151; d i f f e r e n t l y Munck 71, suggesting t h a t the a p o s t l e s were u n w i l l i n g t o f l e e because of Jesus' command t o wait i n Jerusalem f o r "the promise of the F a t h e r , " 1:4. See d i s c u s s i o n , Chapter 12. Hengel (Between 4) c o r r e c t l y notes t h a t o n l y a t 6:2 they a c t u a l l y c a l l e d "the twelve" i n A c t s .  are  So M a r s h a l l , A c t s 233, Ludemann 159, both s u g g e s t i n g t h a t Luke may have used both a narrower and a broader concept of a p o s t l e s h i p . Liidemann adds t h a t Luke's custom of u s i n g " a p o s t l e s " o n l y i n the p l u r a l may p r e c l u d e use of the t i t l e when P a u l i s a c t i n g without Barnabas, as i s the case i n the bulk of P a u l ' s e x p l o i t s . S i m i l a r l y J e r v e l l 378 f f . , who says A c t s makes of Paul an " i i b e r a p o s t e l " by showing him as f u l f i l l i n g a l l requirements of a p o s t l e s h i p — s e e i n g the r i s e n Lord, b e i n g c a l l e d , h e a r i n g the word of God — p l u s h o l d i n g o t h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s not shared by the twelve, such as a unique p e r s o n a l r e v e l a t i o n and key p a r a l l e l s between h i m s e l f and J e s u s ' c a r e e r . D i f f e r e n t l y Conzelmann A c t s 108, Haenchen 114 f . and n. 5, denying t h a t Paul i s an a p o s t l e i n Luke's eyes.  96  e x p l i c i t l y a t 3:2 and i m p l i c i t l y a t 1:16-19 ("we"); he apparently regards  Paul  (3:15,  "our beloved  brother")  as a c o l l e a g u e .  1 0  1  Clement uses " a p o s t l e " three times i n the p l u r a l t o r e f e r t o the u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d group (42:1 f . , 4 4 : 1 ) to  Peter  and Paul  referring  (5:3, 47:4),  t o Paul  (47:1).  12  11  p l u s twice more t o r e f e r  and only once  Ignatius'  sole  i n the s i n g u l a r ,  singular  usage i s  g e n e r i c , denying he i s an apostle a t IgTr 3:3; he uses the p l u r a l 13  13 times,  o f which  a l l are general  (e.g. IgEph  11:2  )  except  IgRom 4:3, a reference t o Peter and Paul. Polycarp uses the word twice only, both i n the p l u r a l : a p o s t l e s i n general a t 6:3, Paul and "the other a p o s t l e s " a t 9:1. CONTACT WITH JESUS S e v e r a l of our authors s t r e s s d i r e c t contact with Jesus as a criterion is  for apostolicity,  above a l l Acts  r e q u i r e d t h a t the replacement  1:21-26, i n which i t  a p o s t l e have been present  from  14  the beginning o f Jesus' m i n i s t r y , which  presence  authority.  1 5  but a l s o i n 2 P t 1:16 f f . , i n  a t the t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n  The  parallel  with  Paul's  confirms criterion  the a p o s t l e s ' f o r h i s own  a p o s t o l i c c l a i m (e.g. 1 Cor 9:1, "Am I not an a p o s t l e ? Have I not seen  Jesus  our Lord?")  i s suggestive,  and indeed  H i l l y e r 210. Beker 40. Grant and Graham 78. Schoedel 72. Haenchen 161, Munck 10, Conzelmann Acts 12. Sidebottom 110.  Munck  argues  97 that  the author  of Acts has combined Paul's  concept of the t w e l v e .  criterion  with the  16  Some s o r t of d i r e c t contact a l s o seems t o be i n d i c a t e d a t 1 Clem  42:1  f f . , a t which  the apostles r e c e i v e the gospel  from  17  C h r i s t with the assurance  of the r e s u r r e c t i o n ,  and may be more  d i s t a n t l y implied by the p u t a t i v e Paul's account of h i s c a l l a t 1 Tm 1:12-16, 2:7 and the s u b j e c t i o n of the a p o s t l e s t o C h r i s t (but also  to  the  references  Father)  seem  at  tenuous.  IgMag No  13:2,  reference  C h r i s t and the a p o s t l e s appears  but  these  t o such  latter  two  c o n t a c t between  i n Polycarp, though o f course the  a p o s t l e s must have gotten the gospel (6:3) somewhere. TEACHING AUTHORITY Throughout authority himself  our  and with  literature,  i s equated  with  teaching. In the P a s t o r a l s the author  calls  "an a p o s t l e . . . a teacher  apostolicity  of G e n t i l e s "  (1 Tm  2:7) and  demands t h a t Timothy "hold t o the standard of sound t e a c h i n g t h a t you have heard at  from me"  (2 Tm 1:13, a f t e r c l a i m i n g a p o s t o l i c i t y  v. 11) , among many other  instructions  he o b v i o u s l y  expects  w i l l be obeyed. In A c t s , Spirit  the a p o s t l e s ' a u t h o r i t y from  i s immediately  made c l e a r  a t 1:2,  l i k e w i s e t r e a t e d as a u t h o r i t a t i v e a t 2:42,  18  19  Jesus their  and the Holy teaching i s  and they  Munck 11 f . , c f . Liidemann 36, M a r s h a l l Acts 66. Grant and Graham 71. Haenchen 139. Conzelmann Acts 23, Marshall Acts 83.  are shown  98  exercising  s u p e r v i s i o n of  o u t l y i n g churches  and  initiatives  in  v a r i o u s ways: i n s p e c t i n g P h i l i p ' s conversion of the Samaritans i n person (Peter and John, 8:14  f f . ) and the Antioch congregation  the delegate Barnabas (11:22) and  by  i s s u i n g the a p o s t o l i c decree i n 20  c o n j u n c t i o n with the " e l d e r s " (15:22 f . ) . For 2 Peter, i t i s the apostles who the  Lord  and  Savior"  (3:2).  For  gave "the commandment of  Clement,  the  apostles  are  the  i n t e r m e d i a r i e s of the gospel from C h r i s t (42:1 f f . ) and a l s o e x e r c i s e d a u t h o r i t y of appointment of church o f f i c i a l s (44:1 f . ) ; they  have  " p e r f e c t foreknowledge"  (prognosis)  of  future  church  21  strife  (44:2).  Ignatius  calls  on  his  readers  to  obey  "the  22  ordinances  of the a p o s t l e s " (IgTr 7:1,  church a u t h o r i t i e s are to be IgSm  8:1);  and  the  apostles  c f . IgMag 13:1);  obeyed as  the  possessed  an  apostles  current  (IgTr  authority  2:2,  Ignatius  himself does not have or at l e a s t w i l l not presume t o c l a i m  (IgTr  23  3:3, and  IgRom 4:3). Christ  having  at  The IgTr  apostles even share  12:2.  Polycarp  speaks  honor with the of  "commanded us," along with C h r i s t himself  the  Father  apostles  as  (6:3).  Apostles are t r e a t e d as equivalent to the Hebrew prophets at 2 Pt 3:2,  94  IgPhd 9:1  and Poly 6:3,  Munck 74, c f . Hengel Acts 2 1  Grant and Graham 71, 73 f .  2 2  Corwin  2 3  Grant  2 4  D i f f e r e n t l y Sidebottom 118,  2 5  Paulsen  95  while 1 Clem 43 i n c l u d e s the  100.  195. 166.  119.  C h r i s t i a n prophets.  99  prophets who  succeeded Moses (v. 1) i n the s t o r y of Aaron's  rod,  proposed as a p a r a l l e l t o references t o the a p o s t l e s i n chapters 42 and 44. No such p a r a l l e l i s drawn i n the P a s t o r a l s , whose s o l e reference  to a  "prophet"  (Tt 1:12)  i s t o a pagan poet,  either  26  Epimenides either  or  Callimachus,  Hebrew  (e.g. 2:16)  nor  i n Acts, which  or C h r i s t i a n  never  compares  (e.g 11:27) prophets  to  the a p o s t l e s . HANDING ON AUTHORITY Arrangements authority  are  for  some  discussed  sort  by  of  a l l our  continuity authors  of  apostolic  except  Polycarp,  though i t i s o u t s i d e the scope of t h i s paper t o decide whether or to  what  degree  succession." hand  on  any  The  the  of  these  author faith  arrangments  of the to  Pastorals  his  i n t u r n pass i t on  church  i s the  3:15).  which In  addition,  "pillar the  and  "apostolic  (gnesios, (1 Tm  (2 Tm 2:2,  1:2,  of  to  the  Timothy  to  literally T t 1:4),  c f . T t 1:5)  bulwark  references  to  i s much concerned  "loyal"  " l e g i t i m a t e " ) " c h i l d r e n " Timothy and T i t u s t h a t they may  amount  so  within a  truth" and  (1  Tm  Titus'  27  l e g i t i m a c y may mark them out as a u t h o r i t a t i v e successors. 2 Pt 1:15  speaks  of arrangements t o keep Peter's teachings  before the readers a f t e r he i s dead; t h i s could mean the Hanson 176 f .  Gospel  2 6  27  .  H u l t g r e n I - I I Tm 53; d i f f e r e n t l y Dibelius-Conzelmann 13, s u g g e s t i n g i t may j u s t be a p o l i t e way of speaking, d i f f e r e n t l y a l s o Fee 36, n o t i n g t h a t Paul uses the same a d j e c t i v e f o r an unnamed or a t l e a s t not p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d fellow-worker a t NT P h i l 4:3. D i b e l i u s and Conzelmann (8) say the P a s t o r a l s have no developed g e n e r a l concept of a p o s t o l i c a u t h o r i t y , s t i l l l e s s of s u c c e s s i o n : a p o s t o l i c i t y c o n s i s t s e n t i r e l y i n having the t r u e f a i t h .  100  of  Mark,  unlikely  traditionally  associated  with  Peter,  f o r c h r o n o l o g i c a l reasons i f 2 Peter  pseudonymous  work.  29  Some s o r t  28  but t h i s i s  i s indeed  a late  of a u t h o r i t a t i v e mechanism, f o r  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s c r i p t u r e a t l e a s t ,  i s suggested by 1:20 ("no  prophecy  matter  of  scripture  is  a  of  one's  own  30  interpretation"). 1 Clem 44:2 c l e a r l y provides f o r c o n t i n u i t y o f some s o r t i n the  m i n i s t r y o f those  whether  " i f they  appointed  should  fall  by the a p o s t l e s ,  asleep"  r e g a r d l e s s of  has as i t s antecedent the 31  a p o s t l e s themselves or those p r e v i o u s l y appointed continuity  allows  Clement  t o clothe  h i s own  by them. words  This  with the  32  authority  o f God (59:1) and the Holy  c r e d i t s t h e presbytery  with  Spirit  (63:2).  Ignatius  the a u t h o r i t y of t h e a p o s t l e s  2:2) and t h e bishop with t h a t of God himself  (IgTr  (IgMag 6:1, 13:2)  Acts, too, r e f l e c t s p r o v i s i o n f o r t r a n s f e r of a u t h o r i t y ; the authority context  i s t h a t of Paul,  of Acts.  accepted  (See d i s c u s s i o n  here as an a p o s t l e  earlier  i n chapter.)  i n the In h i s  f a r e w e l l speech a t M i l e t u s , Paul charges the e l d e r s o f t h e church in  Ephesus t o guard the teaching he has imparted from the So H i l l y e r 172 f f . , accepting P e t r i n e authorship. 2 9  Sidebottom 109.  So Sidebottom 181, t r a n s l a t i n g with i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " This prophet's" t o go with implausible. 3 0  111, Reicke 158 f . ; d i f f e r e n t l y H i l l y e r t h e NIV "the prophet's own r e q u i r e s s u p p l y i n g an u n s t a t e d " t h e idios, "own," but t h i s i s n o t a l t o g e t h e r  3 1  Brown "Rome" 174 f f , Grant 161.  3 2  Brown "Rome" 175, c f . Grant 42.  101 "wolves" who w i l l threaten t h e i r " f l o c k " with d i s t o r t i o n s of the 33  truth  (20:28-32).  of t h i s  kind,  Polycarp  says nothing  but he too c i t e s  about any arrangements  a p o s t o l i c a u t h o r i t y handed down  from bygone days (6:3). SUMMARY: PAUL AND THE MAINLINE FAITH There  i s a pattern  authoritative,  of agreement  c o l l e c t i v e nature  i n our l i t e r a t u r e  of a p o s t o l i c i t y ,  on the  d e r i v e d from a  s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Jesus and passed on (as t e a c h i n g necessarily are  many  as personal  authority)  v a r i a t i o n s from  author  t o successors, t o author,  i f not  though  most  there  notably  the  Pastor's e x c l u s i v e concentration on Paul. Many  of the notes  of  apostolicity  t o be  found  l i t e r a t u r e a r e a l s o t o be found i n Paul's undisputed in a less simplistic  form. Paul, too, values  i n our  l e t t e r s , but  the a p o s t l e s as an  a u t h o r i t a t i v e c o l l e c t i v i t y , and emphasizes unanimity o f a p o s t o l i c teaching,  i n c l u d i n g h i s own, so f a r as p o s s i b l e  2:2 f f . , 1 Cor 15:7, l l ) .  3 4  But he i s w i l l i n g  (Gal 1:17 f f . ,  to differentiate  h i m s e l f from other apostles (Gal 1:11 f . , 17; 1 Cor 15:8 f f . ) and even  t o disagree  simply  with  them  (Gal 2:11 f f . ) .  to cite h i s apostolicity,  Cor 9:1 f . ) . The  He  i s also  unable  but must argue f o r i t (e.g. 1  3 5  undisputed  letters,  however,  show no  interest  handing on of a u t h o r i t y v i a approved human channels; 3 3  Conzelmann Acts 175.  3 4  Z i e s l e r 3, Bornkamm 21, 36 f .  3 5  Beker 38, B a r r e t t Paul 126, Z i e s l e r 3.  i n the  r a t h e r , Paul  102 i n s i s t s t h a t h i s own a p o s t l e s h i p and gospel are from God r a t h e r 36  than from any human a u t h o r i t y regards  our l i t e r a t u r e ' s  (Gal 1:1, 11 f . ) .  treatment  Thus, Kasemann  of Paul as a p a r t i c i p a n t i n  " a p o s t o l i c s u c c e s s i o n " as a t o t a l l y non-Pauline f i c t i o n invented t o j u s t i f y changes — later  church  appropriate enough i n themselves —  leaders  when  Paul's  own  purely  made by  l a y , purely 37  charismatic suggests  church  that  government  the  exaggerated  stress  where  presents  Paul  Pastor  proved  impractical.  accomplished  on those passages himself  as  this  by  Beker means  i n the undisputed  "an  uncompromising,  of  letters orthodox  38  figure,"  •  of which G a l 1:8 f . , the c u r s i n g o f those who p r o c l a i m  a gospel c o n t r a r y t o h i s own, i s perhaps the most s p e c t a c u l a r . To be  sure,  i t i s also  mindedness;  p o s s i b l e t o exaggerate  i t seems  likely,  f o r example,  Paul's  independent-  that  i t i s his  understanding o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between C h r i s t i a n s and the Law, r a t h e r than the e n t i r e C h r i s t i a n message, which he claims not t o .  39  have r e c e i v e d from human a u t h o r i t y .  Nonetheless,  .  .  i t i s obvious  t h a t , a t a minimum, the concern i n our l i t e r a t u r e f o r the handing on  of authority  i s not p a r a l l e l e d  i n anything  degree i n Paul's undisputed l e t t e r s .  36  Bornkamm 166 f f . 3 7  Kasemann 245 f f . , esp. 247.  3 8  Beker 85 f .  3 9  Z i e s l e r 19, c f . Fitzmyer " G a l a t i a n s " 783.  like  the same  103  CHAPTER 9: THE Paul,  PORTRAIT OF PAUL  or  Pastorals  an  and  literature.  image of  in  Paul,  Acts,  a  plays  lesser  one  author  appointed to  the  Gentiles  mentioned.  (2 Tm man  of  (1 Tm  The  God  in  the  role  in  rest  the  of  our  i n the case of 2 P e t e r .  Pastorals (1 Tm  2:7,  author  with  1:3), of  the  a p o s t l e by God  "serve")  dominant  Paul i s always shown i n a p o s i t i v e l i g h t , though t h a t  t r i b u t e i s sometimes thought grudging The  a  1:1,  2 Tm  has  presents 2 Tm  but before h i s c a l l was (1  Tm  s u f f e r i n g and persecution  1:13). (2 Tm  He  3:11)  T t 1:3), i s the  worshipped  a c l e a r conscience,  violence  1:1,  4:17). He  always  himself  as  of  Acts'  28  chapters  Paul,  especially  only  apostle  (latreuo,  l i k e h i s Jewish  BAGD  ancestors  a blasphemer, persecutor has  since  undergone  and much  as w e l l as d e s e r t i o n by h i s  f r i e n d s (2 Tm 4:16), and expects t o be martyred soon (2 Tm Sixteen  1  are  devoted  4:6).  entirely  predominantly t o Paul's career. I n i t i a l l y r e f e r r e d t o as Saul, is  a  young  23:6) f.)  and until  Damascus Christian, Jesus'  Pharisee  present  at  the  stoning  of  Stephen  Jesus  leaves  Through  he  name  him  is to  blinded  healed the  and  Gentiles  (9:3-9). receives and  to  a  on  the a  commission Israel  so at once. A f t e r years  of extensive  activities  t r a v e l s he  in  and  E.g. Koester  297.  is  arrested  Jerusalem  (9:1  road  to  Damascene to  preach  (9:10-19),  commences doing  he  (7:58,  becomes a leader i n the persecution of C h r i s t i a n s a p r e t e r n a t u r a l encounter with  or  and  missionary on  false  104 charges  (21:27  ff.)/  a  n  d  f o l l o w i n g defences  before  Jewish and  Roman a u t h o r i t i e s he appeals t o the emperor and i s sent t o Rome by s h i p f o r t r i a l  (25:12, 27:1 f f . ) . He i s l a s t seen under house  a r r e s t i n Rome, preaching the gospel f r e e l y f o r two years  (28:30  f.). The the  Paul of Acts i s an observant  Jews  i n each  Chapter  7) .  closely  resembles  speeches, f.,  community  he v i s i t s  He i s an impressive Peter  f i r s t to  (see d i s c u s s i o n above,  orator  (21:40  i n the content  and o f t e n ) .  and  number  He  of h i s  and i n other e x p l o i t s such as m i r a c l e s of h e a l i n g (14:8  3:2 f . ) , r a i s i n g s from the dead  (16:16,  Jew who preaches  5:16),  miraculous  escapes  ff.),  c o n f l i c t s with magicians  from  God  "apostle"  (22:17 only  (20:10, 9:40 f . ) , exorcisms  from  prison  (16:23  f . , 12:2  (19:13 f f . , 8:14 f f . ) and v i s i o n s  f f . , 10:10 f f . ) .  Nevertheless  2  i n two verses of chapter  he  i s called  14 (but see d i s c u s s i o n  above, my Chapter 8) . In  2 Peter, Paul i s "our beloved brother"  the same thing' as the author, the p a r o u s i a "without that  h i s "hard  imply a d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n Pauline  letters  i . e . t h a t i t i s important t o await  spot or blemish"  t o understand"  (3:15) who wrote  (v. 14) , d e s p i t e the f a c t  w r i t i n g s were being  distorted to  (v. 16) . The author knows of s e v e r a l  ("all his letters,"  v.  16). Paul  i s not  e x p l i c i t l y c a l l e d an a p o s t l e , but as a "brother" o f one who does make t h e c l a i m (1:1), whose advice i s represented as t h e same as that  o f "your 2  a p o s t l e s " (v. 2) and whose w r i t i n g s a r e equated .  .  .  .  Beker 51; i n each p a i r of c i t a t i o n s Paul's e x p l o i t i s c i t e d f i r s t , then P e t e r ' s .  105 with  "the other s c r i p t u r e s "  (v. 16) , i t seems l i k e l y  t h a t he i s  3 included. Clement brackets Paul with Peter as a p o s t l e s and (5:2  ff.),  Paul's  the  image  describe  latter  i n view  "pillars"  expression a notorious homogenization of  Paul's  own  leaders with whom he was  ironic  on  use  of  the  word  somewhat p r i c k l y  of to  terms a t  A  Gal.  2:9.  Clement's  jealousy  and  strife  endurance;  seven  stoned,  was  gained  he  account Paul  times  he  of  showed was  a h e r a l d both  the noble  his  career  the  way  i n bonds, he i n the  fame of h i s f a i t h ,  East he  follows: to was  and  taught  the  "Through prize  exiled,  of  he  was  West,  he  righteousness  to  i n the  a l l the world, and when he had reached the l i m i t s of the West he gave h i s testimony world and was  before the r u l e r s ,  and  thus  passed  from  the  taken up i n t o the Holy P l a c e , — t h e g r e a t e s t example  of endurance."  (5:5-7). Clement, w r i t i n g t o rebuke s t r i f e  C o r i n t h i a n church of h i s own p a r t i s a n s h i p from  day,  i n the  a l s o c i t e s Paul's c r i t i c i s m of  1 Cor 1 (47:1-4),  again c a l l i n g him  an a p o s t l e  (v. 1) and i m p l i c i t l y bracketing him with Peter (v. 4) . Clement's citation  of  demonstrates  this  and  that  he  other knows  passages  or  is  from  confident  1  Corinthians  the  Corinthian  C h r i s t i a n s have a copy of t h a t l e t t e r and w i l l not be t h a t he, Paul's  too, has  surprised  a copy; i t a l s o demonstrates t h a t he  admonitions  as  having  continuing  .  validity .  a p o s t o l i c a u t h o r i t y ) three decades a f t e r h i s death. 3  So Sidebottom  125.  4  Brown "Rome" 123.  5  Lindemann " A p o s t o l i c " 30 f f .  (as 5  regards well  as  Clement a l s o  106  quotes  NT Romans and p o s s i b l y 2 C o r i n t h i a n s ,  Philippians, Ephesians,  and  among  Colossians,  disputed 1  Pauline  Timothy  Galatians  letters  and T i t u s  as  6  and NT  possibly well  NT  as the  7  account o f Paul's career i n Acts. Ignatius 4:3)  and as  describes a  model  Paul  (with  Peter)  as an a p o s t l e  f o r C h r i s t i a n martyrs  (soon  to  (IgRom include  I g n a t i u s h i m s e l f ) , " f e l l o w - i n i t i a t e s of Paul, who was s a n c t i f i e d , who was r i g h t blessed, shall  i n whose footsteps may I be found when I  a t t a i n t o God, who i n every  E p i s t l e makes mention of you  [the church a t Ephesus] i n C h r i s t Jesus"  (IgEph 12:2). H i s own  a l l u s i o n t o himself as the l e a s t of the church i n S y r i a , unworthy and to  "born out o f time"  (IgRom 9:2) i s a l s o an apparent  ( i f not i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with) Paul's  allusion  comment regarding h i s own p  s t a t u s as an a p o s t l e a t NT 1 Cor 15:8 f f . 12:2,  " i n every 9  letters.  He  epistle,"  quotes  I t i s c l e a r from IgEph  t h a t he i s aware of m u l t i p l e Pauline . . . .  extensively  from  1 Corinthians  must have known t h i s e p i s t l e almost by heart," says W.R. and  with  some  Philippians, Philemon,  probability  and p o s s i b l y  as w e l l  as NT  2  from  NT  Corinthians,  Ephesians,  p o s s i b l y Colossians and 2 Thessalonians NTAF 37 f f . , 137 f . Grant 39. 6  7  Q  Grant 59. 9  Grant 57.  1 0  NTAF 67.  1 1  NTAF 63 f f . , 137 f .  Romans, 1  ("Ignatius Inge ), 10  Galatians,  Thessalonians  a l l three  NT and  P a s t o r a l s , and  among disputed  letters.  1 1  107  I g n a t i u s ' two mentions of Paul by name, i n h i s l e t t e r s t o Ephesus and  Rome  (IgEph 12:2, IgRom 4:3), suggest t h a t  he i s aware of 12  t r a d i t i o n s concerning Paul's doings i n those Polycarp  credits  "the blessed  cities.  and g l o r i o u s  Paul"  with  t e a c h i n g " a c c u r a t e l y and s t e a d f a s t l y the word of t r u t h " i n person and  with w r i t i n g l e t t e r s t o enable readers  up  to "build  yourselves  i n t o t h e f a i t h given you" (3:2). H i s wisdom i s f a r above t h a t 13  of Polycarp Paul  himself  out among  and h i s colleagues  "the other  apostles"  c u r r e n t martyrs f o r t h e i r endurance Cor  6:2  as teaching  that  (3:2). when  Polycarp praising  (9:1). Paul  "the s a i n t s  shall  them and  i s cited judge  singles  from 1  t h e world"  (11:2) and Polycarp notes t h a t Paul worked among t h e P h i l i p p i a n s , t o whom Polycarp i s w r i t i n g (11:3). In a d d i t i o n t o 1 C o r i n t h i a n s , Polycarp and 1  probably  cites  NT Romans, 2 C o r i n t h i a n s  p o s s i b l y NT P h i l i p p i a n s , plus NT Ephesians,  and 2 Timothy and p o s s i b l y Colossians  and G a l a t i a n s  2 Thessalonians,  among disputed  Pauline  14  letters.  However many Pauline  letters  statement t h a t Paul wrote " l e t t e r s century P h i l i p p i a n C h r i s t i a n s ] "  he may know,  Polycarp's  [ p l u r a l ] t o you [ i . e . second-  (3:2) i n d i c a t e s t h a t he considers  Paul's w r i t i n g s t o be of continuing v a l i d i t y e n t i r e l y apart t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l addressees and s i t u a t i o n s . Schoedel 73, 176 f . 1 3  1 5  Paulsen 116.  NTAF 84 f f . , 137 f . ; Grant (67) t h i n k s P o l y c a r p knew a l l t h e P a u l i n e e p i s t l e s except Philemon, and p o s s i b l y a l s o knew A c t s . 1 4  15  Lindemann " A p o s t o l i c " 41 f .  from  108  SUMMARY: PAUL AND  THE MAINLINE FAITH  Throughout our l i t e r a t u r e , Paul's a u t h o r i t y i s above s e r i o u s question.  There  are  echoes  of  P a s t o r a l s b l u r t s out that he of h i s a l l i e s ' d e s e r t i o n his  conversion  and  the  controversy:  i s not  (2 Tm  lying  validity  l e t t e r s are "twisted" by  3:16,  and  he  is  the  victim  (1 Tm  of  his  among  Christian fashion,  while  in  of  and  the tells  f f . , 15:2  "the  ignorant  of  "jealousy  and  methods  are  f f . , 21:20 f f . ) . unstable"  at 2 Pt  strife"  (likely  and 17  Christians)  disputes  18  2:7),  missionary  16  enough  Paul  4:16). In Acts, the genuineness of  questioned by c e r t a i n C h r i s t i a n s (9:26 His  the  at  Acts  repudiating  1  are  Clem  5:7.  settled  Paul's  But  in  the  "difficult"  the  intra-  most  irenic  and  evidently 19  inconvenient the  "not  lying"  assertion Clement  letters  of is  Corinthians  protest  Paul's  using to  i s obviously  heel.  an  i s f a r outweighed  authority  Paul's  not  throughout  name without  Paul,  too,  option by the  for  the  the  calm  to  general and  call  authority  a p o s t l e , but h i s e x e r c i s e of the claim i s by no means  1 6  Peter;  Pastorals,  hesitation  claims  2  the  of  an  untroubled,  Brown "Rome" 124 f f .  17 References t o Paul's martyrdom by I g n a t i u s (IgEph and P o l y c a r p (9:1) do not count as "controversy" i n t h i s context s i n c e they presumably i n v o l v e n o n - C h r i s t i a n persecutors.  12:2)  18  The subsequent t r o u b l e i n Chapter 21 i s blamed on the presumably n o n - C h r i s t i a n "Jews from A s i a " (v. 27) and not on the " b e l i e v e r s among the Jews" of v. 20. Koester (297) i s convinced the author of 2 P e t e r would have p r e f e r r e d Paul had w r i t t e n no such l e t t e r s , but s t i l l he had no c h o i c e but t o t r e a t them as a u t h o r i t a t i v e .  109 as he l:l).  i s w e l l aware (e.g. 2 Cor  10-13, e s p e c i a l l y  12:11  f . ; Gal  2 0  Paul i s presented as a t one with the other a p o s t l e s i n a l l our  literature  except  the  21  apostles.  P a s t o r a l s , which  mention  no  other  .  He  i s bracketed with Peter  by Clement (1 Clem 5:2  i n a stereotyped f a s h i o n  f f . ) and Ignatius (IgRom 4:3), by e x p l i c i t  argument i n 2 Peter (3:15 f . ) , and by a tour de force  of l i t e r a r y  22  parallels lists  Paul  i n Acts, with  "the  while other  Polycarp does not apostles"  mention Peter  (9:1). As  Paul accepts the c o l l e c t i v e nature of a p o s t o l i c i t y  already  noted,  t o some degree  (1 Cor 15:11), but he i s , n a t u r a l l y enough, w e l l aware of h i s individuality  but  own  (see examples above, Chapter 8, a l s o 1 Cor 9:5 f . ) .  B a r r e t t Paul 34 f f . , Z i e s l e r 2 1  Beker 37, Wilson Luke 142 f .  2 2  Beker 51.  3.  110  CHAPTER 10: THE MAINLINE FAITH — The  criteria  RESULTS OF THE INVENTORY  f o r mainline teachings s p e c i f i e d  i n Chapter  1,  f o r use i n the inventory of our l i t e r a t u r e , were t h a t they should be 1) general or r e c u r r e n t i n our l i t e r a t u r e ,  and  2) i n d i s c e r n i b l e c o n t r a s t or t e n s i o n with Paul's teachings. A h i g h percentage  of the items noted  i n the preceding  seven  chapters are excluded from f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n by one or the other of these c r i t e r i a . The d i v i n i t y or otherwise of Jesus would thus be  excluded  literature, statement.  under at There  criterion  least  on  1:  the  there level  i s no of  i s agreement about the  agreement  unequivocal  in  our  explicit  resurrection,  but  that  would be excluded under c r i t e r i o n 2: Paul b e l i e v e s i n i t too. But  there are s t i l l  though  not  in  mostly  grouped near  a number of p o i n t s where our  unanimous one  nearer the other end.  diametrical opposition end  i s much  i t s cognates w i l l serve as an example (see above, chapters 4  and 1  or  mere moral uprightness; our l i t e r a t u r e uses i t both ways, and  so  does  word can mean "a g i f t  of dikaiosune,  Paul  are  and  The  use  Paul,  righteousness,  6).  The  of a continuum while  to  authors,  Paul.  But  f o r Paul  the  of r i g h t - s t a n d i n g with God,"  former  meaning  is  overwhelmingly  dominant, the l a t t e r r a r e and u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ; i n our the  latter,  m o r a l i z i n g meaning  i s common and  Fee 24, c f . E. Sanders P a l e s t i n i a n 544, "saved."  found  literature i n a l l our  (essentially)  Ill  authors, while the former or c l a s s i c a l l y P a u l i n e meaning (or even a s u p e r f i c i a l approach t o i t ) i s r a r e . The  following  teachings  from  our  literature  seem  to  be  grouped a t the opposite end from Paul i n much the same way: Creedal  matters  crucifixion, death,  but  and  (Chapter  3) : Our  they p l a c e n o t i c e a b l y  especially  on  the  cross,  authors  a l l mention  less  stress  than  Paul  on  the  Christ's  does  in  his  undisputed l e t t e r s , where C h r i s t ' s death and the c r o s s are given a c e n t r a l and w e l l - d e f i n e d r o l e . All  our  authors  Clement,  who  makes the same p o i n t with a verb instead of a noun. For a l l ,  the  expressions are used and  call  (NT  Phil  3:20)  Jesus as saving (NT Rom Salvation of s i n s  "savior"  except  i n the present tense and o f t e n i n a  c o n v e n t i o n a l manner.  "savior"  Jesus  Paul's and  5:9)  single  h i s sole  reference to additional  static  Jesus  as  reference to  are i n the f u t u r e tense.  (Chapter 4): Atonement, repentance and f o r g i v e n e s s  ( i n the p l u r a l and conceived of as t r a n s g r e s s i o n s ) , are  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c concepts i n our l i t e r a t u r e . Atonement language various  kinds  i s found  except Polycarp, and  i n a l l our  authors,  repentance  forgiveness i n a l l except  of  in a l l  I g n a t i u s and  the  P a s t o r a l s . A l l h a b i t u a l l y r e f e r t o s i n as t r a n s g r e s s i o n , and only Polycarp,  once,  uses  the  term  i n an  sin, in  the  apparent  reified  power.  For  Paul  singular,  reified  entity,  and  in his characteristic  reference to  a  i s usually  a  soteriology  i t i s not  so much f o r g i v e n or atoned f o r as broken i n i t s power by C h r i s t ' s action  on  the  cross,  Atonement language  in  which  i s found mainly  the  believer  participates.  i n pre-Pauline passages,  and  112 references  to  repentance  and  especially  to  f o r g i v e n e s s are  minimal. 2  A l l our authors c i t e human e f f o r t as a f a c t o r i n s a l v a t i o n ; such e f f o r t p l a y s only a minor p a r t i n Paul's undisputed The  letters.  r o l e o f d o c t r i n e (Chapter 5): Expressions r e f e r r i n g t o  sound d o c t r i n e , and e s p e c i a l l y the use of "the f a i t h " t o r e f e r t o doctrinal rarer  content, are found  in  something Our conduct.  Paul's  i n a l l our authors; they  undisputed  letters.  ordinarily  means  very d i f f e r e n t by " f a i t h . " literature  often  The d i f f e r e n c e  uses  from  doctrinal  Paul's  only q u a n t i t a t i v e but q u a l i t a t i v e : the c a l l  Paul  a r e much  t o moral,  terms  to  refer  to  undisputed  letters  i s not  our l i t e r a t u r e  tends  t o make  indeed holy, l i v i n g a c e n t r a l element i n the  gospel, while f o r Paul, C h r i s t i a n morals are a consequence of the gospel, made p o s s i b l e by the cross. Christian use  life  o f dikaiosune  (Chapter 6 ) : Our l i t e r a t u r e ' s t o mean moral  characteristic  uprightness i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t  from Paul's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c use of the word t o mean r i g h t - s t a n d i n g with God, although both Paul and our authors o c c a s i o n a l l y  adopt  the opposite usage. Godliness, r e f e r r e d t o p o s i t i v e l y by f o u r of our  authors,  paradoxical entirely  appears  sense  different  i n the undisputed  letters  ("Christ d i e d f o r the ungodly," from  i t s use i n our l i t e r a t u r e .  mentioned by a l l our authors  (implicitly  only  in a  NT Rom  5:6)  Conscience,  i n 2 P e t e r ) ; good works  or deeds, r e f e r r e d t o p o s i t i v e l y by the P a s t o r a l s , A c t s , Clement Defined, as i n Chapter 4 , as "a good u l t i m a t e outcome."  113 and  I g n a t i u s ; and the r u l e s of bourgeois  morality,  our  authors,  i n our l i t e r a t u r e  a l l p l a y a much l a r g e r r o l e  i n Paul's undisputed Judaism  found i n a l l than  works.  (Chapter  7 ) : In our l i t e r a t u r e ,  Judaism  has been  u n p r o b l e m a t i c a l l y superseded by C h r i s t i a n i t y . T h i s i s not so much a formal  theory  of supersession,  except t o some degree i n Acts,  as a c a s u a l assumption of supersession. Judaism's only is  as a precursor  of the gospel,  and i t s contents  importance  are a v a i l a b l e  t o C h r i s t i a n t h i n k e r s t o d i s r e g a r d or t o appropriate, as they see fit.  For Paul, a t l e a s t i n NT Romans and G a l a t i a n s , Judaism i s a  major very  continuing real  concern which  sense  remains  despite  his  normative radical  f o r him i n a critique  and  reinterpetations. Acts, while g e n e r a l l y f i t t i n g our  literature,  i n t o t h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of  forms a p a r t i a l exception,  decree and t h e emphasis on Paul's  observance do appear t o g i v e  Judaism some normative s t a t u s . Any theory and t r a n s m i s s i o n of the mainline  i n that the a p o s t o l i c  explaining the o r i g i n  f a i t h w i l l have t o take  account  of t h i s apparent anomaly. Apostolicity configurations unanimity their  (Chapter  in  our  are beyond  authority  and  8):  Apostles  literature,  argument.  but  appear their  In Paul's  unanimity  are  in  authority  undisputed  valued  varying  and  letters,  cited  p o s s i b l e , but he does not h e s i t a t e t o argue with h i s  and  where  counterparts  where he t h i n k s i t necessary. Arrangements mentioned  f o r continuity  by a l l our authors  of  except  apostolic  Polycarp,  teaching  are  and presumed by  114 Polycarp. Paul acknowledges having apparently  from  predecessors,  commissioning by C h r i s t , his  and  "received" c e r t a i n  but  he  he  stresses  shows no  teachings,  his  interest  individual  i n handing  on  t e a c h i n g by means of approved human channels. The p o r t r a i t of Paul (Chapter 9) : The Paul of our  i s an a p o s t l e whose a u t h o r i t y i s unquestionable unanimity letters  with  the  i s well  other  aware  a p o s t l e s . The  that  his  Paul  authority  literature  and who of  is  stands i n  the not  undisputed universally  accepted, and sometimes opposes h i s f e l l o w a p o s t l e s . THE MAINLINE FAITH: A SUMMARY I  r e t u r n now  possible to find  to  the  questions  a mainline f a i t h  these  highly varied writings —  Paul?  I f so, what i s i t s content?  when d i d i t a r i s e his  i n our and  before Paul,  i n Chapter  1.  Is i t  l i t e r a t u r e that unites  unites  them  over  against  Where d i d i t come from? i n Paul's  own  time,  or  And  after  death? The  to  —  posed  the  foregoing l i s t  first  of inventory r e s u l t s provides  of these questions: Yes,  i s such  faith,  provided we  counts  as "united" or "over against Paul." Our  homogenous,  and  nevertheless,  don't use  there  it  does  not  radically  I submit t h a t there  teachings  a  too demanding a standard  of the  answer  mainline f o r what  l i t e r a t u r e i s not contradict  Paul;  i s enough m a t e r i a l of  enough  c o n s i s t e n c y across our l i t e r a t u r e and characteristic  an  i n enough t e n s i o n with  undisputed  letters  to  be  the  worth  f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n under the t i t l e of the mainline f a i t h . The  inventory r e s u l t s a l s o provide an answer t o the  q u e s t i o n : what i s the content  of the mainline  f a i t h ? The  second answer  115 is,  of course, provided s t r i c t l y  i n terms of d i f f e r e n c e s between  the  mainline  characteristic  faith  and Paul's  theology;  i ti s  obvious t h a t our authors a l s o agree on numerous p o i n t s with Paul ( f o r example, the r e s u r r e c t i o n ) , but t h a t w i l l not be our concern here. The foregoing inventory of our primary l i t e r a t u r e was broken down i n t o seven t o p i c s , based on types of questions t o which the l i t e r a t u r e n a t u r a l l y gives r i s e . The answers t o those questions, however, overlap somewhat, and from  now on I s h a l l  arrange the  content i n n a t u r a l groupings suggested by the answers. The r o l e of C h r i s t : He has brought  about  Christ  atonement  i s (present tense) f o r sins;  the savior.  h i s death  i s a key  element i n t h a t , but there i s no very d e t a i l e d awareness o f how h i s death brought  about such r e s u l t s , or how i t r e l a t e s t o other  aspects of t h e gospel. In any event,  forgiveness of s i n s i s now  o f f e r e d , and may be appropriated by repentance. The  role  o f the C h r i s t i a n : what might be c a l l e d  morals, o r h o l i n e s s of l i f e , gospel.  This  i s shown  i s preached  especially  Christian  as a c e n t r a l p a r t o f the  by the a s s o c i a t i o n  o f good  conduct with "the f a i t h " and other d o c t r i n a l terms, and even with "the  gospel"  itself  (1 Tm  s a l v a t i o n t o human e f f o r t  1:11);  but a l s o  by  the t y i n g  of  (without, however, going so f a r as t o  p r o c l a i m s a l v a t i o n by works); the frequent use of dikaiosune  ina  m o r a l i z i n g sense; and the many references t o conscience, works or deeds, and t h e r u l e s of bourgeois m o r a l i t y . The r o l e o f Judaism: with the two noted exceptions from Acts (the a p o s t o l i c decree and Paul's i n s i s t e n c e on h i s own f a u l t l e s s  116 observance), Judaism Christianity: longer  p l a y s about the same r o l e i t does i n modern  i t has  concern  served  themselves  i t s purpose and  with  i t , except  Christians  as  they  need  may  no  find i t  e d i f y i n g t o do so. The  role  apostles,  of  Paul  including  and  Paul,  the  a p o s t l e s : In  always  act  literature),  and  literature  i n concert. They  c o n t i n u i n g guarantors of the t r u e f a i t h most common i n our  our  ( i n the sense  the  are  of  the  "faith"  arrangements have been made  t o enable t h a t guarantee t o s u r v i v e t h e i r deaths. In general, our l i t e r a t u r e c l u s t e r s near the commonsensical, general  and  anthropocentric  commonsensical  and  of  the  anthropocentric as Lord  and  letters  f a v o r the p a r a d o x i c a l , s p e c i f i c i t a l l to a  mainline  faith  as  can  single found  i n our  leading  holiness the  to  of  forgiveness  life,  as  exceptions noted  manner  by  the  while  Paul and  literature  (or  of  in his  of  sins  i n Acts)  and  consent  and  undisputed  t h e o c e n t r i c end. the  picture  i s of  calling  superseding  as preached of  the  as  crucified  To  of  belief  r e s u r r e c t i o n are l o o s e l y  unceremoniously  unanimous  continuum  religion  clumsy sentence,  C h r i s t whose c r u c i f i x i o n and as  be),  a  Messiah  reduce  risen  end  the in  a  understood  for  a  great  Judaism  (with  in a  trustworthy  apostles  and  those  subsequently entrusted with t h e i r work. Still  outstanding are the remaining  questions  from  Chapter  1: Where d i d the mainline f a i t h come from? When d i d i t a r i s e before four shall  Paul,  i n Paul's  chapters first  will  be  consider  own  time,  devoted three  to  or a f t e r answering  influential  h i s death? those  The  next  questions.  t h e o r i e s about  —  what  I is  117 happening i n our the  mainline  proposed and  literature,  faith  t o see what l i g h t they may  (Chapter  11);  I  shall  then  shed  on  my  own  present  explanation, and deal with o b j e c t i o n s t o i t (Chapters  13);  and  I shall  complete the process  summary of the mainline f a i t h  just  by  returning to  given, t o see what has  12 the  been  learned about each of i t s tenets (Chapter 14). THE QUESTION OF PRE-PAULINE TRADITION First, in the  however, one more c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be d e a l t with  a systematic way. undisputed  I have r e f e r r e d s e v e r a l times t o passages i n  letters  which  a  scholarly  consensus  "pre-Pauline," e i t h e r because Paul himself says he what he r e c e i v e d (e.g. 1 Cor 15:3)  regards  as  i s handing  on  or because they stand out  from  3  their  surroundings  for literary  or  theological  reasons.  Since  one of our questions i s whether a l l or some of the mainline f a i t h arose  before Paul,  i t will  be w e l l t o have a  teachings which can be found i n such This  list,  atonement  (and  impressive  degree,  the  forgiveness) call  to  of  mainline  passages.  however, i s a very short one, perhaps  list  holy  Atonement language i s found i n NT Rom  encompassing only  and,  to  a  living  and  human  3:25,  much  less  effort.  "whom [ C h r i s t Jesus, 4  v. 24] God put forward as a s a c r i f i c e of atonement  by h i s blood"  and  NT  "passed  over  the  "[Jesus, v. 24] was Cor  15:3,  "Christ  sins  p r e v i o u s l y committed;"  handed over t o death died  for  our  sins;"  Rom  4:25,  f o r our t r e s p a s s e s ; " 1 and  Gal  3  Cf. Fitzmyer "Pauline" 1386,  4  . . . See more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n below, Chapter  1:4,  Z i e s l e r 19 f . , 93. 13.  "[Jesus  118 t  Christ,  v.  3]  gave  himself  for  our  sins."  5  The  call  to  holy  l i v i n g and human e f f o r t i s most c l e a r l y found at 1 Thess 4:1-8, a p a r a n e t i c passage and v i c e l i s t with a reference t o p l e a s i n g  God  (v.  but  to  1) and  a statement t h a t "God  holiness.  Therefore  whoever  d i d not c a l l us t o impurity rejects this  r e j e c t s not  human  a u t h o r i t y but God..." (v. 7-8a). Gal 5:19-21 contains a v i c e with  a warning t h a t  "those  the kingdom of God. " originated does not  before  yet t e l l  where the remaining  6  who  do  such t h i n g s w i l l  not  inherit  That these two p o i n t s of the mainline  Paul  i s of  course  us where they  u s e f u l information,  o r i g i n a t e d , nor  list  faith but i t  e i t h e r when or  tenets o r i g i n a t e d . That work s t i l l  l i e s ahead  of us.  B a r r e t t Paul 24, Bornkamm 113, 116, Dodd 13 f . , Fitzmyer "Romans" 843, " P a u l i n e " 1386, Schoedel 9 n. 54, Z i e s l e r 20, 92. 5  6  C o l l i n s 777,  Fitzmyer  "Pauline" 1413,  cf. Ziesler  20.  119  PART I I I ; EXPLANATIONS CHAPTER 11: DECLINE AND If  PAUL?  a mainline f a i t h  —  a theological  stream  characteristic  of our l i t e r a t u r e and d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from c l a s s i c a l P a u l i n i s m is  indeed t o be  the next this  task i s t o determine  chapter  subject, content faith  discerned i n our  at of  —  to  examining  least our  two  i t s origin.  three  as  —  a  what  decline  as  I  to  see  have  from  I have  I shall  influential  of which tend  literature  primarily  literature,  first  devote this  characteristic  called  the  argued,  t h e o r i e s on the  —  the  purity  of  mainline Pauline  thought. OUR  BELOVED, DIFFICULT BROTHER Paul  was  misunderstood  a  religious  him,  well,  that  genius. The mainline f a i t h downhill development — of  his  writings  genius. is  If  what  his  successors  lesser  i s s o l e l y a matter  minds  make  of  of development  —  from Paul himself, v i a poor understanding  and/or  o v e r e n t h u s i a s t i c a p p r o p r i a t i o n of  " p o s i t i v e P a u l i n e legend." of i d e a l type, one obvious  1  I present t h i s explanation as a  a s i z e a b l e i n f l u e n c e on many t h e o r i e s about our  but  I  stress  the sort  l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y and one which has  had  should  have  t h a t few  i f any  literature,  serious scholars  actually  h o l d i t i n q u i t e so s i m p l i s t i c a form, i . e . as e x p l a i n i n g without remainder  what I have c a l l e d the mainline f a i t h .  B a r r e t t "Controversies" 243.  120 Negative  c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of the f a l l  the secondary the  Paul abound i n  l i t e r a t u r e . B a r r e t t d e s c r i b e s the authors o f Acts,  Pastorals  "epigoni"  from  and  other  (Webster,  canonical  deutero-Pauline  "undistinguished  imitators"),  a  works term  as also  a p p l i e d by Baus t o the A p o s t o l i c Fathers i n c l u d i n g a l l three of our  non-canonical  relative Clement  authors.  theological  In a d d i t i o n ,  timidity  of Acts,  i n l a r g e p a r t t o "the lower  successors."  Barrett  Dunn speaks almost  a t t r i b u t e s the  the P a s t o r a l s  potential  contemptuously  and 1  o f h i s [Paul's] o f "the Paul of  the P a s t o r a l s , the Paul of A c t s " i n comparison t o t h e r e a l Paul. Corwin c i t e s t h e P a s t o r a l s , Clement, and t o a l e s s e r degree her own s u b j e c t , Ignatius, as examples of "the general d e c l i n e from Paul's use of f a i t h as t r u s t i n God." Beker d e s c r i b e s A c t s as "an acute says  deformation  and d i s t o r t i o n  of the h i s t o r i c a l  t h e P a s t o r a l s have made a simple  P a u l , " and  and s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d Paul 2  out o f t h e author o f so many d i f f i c u l t A  similar  point  letters.  i s o f t e n made i n a l e s s  p e j o r a t i v e way.  "Development" from Paul, i n a more or l e s s n e u t r a l though seldom flattering  sense,  literature  and  is a of  standard  other  category  canonical  i n analysis  o f our  deutero-Pauline  works.  Koester's p r i n c i p a l d i s c u s s i o n of a l l our l i t e r a t u r e except is  t o be found  P a u l i n e Theology canonical Paul's  i n a chapter  "The Transformation of  i n t o E c c l e s i a s t i c a l D o c t r i n e . " Beker t r e a t s a l l  deutero-Pauline  message  entitled  Acts  to later  works  plus  circumstances,  Acts  as  adaptations  and h i s e v a l u a t i o n i s  B a r r e t t " C o n t r o v e r s i e s " 245, 242, Baus 137, Dunn 296, Corwin 240 n. 3, Beker 92, 107. 2  of  121 p a r t l y p o s i t i v e i n a l l cases except that of A c t s .  Z i e s l e r speaks  of the deutero-Paulines  and Acts as "a second wave o f P a u l i n i s i n . "  Roetzel's  the deutero-Pauline  chapter  on  canonical  books  is  3  entitled this  "The F i r s t  approach  Interpreters  considers  of Paul."  "development"  to  To the extent be  a  response  e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s ( i n c l u d i n g the mere passage of time), will be  be l a r g e l y those of the " e a r l y C a t h o l i c i s m "  considered  what  I  am  later  i n this  discussing  chapter;  i s the  development from Paul t o the mainline  to  i t s merits  explanation  f o r the present,  possibility  that  that  to  however,  decline  or  f a i t h i s e n t i r e l y a matter  of f a c t o r s i n t e r n a l t o Pauline C h r i s t i a n i t y . The Paul  assertion that  our l i t e r a t u r e  embodies a d e c l i n e  from  i s r e a l l y two a s s e r t i o n s , one of which i s more r e l e v a n t t o  t h i s t h e s i s than the other. lies  outside  don't  intend  the scope t o argue  "Decline"  of t h i s that  i s a value  discussion,  judgement which  and i n any case  any of our authors,  even  I  Luke or  4  Ignatius, But factual  i s as profound a theologian as Paul. while " d e c l i n e " i s a value judgement,  and as  such  judgement, "from Paul"  more  relevant  t o the  is a  present  t h e s i s . That, a t a minimum, a l l our l i t e r a t u r e has some teaching 3  Koester 261 f f . , Beker passim,  Z i e s l e r 127, R o e t z e l  131  ff. 4  Indeed, the P a s t o r a l s are o f such a t h e o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r t h a t those who support P a u l i n e a u t h o r s h i p o f t e n e x p l a i n t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s from the undisputed l e t t e r s by r e f e r e n c e t o Paul's l o s s o f f i r e i n h i s o l d age o r t o t h e i r being d r a f t e d by a s e c r e t a r y (e.g. K e l l y 25 f f . ) ; even G u t h r i e , an ardent defender o f a u t h e n t i c i t y , suggests t h a t Paul "descended from h i s formative t h i n k i n g " t o w r i t e them (Guthrie P a s t o r a l 46 f . , emphasis added).  122 "from P a u l " can s c a r c e l y be denied. among other passages,  are c l e a r l y  Acts  13:38 f . and T t 3:7,  i n f l u e n c e d by P a u l i n e  theology  5  even  i f that  teach  ethics  theology  i s poorly  understood;  as w e l l as eschatology,  and a l l three o f our non-canonical undisputed  Pauline  letters.  Paul  does  indeed  as 2 Pt 3:14 f f . c l a i m s ;  authors quote f r e e l y  But i f "from  Paul"  6  from the  be taken  in a  maximal sense —  implying t h a t t h e i r raw m a t e r i a l , as i t were, i s  from  —  Paul  alone  i t i s inaccurate. So taken,  t h a t , while t h e gospel as our authors understand or  debased  version  of what  Paul  taught,  i t would mean i t i s a garbled  still  they  owe i t  e n t i r e l y t o Paul t h a t they know anything a t a l l about i t . As scholar  already  noted,  does h o l d t h i s  i t i s questionable position  whether  any s e r i o u s  i n so maximal a form. Most of  those c i t e d e a r l i e r who i n t e r p r e t our l i t e r a t u r e as a development from Paul a l s o acknowledge Paul's dependence on e a r l i e r C h r i s t i a n teaching,  7  as  demonstrated  by  the  existence  of  pre-Pauline  m a t e r i a l i n the undisputed  l e t t e r s . Add t o t h a t the f a c t t h a t , a t  least,  and Clement's  Ignatius'  Antioch  Rome  were  evangelized  o  before  Paul  ever  s e t f o o t there,  and a theory making Paul the  only source of the gospel f o r our authors becomes not so much an i d e a l type as a straw s c h o l a r .  5  Z i e s l e r 135, B a r r e t t Paul 158.  6  Sidebottom 125.  E.g. Koester 92, Z i e s l e r 19 f f . , R o e t z e l 72 f f . , B a r r e t t " C o n t r o v e r s i e s " 24, 105, Beker 124. 7  8  E.g. Koester 91 f f . , 93 f .  123  But while the development/decline-from-Paul  approach t o  l i t e r a t u r e does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply t h a t the gospel i n the  our form  i n which i t came down the c e n t u r i e s originated  with Paul, i t does  seem  the  to  survived Jewish  imply  in a  loose  in historical  sort  of  way  Christianity  that  ( i . e . not  form, not i n a g n o s t i c i z i n g form) passed  gospel  i n an  observant  entirely  Paul, reaching i t s high p o i n t or at l e a s t i t s c l a s s i c a l  as i t  through statement  i n h i s p r i n c i p a l l e t t e r s , and ever afterward counted as "Pauline" Christianity  even  when  9  condition. awkwardly  in  a  debased  or  distorted  •  On to  development  found  this be  showing,  sure,  then,  i n an  or deformation  our  entirely  such  literature Pauline  literature  would  stream,  might  o b v i o u s l y contrary t o the claims noted i n Chapter existence  of  an  external  submerging P a u l i n e theology —  theological  and  any  show would  a t t r i b u t a b l e t o causes e n t i r e l y i n t e r n a l t o t h a t stream.  the  stand,  This i s  1, which  force  be  imply  deforming  or  a f o r c e I have c a l l e d the mainline  f a i t h ; but of course those claims, or some of them, remain t o be proved.  10  So  i t will  be  appropriate t o see how  this  explanation  serves t o account f o r the c h i e f f e a t u r e s of the mainline f a i t h i d e n t i f i e d i n Chapter The  as  10.  r o l e of C h r i s t ,  and  the r o l e of the C h r i s t i a n :  I have  c h a r a c t e r i z e d the gospel of the mainline f a i t h as a proclamation of  a  Christ 9  whose c r u c i f i x i o n  Cf. Dunn 239, Koester  and  resurrection  are i m p r e c i s e l y  281.  I have argued (Chapter 10) t h a t something worth c a l l i n g the m a i n l i n e f a i t h can be found i n our l i t e r a t u r e , but I have not y e t argued t h a t i t can be a t t r i b u t e d t o an o u t s i d e f o r c e . 1 0  124  understood  as atoning f o r s i n , and  great h o l i n e s s . As diametrically plausibility accordance  as a c a l l  Paul's theology  opposed t o t h i s  form of preaching,  i n explaining t h i s  there  aspect of the mainline  working  explanation  i s some faith  of  of  imprecise and  Paul provided a f a r more p r e c i s e  Christ's  Christian  death  and  morality  explanations were so profound lost  on  his  characteristically without for  account  resurrection, plus  deeply  and  comprehension  would  Atonement Pauline direction  argue  so  ideas  that  are  in  language and  passages; of  the  Paul  greater  did  but h i s  awkwardly  and  understanding.  this  call  t o h o l i n e s s do  p r o f u n d i t y and  literature  f.) i n works t h a t have  that  modify  our  inserted  (e.g. at Acts 13:33  myself  the  so p a r a d o x i c a l t h a t they were  successors,  Pauline  an  undercutting  the most p a r t f a l l e n back t o a pre-Pauline I  in  moralistic;  commonsensical " t h i s i s what we have t o do t o be saved";  largely  like  with a f a l l - f r o m - P a u l theory, more or l e s s as f o l l o w s :  the t h e o l o g i c a l genius the  lived in  i s a t no p o i n t anything  The o r i g i n a l preaching or t r a d i t i o n was  of  for lives  i s true  that  up  to  a  appear  understanding  paradox;  and  our  point. i n prein  the  authors,  though a l l i n f l u e n c e d i n some measure by Paul, d i d " f a l l back" t o a l a r g e l y pre-Pauline p o s i t i o n to  understand"  even  i n these areas. But  i f the  "hard  Pauline formulations could not command assent  comprehension)  across  time,  i t seems  unlikely  that  (or they  would have done so across space. There were C h r i s t i a n communities l i k e A n t i o c h and other  areas  foundation"  Rome t h a t Paul d i d not  where he (NT  Rom  was  u n w i l l i n g to  15:20); he  had  no  evangelize, as w e l l  "build real  on  as  someone e l s e ' s  authority i n  such  125  communities, the d a y .  There i s no reason t o imagine t h a t C h r i s t i a n s i n these  11  places,  which probably made up the m a j o r i t y o f C h r i s t i a n s of  even  those  who  took  theology  seriously,  had  ever  abandoned whatever "pre-Pauline" understanding they had t o become Paulinists. reflects  I t seems  not  only  more an  probable  that  understanding  the m a i n l i n e  returned  to,  faith  but  an  understanding t h a t was always a l i v e and i n f l u e n t i a l .  is  The  role  of Judaism:  much  less  plausible  faith  The development or d e c l i n e hypothesis here.  Opposition between  and P a u l i n e theology i s s p e c t a c u l a r . Judaism  the mainline still  means  e v e r y t h i n g t o Paul, no matter how obnoxious h i s views might be t o Jews who d i d not share them; with the exceptions noted  i n Acts  (see  i n our  Chapter  7), Judaism  gua  Judaism  means  nothing  l i t e r a t u r e . That Paul's passion f o r h i s people should d i m i n i s h i n i n f l u e n c e a f t e r h i s death, increasingly  estranged  i n a church i n c r e a s i n g l y G e n t i l e and  sociologically  from  both  Judaism  and  Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y , would not i n i t s e l f be s u r p r i s i n g . But i t i s difficult stood  on  t o see how Paul's a t t i t u d e i t s head  could have come t o be so  i f the mainline  faith  were  entirely  development w i t h i n a Pauline stream; much more p l a u s i b l e hypothesis o f an e x t e r n a l  tradition  which had always  a  i s the  been very  c a s u a l about i t s Jewish h e r i t a g e . The r o l e of Paul and the apostles: There would seem t o me t o be  no p o s s i b i l i t y  whatever that  a tradition  developed  entirely  w i t h i n a P a u l i n e stream could have come t o put so much weight on Koester 91 f f . , 93 f . , 106 f . , 139 f . , Baus 111, Conzelmann H i s t o r y 68, c f . 112. 1 1  126  Paul s  grudging references  1  t o a p o s t o l i c agreement and so  ( i n f a c t , none a t a l l ) on h i s l i v e l y disputes with other or  a p o s t o l i c claimants,  deference  shown  by  apostles  not t o mention t r e a t i n g Peter  a l l our  authors  except  the  little  with the  Pastor.  A  "development" explanation t h a t allows f o r e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s could, however, o f f e r  better results i n t h i s  area,  and t o t h i s  I now  turn. PAUL AS ROCK: EARLY CATHOLICISM A s p e c i a l case of the development/decline explanation "early  Catholicism"  Catholicism" the  as "that  so-called  disappearance  hypothesis.  Kasemann  transition  from  church,  which  ancient  o f the imminent  defines  earliest  "early  Christianity to  i s completed  expectation  i s the  with  the  [of the p a r o u s i a ] . "  Dunn a s s o c i a t e s e a r l y C a t h o l i c i s m with three c e n t r a l p o i n t s : the end  of  imminent  structure,  and  expectation, the  the  formalization  formalization of  doctrine.  of  12  church  A l l our 13  literature  i s frequently held  t o exemplify  early  Catholicism,  and while t h i s t h e s i s has not focused on Dunn's f i r s t two p o i n t s , it  i s clear  that  our  literature  displays  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than the undisputed Pauline In  contrast  t o the mere  understand h i s theology, the  early  modified  Catholicism  itself  failure  more  of  letters.  o f Paul's  successors  which might be an i n t e r n a l explanation  i n response  suggests  to external  a l l these  that  factors  to  phenomenon, Christianity such  as the  Kasemann 237, Dunn 344. E.g. Kasemann 239, 246 f . , Dunn 346 f f . , 358, 361 f .  127 apparent delay of the parousia, h e r e t i c a l teachings,  and  l a c k of  14 good  order  early  in  the  church.  Catholicism  thought,  and  Catholics) Pauline  would  most  early  The  1 5  count  as  commentators  consider  purity.  Nonetheless,  as a s u f f i c i e n t  faith  described  (with  question  for  or the  explanation  i n Chapter  10.  the  this  of  exception  to  be  a  Pauline of  thesis,  of the o r i g i n  faith,  later  decline  of the  once again  from  however,  f o r c e s t h a t produced  I shall  c h i e f f e a t u r e s of the mainline  deutero-Pauline  development  Catholicism  whether e a r l y Catholicism, stand  a  any  is  i t , can mainline  consider  the  i n reverse order t h i s time  f o r reasons of emphasis. The  role  of  Paul  and  the  apostles:  argued t h a t the formal understanding i n our and  l i t e r a t u r e had  that  because  Paul he  disagreed with  no  the  heresy about And  f o r the  in  a  long  degree of society  inevitability  be  found  reason  i n h i s undisputed to  do  so,  or  letters  because  he  i t . E a r l y C a t h o l i c i s m t h e o r i s t s seem, however, to t h a t the dying out of imminent  conviction that  the  of a p o s t o l i c teaching  mention t h i s  particular  have a stronger case, and  perhaps,  a p r i m i t i v e or at l e a s t very e a r l y o r i g i n ,  does not  had  I t could,  and  Dunn 344,  "the  haul  faith"  was  the  must be  lacking propriety  our of  Kasemann 247 f .  E.g. Kasemann 249 Kasemann 241 f f . ,  f. 247.  buttressed  decisive factor  formalization v i s i b l e own change,  i n our  easy such  expectation  in  against bringing  literature.  acceptance  of  development  1 6  the could  128 only be  justified  by  a one-sided  emphasis on  i t s continuity ( i f  even t h a t i s not too modern a term) with C h r i s t i a n i t y ' s r o o t s  as  17  embodied i n Paul and most  likely  that  the other a p o s t l e s .  this  feature  emphasis on a p o s t o l i c i t y and picture  of  Paul  —  is  of  of  the  Accordingly, mainline  sound d o c t r i n e , with relatively  late  i t seems  faith  —  the  i t s conforming  origin  and  best  explained as p a r t of the phenomenon of e a r l y C a t h o l i c i s m , r a t h e r than  as  part  of  a  pre-Pauline  or  extra-Pauline  stream  of  Christianity. The  r o l e of Judaism: There i s much l e s s t o go  on  here,  as  the c e n t r a l features of e a r l y C a t h o l i c i s m have l i t t l e  t o do  Judaism as such. But  explanation  as with the development/decline  with  i n general, the very sharp o p p o s i t i o n between our  literature  the  Judaism  undisputed  against simply  the  likelihood  the r e s u l t  teaching of  Pauline  that  on  the  the  matter of  a t t i t u d e i n our  extra-Pauline  from h i s seems a  r a t e there i s no evidence  stream with  f a r more l i k e l y  speaks  literature  of the a c t i o n of a f t e r - t h e - f a c t trends  of Paul; an  Judaism  letters  and  on  a different candidate.  is the  view  At  any  t h a t e a r l y c a t h o l i c trends produced our  literature's characteristic attitude. The  r o l e of C h r i s t and the r o l e of the C h r i s t i a n : The  catholic  d r i v e toward  what might  be  called  safety  of  early  doctrine  would i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d have favored what I have d e s c r i b e d as literature's and  commonsensical  a t t i t u d e toward  atonement  C h r i s t i a n e t h i c s over Paul's much more p a r a d o x i c a l Kasemann 247  f . , c f . Meyer 23 f .  for  our sins  approach.  129 But as these same a t t i t u d e s are a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n the formulas were  c i t e d i n Chapter 10,  not  created  by  pre-Pauline  i t seems abundantly c l e a r t h a t they  early  catholic  trends,  d e f i n i t i o n post-Pauline. Here i n p a r t i c u l a r ,  which  are  by  i t i s necessary  to  look f o r a pre-Pauline or extra-Pauline source f o r the content  of  the m a i n l i n e An  faith.  exception  to  this  is  the  shift  from  the  l e t t e r s ' p o r t r a y a l of Jesus as future s a v i o r t o our use  of  "savior"  Chapters 3 and  as  10,  a  conventional,  undisputed literature's  present-tense  title  above). Such a s h i f t would go n a t u r a l l y with  the dying out of a c t i v e expectation of the parousia, and may One  (see  as such  indeed be accounted f o r as an instance of e a r l y C a t h o l i c i s m . could  bourgeois  also  imagine  "bourgeois  morality"  as the passage of time motivated  getting  C h r i s t i a n s t o come to  terms with s o c i e t y , but t h a t i s only a matter of degree. As pre-Pauline  1 Thess 4:1-8  and  Gal  5:19-21 suggest,  emphasis was  already there at an e a r l y date.  "PETER AND":  PAUL AND  If  the  question  more  the  the  ethical  "PETRINE CHRISTIANITY" i s "what happened  to  Paul,"  part  of  the  answer has been "Peter" s i n c e the time of the Tubingen school of the  19th  historical  century,  when  Christianity  F.C. as  Baur a  and  his  compromise  followers between  explained  Pauline  and 18  Petrine,  that  is  to  say  Gentile  and  V a r i a t i o n s on t h i s theme remain current.  Dunn 341 f .  Jewish,  Christianity.  130  Not a l l neo-Baurian t h e o r i e s are r e l e v a n t here. Goulder, f o r example,  argues  that  the Pauline-Petrine  conflict  ended  i n the  19  almost  total  triumph  of Paulinism,  a position  refuted,  i n my  view, by the very existence of our l i t e r a t u r e . More t o the p o i n t for  the present  Petrine  thesis  or Jewish  succeeded  i s the work  Christian  stream  i n modifying Paul's  Dunn takes  something  of s c h o l a r s as a  influence  force  on  who  see the  which  actually  later  Christianity.  of a Baurian stance, except  that  James, not Peter, as exemplifying the Jewish C h r i s t i a n t o the P a u l i n e t h e s i s , with Peter working 20  about  the  further:  they  21  hold  Brown  that  and  Peter  successfully to bring •  Meier,  and  Achtemeier,  and h i s f o l l o w e r s  .  out."  defeat  go  largely  "won  treats  as a  .  T h i s circumstance the Protestant Achtemeier  crushing  sees  antithesis  .  synthesis.  he  f o r Paul  and f o r t r u e  Christianity,  a defeat  22  which and  endured Meier  until  regard  the Reformation, i t as  a  valid  while the C a t h o l i c modification  which  Brown  remains  23  normative today v i a the New Testament Brown  24  canon.  i d e n t i f i e s Peter with the " l i b e r a l "  end of a branch  Goulder of "Jewish C h r i s passim. t i a n s and t h e i r G e n t i l e converts" who i n s i s t e d on 20  Dunn 356, so a l s o Bruce P e t e r . Stephen 42 f . , c f . a l s o B a r r e t t " C o n t r o v e r s i e s " 235. 21  .  .  .  Brown and Meier v n f . , c f . Achtemeier 63 f .  22  Achtemeier 62, 64. 23  . . . . Brown and Meier v m . Brown and Meier w r i t e j o i n t l y a t times and s e p a r a t e l y a t times i n t h e i r j o i n t book, A n t i o c h and Rome, and each t a k e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o n l y f o r h i s own c o n t r i b u t i o n s (Brown and Meier  131 some  Jewish  converts  observance,  short  to Christianity.  under pressure  This  of  circumcision,  position  Peter  f o r Gentile  agreed  from the more conservative James —  t o only  at least, at 25  the  time  of t h e Antioch  u n e n t h u s i a s t i c support the  "right"  Gentile  26  Petrine  f o r such observance s t i l l  of Paul, 27  converts.  i n c i d e n t of Gal 2:11 f f .  who  Brown  Christianity's  required  and Meier  partial  no Jewish  observance of  .  give  various over  but h i s  p l a c e s Peter t o  .  triumph  —  evidence f o r  Paul,  including  28  Paul's  probable  modification the  defeat  i n the Antioch  o f h i s previous  views on Judaism  community i n Rome, which although  "Petrine"  in  the  sense  incident  of  and  Paul's  i n h i s letter to  not founded by Peter was  espousing  moderate  Jewish  29  Christianity. For Achtemeier, the view t h a t Peter was r i g h t  t o go along  with James a t Antioch, while Paul was wrong t o r e f u s e , was h e l d as "orthodox" i n subsequent C h r i s t i a n h i s t o r y , and t h e v i c t o r y of P e t r i n e C h r i s t i a n i t y meant the " v i r t u a l disappearance"  o f Paul's  gospel. The a p o s t o l i c decree of Acts 15:20, which i n Achtemeier's chronology  predated the Antioch i n c i d e n t and formed t h e b a s i s f o r  the conduct o f James and Peter, was i n f l u e n t i a l a t l e a s t t o the v i i i ) . A c c o r d i n g l y t h e book w i l l be c i t e d as Brown and Meier; Brown "Rome"; o r Meier, as a p p r o p r i a t e . Brown "Rome" 3 f . and 2 n. 2. Brown and Meier v i i i . 2 5  2 6  27  Brown "Rome" 4. 2 8  Meier 39.  2 9  Brown "Rome" 98, 111 f f .  132 time  of  Tertullian  account  and  i s mentioned  in a  of martyrdoms i n Gaul preserved by  late  second-century  Eusebius, while the  importance of " s a l v a t i o n by grace through f a i t h " was d i s r e g a r d e d (Eusebius  5.1.26,  including  all  epistles,  treat  especially  an  see  also  our  Chapter  literature  Christianity  ethical  13).  plus  Post-Pauline w r i t i n g s ,  the  canonical  "more as a system  Catholic  of d o c t r i n e  and  code than as an acknowledgement of God's 30  redemptive a c t i n Jesus C h r i s t . " Achtemeier's c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of our l i t e r a t u r e d i f f e r s only in  the harshness  Chapter Jewish  10,  and  of he  Christianity,  i t s wording i s not  from  alone  orthodox  the  summary presented i n  i n thinking  as w e l l  that recognizably  as h e r e t i c a l ,  lasted far  31  longer than we  are accustomed  the  faith  mainline  taken  t o imagine. to  have  But as a source f o r  submerged  Paul,  Petrine  C h r i s t i a n i t y , a t l e a s t i n the moderate Jewish sense perhaps best articulated  by  Brown,  will  not  do.  Once  p r i n c i p a l f e a t u r e s of the mainline f a i t h ,  again  to  review  the  i n an order once again  s e l e c t e d f o r emphasis: The r o l e of Judaism: The P e t r i n e explanation p o s i t s a f o r c e dragging  Pauline  terminology) 30 3 1  Christianity  the right.  32  But  our  to  (in .  Brown  literature  has  and on  Meier's the  whole  '.  Achtemeier 63 f . , 58, 65 f . , 62. Cf. Wilson Related 155 f . , Koester 201 f .  32  T h i s appears t o be t r u e even f o r B a r r e t t , who acknowledges t h a t the " s u b - a p o s t o l i c C h r i s t i a n i t y " he c r e d i t s i n p a r t t o P e t e r ' s i n f l u e n c e was "not j u d a i z i n g , " but s t i l l j u x t a p o s e s i t w i t h "the r a d i c a l i s m of P a u l " ( B a r r e t t " C o n t r o v e r s i e s " 235), by which he means the vehemence of P a u l ' s r e f u s a l t o compromise w i t h any s o r t of j u d a i z i n g ( B a r r e t t " C o n t r o v e r s i e s " 232 f . ) .  133 moved  to  the  contemplated Pastorals, Acts  are  Clement's  by  away  from  Judaism  to  Paul. This i s most evident  degree  never the  l e s s o b t r u s i v e i n 2 Peter and Polycarp. 1 Clement  and  more complex cases. "Jewishness"  But  i s only  as  argued  above  (Chapter  superficial.  Acts,  by  7),  contrast,  some normative status f o r Judaism, as r e f l e c t e d  apostolic  decree  and  Paul's  observance.  these anomalies w i l l be given i n Chapter  13,  r e a f f i r m a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t they are anomalies, general tendency of Acts t o make Judaism an hence un-Pauline) brushing  a  i n Ignatius and  does r e f l e c t the  left,  My and  own  account  I shall  in of  simply  outweighed by the unproblematic  (and  ancestor of C h r i s t i a n i t y , even t o the p o i n t of  a s i d e the Law  as,  in effect,  too much t r o u b l e t o keep  33  (Acts 15:10). left but  Acts and  1 Clement are perhaps not so f a r t o the  of Paul on the i s s u e of Judaism as, f o r example, Ignatius, i t i s not  reasonable  to  attribute  them  to  a  pull  to  the  right. The was  a  r o l e of Paul and significant  the a p o s t l e s : I t i s c l e a r  figure  in  early  Christianity,  that  Peter  influential  34  enough t o g i v e r i s e t o a "Cephas p a r t y " i n C o r i n t h , as the  a u t h o r i t y behind  (often as merit  2 Peter, t o f i g u r e prominently  spokesman f o r the apostles as  special  mention, from  Clement  and  a collectivity) Ignatius,  h o l d i n g a high p r o f i l e i n a l l four gospels. Cf. Haenchen  113.  4  Bruce Peter. Stephen 39 f f . 5  Goulder  188.  t o be  35  He  as  cited  i n Acts and  to  well  as  indeed became a  134 one-man, or with Paul a two-man, p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n  of the  concept  of a p o s t o l i c i t y discussed e a r l i e r . The  key  issue  f o r the  "Petrine  Christianity"  hypothesis,  however, i s whether t h i s prominence i s owed t o the views p e c u l i a r The  only  t o or  worthwhile  at  least  chiefly  information  we  characteristic  have  on  3  a  more  generous  interpretation  than  of  any  P e t r i n e views i s Gal 2, where Peter's conduct given  i n f l u e n c e of Peter.  distinctively  a t A n t i o c h can  Paul  in  fact  be  gives  6  it.  T h i s account  s t r o n g l y suggests  t h a t p o i n t , j u s t the have  claimed:  observance  for  sort  willing  of Jewish  Christian  go  with  to  Gentile  t h a t Peter was,  along  converts,  but  Brown and  some  not  at l e a s t at others  requirements  of  overly enthusiastic  about i t . But whatever the immediate outcome i n Antioch,  Peter's  position  in  the  be  the  d i d not  "win  reflected  out,"  middle  run  in  source  of Peter's enduring  either  our  i n the  literature.  long  run  Whatever  fame i n B i b l e and  or may  church,  i t i s not  this. The  r o l e of C h r i s t and  the r o l e of the C h r i s t i a n : While i t  i s h a r d l y enough t o save the P e t r i n e C h r i s t i a n i t y hypothesis an o v e r a l l explanation of the mainline f a i t h , that  the  emphasis  on  repentance,  as  i t i s worth n o t i n g  forgiveness  and  human  effort  found i n our l i t e r a t u r e i s at home i n a Jewish t h e o l o g i c a l m i l i e u not  much  power.  37  i n f l u e n c e d by  the  Pauline  notion .  .  .  of  s i n as  a  T h i s w i l l be worth bearing i n mind i n the search f o r a E.g. Meier 41, Bruce Peter. Stephen 35 f f . , Goulder  3 7  cosmic  .  Ziesler  76.  3 f.  135  hypothesis  that  mainline f a i t h —  is  capable  of  explaining  the task of the next two  the  origin  chapters.  of  the  136  CHAPTER 12: THEY CAME TO ANTIOCH In Chapter  11, I considered and ( f o r the most part) r e j e c t e d  t h r e e p o s s i b l e explanations of the o r i g i n o f the mainline  faith.  The  theory t h a t t h i s  f a i t h marks a d e c l i n e from, o r development  of,  Pauline  through  stream  thought  i s unable  processes  t o account  internal  f o r the apparent  t o the Pauline c o n t i n u i t y of a  gospel o f loosely-understood atonement f o r s i n s from pre-Pauline to  post-Pauline  times  and  the  likelihood  that  this  gospel  continued t o be current during Paul's m i n i s t r y , a t l e a s t i n areas o u t s i d e the range of h i s personal e v a n g e l i s t i c i n f l u e n c e . I t i s 1  also  unable  t o account  f o r the dramatic  difference i n attitude  toward Judaism between our l i t e r a t u r e and the undisputed epistles,  or the stereotyped  equation  o f Paul  with  Pauline  the other  apostles. The  theory  that  the mainline  faith  i s part  of the post-  P a u l i n e t r e n d t o c o n s o l i d a t i o n and f o r m a l i z a t i o n known as " e a r l y Catholicism,"  a  causes,  well  may  apostolicity literature,  form  of development  account  f o r the  and the concern  f o r sound  i n part  stereotyped doctrine  t o external concept found  and a l s o f o r i t s conventional, present-tense  " s a v i o r " t o d e s c r i b e Jesus. content  due  which appears  But i t cannot account  t o predate  Paul.  Nor does  of  i n our use o f  f o r doctrinal i t offer  any  c o n v i n c i n g explanation of the c o n t r a s t between our l i t e r a t u r e and the undisputed  l e t t e r s on the subject of Judaism.  Conzelmann H i s t o r y 68, c f . 112, Haenchen 299.  137  The theory t h a t Pauline C h r i s t i a n i t y was by  a  moderately  observant  something t o o f f e r  "Petrine  pulled  t o the  Christianity"  i n terms of the apparently  may  have  Jewish emphasis  repentance, forgiveness and human e f f o r t found i n our but  right  on  literature,  i t can h a r d l y account f o r a stream which on the whole  markedly t o the l e f t of Paul with respect t o i t s o v e r a l l  stands  attitude  toward Judaism. Thus outlined  the  bulk  of  i n Chapter  specifically,  is  the  10,  our  content  unceremonious  the  remains to be literature's  P a u l i n e standards) understanding its  of  mainline  explained.  loose,  faith,  What remains,  anthropocentric  of atonement and repentance,  appropriation  of  a  h e r i t a g e . I t i s t h a t explanation I now  as  poorly-appreciated  (by and  Jewish  hope t o provide.  THE HELLENIST MISSION On  the  provided Acts,  face  by  distinguished not  theologically were l e s s this  6  to  from  from  The  of  (as  their  might  be  reported  in  "Hellenists,"  "Hebrews"  at  Hebrews, Law  leaders,  in  and  but  that the  Stephen  they  Temple; (6:5),  (6:11, 13 f.) before the Sanhedrin  (7:2-53) p r i o r t o h i s martyrdom by s t o n i n g follows  6:1,  Greek-speakers)  than the Hebrews t o the of  events  Christian  Aramaic-speaking  accusations  A persecution  are s i n g l e d  explanation  Christian  linguistically the  an  Jewish  Jewish  i s demonstrated when one  g i v e s a speech  such  interpretation  11.  the  only  attached  faces c e r t a i n  60).  i t , just  a widely-held  chapters  differed  of  (8:1)  i n which these  out, and they leave Jerusalem  and  (7:58-  very  Hellenists  as a r e s u l t ,  travelling  138 to various places u n t i l ,  i n Syrian Antioch, they  f i r s t time t o preach the gospel t o G e n t i l e s  begin  f o r the  (11:19-21).  Not every element i n t h i s account can a c t u a l l y be documented from  the  text  of Acts, which f o r example  says  nothing  about  a  t h e o l o g i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n between H e l l e n i s t s and Hebrews, and which does  explicitly  apostles"  say  " a l l [Jerusalem  Christians]  except  the  (8:1), i . e . not j u s t the H e l l e n i s t s , were d r i v e n out by  the p e r s e c u t i o n . Nonetheless,  the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n I have sketched  enjoys the support of a broad spectrum of commentators, from  F.F.  Bruce  also  on  the  including  right  Helmut  to  Ernst  Koester,  Haenchen  James  Dunn,  on  the  Ernst  left  and  Kasemann,  Michael  2 Goulder, John Meier and Hans Conzelmann. These same commentators, and others, p a i n t a p i c t u r e of t h i s Hellenist those  mission  elements  which  of  the  would  make  mainline  it a  faith  promising still  in  source need  for  of  an  explanation. The r o l e of C h r i s t : a number of commentators h o l d t h a t i t i s precisely  from  the  Hellenists  that  Paul  first  learned  of  the  gospel, and f u r t h e r t h a t the H e l l e n i s t gospel continued t o have a l i f e of i t s own It  i s no  Hellenistic Bultmann's  apart from Paul and h i s e l a b o r a t i o n s of easy  matter  theological confidence  to  l a y out  program;  Bruce  i n producing  a  in detail is  3  a pre-Pauline  gently  120-page  it.  mocking  chapter  on  of the  Bruce P e t e r Stephen 57 f . , 60 f . ; Haenchen 266, 365, c f . 370 f . ; Koester 91; Dunn 267 f . ; Kasemann 238; Goulder 8; Meier 32 f . ; Conzelmann H i s t o r y 58 f . 2  f  Meyer 78, Koester 92, Bultmann 63, Conzelmann H i s t o r y f . , Haenchen 299. 3  67  139  subject.  Nonetheless, commentators suggest t h a t c e r t a i n elements  parallel  to  appear  to  the  mainline  emerge  at  this  faith  as  stage.  found The  i n our  literature  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  do  Christ's  5  death  is  not  well-defined,  and  there  is  an  emphasis  on  f o r g i v e n e s s of s i n s t h a t f a l l s short of Paul's p r o f u n d i t y , though he d i d incorporate i t i n h i s t e a c h i n g . The  role  about any  of  the  Christian:  6  Commentators  have  less  to  say  s p e c i f i c a l l y H e l l e n i s t i c approach t o C h r i s t i a n e t h i c s ,  once t h i s t o p i c i s divorced from issues of r i t u a l  Law-observance  (see the r o l e of Judaism, below). Hengel does, however, speculate that  "the  will"  o p t i m i s t i c confidence  found  i n man's c a p a c i t y  i n post-apostolic literature  some length i n Chapters 5, 6 and to  the H e l l e n i s t s ,  and  7  to  do  God's  (and  already  noted  10 above) may  a l s o be  traceable  i f t h a t i s so i t would f i t w e l l with  c e n t r a l i t y of morals i n our mainline  at  the  faith.  The r o l e of Judaism: most commentators see the H e l l e n i s t s as well  to  the  left  i n terms of  Jewish  observance  and  loyalties.  Meyer speaks of " h o s t i l i t y t o Torah and temple" i n a movement f o r whom "the e x a l t e d Jesus i s already the u n i v e r s a l Lord." says the 4  H e l l e n i s t s were demanding freedom  from the  Law  Koester Jbefore  Bruce Peter.Stephen 57, Bultmann 63-183.  Bultmann 81; c f . Dodd 25, suggesting "the s c h o o l of Stephen and P h i l i p " as an intermediate step between a s t i l l vaguer "Jerusalem kerygma" and Paul's e v e n t u a l understanding. 5  6  Meyer 117  f f . , 163.  7  Hengel Between 56. 8  Meyer 68,  81.  140 their of  departure from Jerusalem, but were thwarted by the  observance,  Antioch.  9  first  put  their  program  agreement  that  the  Hellenists  were  and a t l e a s t i m p l i c i t l y of the Law.  10  into  practice  in  . . . These are both somewhat extreme p o s i t i o n s , but t h e r e i s  widespread Temple  and  forces  critical  of  the  At any r a t e i t i s  11  probable t h a t the H e l l e n i s t i c Jewish C h r i s t i a n s a t such p l a c e s as A n t i o c h and Damascus were no longer observing the Law never  mind  Paul's 1:13  demanding  pre-Christian  observance  of  p e r s e c u t i o n out  themselves,  Gentile  converts,  of  f o r the  zeal  because Law  (Gal  f . , NT P h i l 3:5 f.) could reasonably have t a r g e t e d only non-  observant  Jewish  Christians,  rather  than  observant  Jewish  12  Christians,  or G e n t i l e  non-observance and  i f this  attitude  Some commentators  as pragmatic rather than i d e o l o g i c a l is  toward  theological  Christians.  so  i t could  Judaism  than  well  reflect  that  shown  a by  see  this  i n nature,  more  13  dismissive  Paul's  agonized  justifications.  THE GREAT OMISSION? The  prima  facie  case, then,  i s attractive.  But  before the  b e l i e f s of the " H e l l e n i s t mission" can be pursued any f u r t h e r , I must  define 9  more c l o s e l y  who  and  what  I  am  talking  about.  Koester 91.  1 0  Bruce P e t e r . Stephen 55; Conzelmann H i s t o r y 58; Dunn  270 f f . Haenchen 267 f . , Bruce Peter, Stephen 52, Dunn 272 f . , Conzelmann H i s t o r y 58. 1 1  12  Z i e s l e r 25 f . , Conzelmann H i s t o r y 59, 65,  67.  13  E.g. Hengel Between 56, c i t i n g A c t s 15:10; c f . Conzelmann H i s t o r y 66 f .  An  141 impressive case has been made that there was no such m i s s i o n , and for  that  matter  no such  people,  at least  as t h e commentators  c i t e d p o r t r a y them. Our  received  schematized Jewish  story  as f o l l o w s :  of  the  distinct  Jewish C h r i s t i a n s , (4)  the Temple,  the H e l l e n i s t  mission  (1) the " H e l l e n i s t s , "  C h r i s t i a n s of the o r i g i n a l  theologically  Hellenist  from  Jerusalem  the "Hebrews"  leader Stephen.  community, or  o f t h e Law and  those  thus  scattered  (6) launched  speech of  (5) t h e H e l l e n i s t s  were s i n g l e d out f o r persecution f o l l o w i n g Stephen's of  (2) were  /Aramaic-speaking  and defence  In consequence,  be  or Greek-speaking  (3) i n that they were c r i t i c a l  as i s shown by the t r i a l  may  the f i r s t  death. Some real  Gentile  m i s s i o n by preaching the gospel t o G e n t i l e s i n Antioch, where (7) a  congregation was founded  i n which n e i t h e r  Jewish  nor G e n t i l e  C h r i s t i a n s observed the Law. In  a d e t a i l e d and c a r e f u l 200-page study o f t h e i s s u e , C r a i g  H i l l has denied f i v e of these seven a s s e r t i o n s . He i s w i l l i n g t o accept numbers 1 and 6 i n somewhat reduced form: t h a t t h e r e were "Hellenists" background community, linguistic  distinguished  by t h e i r  (but d i s t i n g u i s h e d and  that  such  and Diaspora  i n no other way) i n t h e Jerusalem Hellenists,  and geographical sense, .  mother tongue  in  d i d found .  .  1  this  exclusively  the mixed  Jewish-  4  G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n congregation of Antioch. Concerning  the remaining  follows: H i l l 22 f f . , 105 f .  five  points,  Hill  argues  as  142  (2)  The  notion t h a t Hebrew and H e l l e n i s t  theologically assumption Diaspora  distinct  that  in  distinct.  any  based  Palestinian  (Greek-speaking,  theologically belief  is  part  on  an  (Aramaic-speaking,  "Hellenist")  But  clear-cut  in  Christianity  recent  Judaism  between  uncritical  "Hebrew")  and  were  themselves  has  undermined  scholarship  distinction  were  Palestinian  and  15  Diaspora Judaism i n the f i r s t century CE. (3)  Although  requiring  the  circumcision  Gentile or  mission  observance  was  Law-free  for Gentile  in  not  converts, i t  does not f o l l o w that i t was  L a w - c r i t i c a l from the p e r s p e c t i v e of  Jewish  indeed  Christianity,  and  the  Law-observant  Jerusalem community approved the Law-free m i s s i o n .  1 6  And  "Hebrew" even i f  Stephen's speech i n Acts 7, o f t e n used t o demonstrate Law- and 17 . T e m p l e - c r i t i c a l views, i s a h i s t o r i c a l or t r a d i t i o n a l H e l l e n i s t "manifesto"  18  (see item 4) , i t i s not t r u l y  Temple-critical  and  19  not  even s u p e r f i c i a l l y L a w - c r i t i c a l . (4) Stephen's purported speech does not i n any event embody  either  a  historical  tradition, critical, Christ. 1 5  1 6  record  but i s e n t i r e l y not  Nor  of Law  of  such  an  a creation  or Temple,  are the accusations  but  of Lukan of  against  Hill 1ff. H i l l 45 f . and n. 2 3 .  1 7  E.g. Conzelmann H i s t o r y 58.  1 8  So e.g. Bruce Peter. Stephen 56.  1 9  H i l l 69-81, 68 f .  address  or  Hellenist  theology and i s  Judaism Stephen  a  for rejecting of  threatening  143 the Law but  and Temple  i f they  (6:11-14) l i k e l y  are t o be  believed  historical,  historically,  in Hill's  view;  Luke h i m s e l f  has  20 t o l d us t h a t they are f a l s e accusations (v. 13). (5) I f H e l l e n i s t indeed  singled  Christian  out  Christians for  Hellenist  disrupting,  and  who  ( i n the  persecution,  Jews  whose  linguistic  i t was  likely  synagogues  would have had  sense)  they  n e i t h e r motive  were  by  non-  had  nor  been  power t o  persecute Hebrew C h r i s t i a n s . I f such a s e l e c t i v e p e r s e c u t i o n was carried  out  by  higher  Jewish  authorities  such  as  the  chief  p r i e s t s , these i n any event a l s o persecuted the Hebrews on other occasions.  But  i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e that  such  a persecution  was  "against the [whole] church," as Luke says (Acts 8:1), or even and i n H i l l ' s view very l i k e l y — persecution"  other  than  missionaries  moving  out  as of  a  that there was Lukan  literary  Jerusalem.  None of  —  no such  "severe  device  to  these  get  scenarios  p r o v i d e s evidence that the H e l l e n i s t s were s i n g l e d out because of 21 t h e o l o g i c a l d i s t i n c t i v e s not shared with the Hebrews. (7)  There  i s no  evidence  that  A n t i o c h congregation were non-observant  Jewish  Christians  of  from the beginning.  takes i t as l i k e l y that the l e v e l of observance  the Hill  there diminished  i n the wake of Jerusalem approval of the Law-free mission, but he argues  that  principle,  this  d i d not  come about  and so the Antiochenes  because  of  H i l l 81, 66, 57 f . H i l l 32 f . , 36, 37 f . , 38,  important  (except, of course, Paul) were  w i l l i n g t o r e t u r n t o a c e r t a i n l e v e l of observance  2 1  any  40.  when t h a t  was  144 demanded  by  "people  from  James" a t the  time  of  the  so-called  22  Antioch incident  (Gal 2:11  ff.).  H i l l ' s arguments seem t o me t o vary i n t h e i r cogency. At the h i g h end, he the  Law  i s s u r e l y r i g h t that f i n d i n g e x p l i c i t  i n Stephen's  speech  criticism  of  i s desperate work, as shown by i t s 23  p o s i t i v e references t o Moses, who  p r e f e r t o argue that Law  Temple c r i t i c i s m seek  24  and by the number of commentators criticism  i s implicit  .  i n Stephen's •  or i n h i s whole approach t o preaching,  evidence of  i t i n the  accusations against  him,  25  26  or who or  who 27  merely i n f e r t h a t Stephen and h i s party were probably anti-Law. At  the  early  low  end,  Hill's  argument  concerning observance  stages of the Antioch mission seems weak  l a t e r i n t h i s chapter) , and I see no reason why chief out  priests a  grounds Hill  persecution  of  the  i n the wake of the Stephen  himself  grounds,  (see d i s c u s s i o n  the f a c t t h a t the  persecuted the Hebrews a t other times would  specific  persecution  i n the  acknowledges in  even  different though  that  they  incident;  Paul  degrees, both  28  Hellenists  and  on  theological  in a parallel  James  essentially ultimately  were on  liable  23  Hengel Between 22. 2 4  Dunn 272 f .  2 5  Hengel Between 23.  2 6  Meyer 68, Goppelt 57 f .  27  Bruce Peter. Stephen 52, 56. 2 8  Hill  151.  case to  theological  suffered  persecution. H i l l 137, c f . 106, c f . a l s o 146 f . and n. 173; 140 f . 2 2  rule  from  145 But at  the  Hill's  arguments, c o g e n t  binary  received  oppositions often  account  Christianity a  thought  to  are mainly  be  entailed  of the Hellenist/Hebrew d i s t i n c t i o n :  was  constituted  or otherwise,  thereby  "schism,"  opposed"  the  customary  tendency  "neatly that  Hellenists,  divided,"  the  that  t o minimize  Hebrews  the  that  distinction  in  that  the  actually  aimed the  early  division  "shunned  justifies  ( i f not t o v i l i f y )  or "the  the r o l e of  the  29  [Hebrew] binary  Jerusalem  church  in  early  oppositions are required  are not  always  insisted  upon by  of the H e l l e n i s t s i n church For  example,  cultural  and  Hellenists  Meyer,  the  that  not  two  g o s p e l s , so t h a t  and  Hellenists  s h o u l d go such,  linguistic worship  a  language's  that  of  linguistic led  inevitably  "power  of  2 9  Hill  4,  193  a  they  the  role  linguistic, Hebrews  schism;  and  community,  "Hellenist"  thought"  but  to  ( q u o t i n g Dunn 275),  argues  flow  was  196.  that  the  a not  as the for  Greek  comparison  nature  different  104,  Gentiles  meetings  from  in  division  Hebrews  "Hellenist,"  separate  as by  on  both  mission t o the  expression"  says the eventual t h e o l o g i c a l of  a  Jerusalem  consequences  term.  schools  for  d e s i g n a t i o n , but  Goppelt  "theological  the  never  Aramaic. He  indeed  stress  shares H i l l ' s view t h a t  a l s o uses  such  i s between two s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g s ,  theological  superior  and  between  that the H e l l e n i s t  distinction  and  days  t h e r e was  f o r w a r d . Hengel  i s entirely  arguing  distinction  the d i s t i n c t i o n  agreed  thesis,  commentators who  though  earliest  insists  this  No  history.  theological  from  by  Christianity."  to  linguistic based  on  responses  to  146 Jewish r e a c t i o n t o the preaching of Stephen: one group  retreated  i n t o a Law observance which was not p a r t of the immediate p o s t E a s t e r p r a c t i c e while the other, most though not a l l of whom were Hellenists, persecuted latter did  developed a u n i v e r s a l i s t i n the wake  approach. Both groups were  of Stephen's  were " s c a t t e r e d " permanently,  not permit them t o make t h e i r  Even  so, there  does  sometimes use the terms  martyrdom, because  peace  their  but only the new  approach  with the a u t h o r i t i e s .  was no schism; Hebrews and H e l l e n i s t s i n a theological  sense)  (Goppelt were not 30  opponents but " l i v e d together as two very d i f f e r e n t b r o t h e r s . " Hengel, Meyer and Goppelt do, however, s t i c k t o t h i s much of the r e c e i v e d account: a l l hold that i t was H e l l e n i s t s , i n a sense of the word t h a t c a r r i e s a t l e a s t some t h e o l o g i c a l who  began  evangelizing  Gentiles  i n Antioch;  implications,  and a l l h o l d  that  31  those  evangelists  were  themselves  not Law-observant.  And so  much, I t h i n k , the present t h e s i s does r e q u i r e : t h a t a d i s t i n c t group  which  Hellenists"  there  is  some  rough  basis  for calling  "the  (regardless of i t s exact r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the Hebrews,  t o Stephen, o r t o Stephen's speech) d i d both evangelize G e n t i l e s and brush a s i d e the Law, p r i o r t o Paul's involvement. L e t us now examine whether Hill's  this  position  can be defended  i n the l i g h t of  criticism.  5(1  ff.;  Meyer 67 f . , 99 f f . ; Hengel Between 6 f f . , Goppelt 53, 58, 55. 3 1  61.  Hengel Between 12 f . ; Meyer 68 f . , 89 f f . ,  14 f . , 26 105; Goppelt  147  Hill Christians  himself were  concedes  most  that  likely  /Antioch's  evangelized  by  first  Gentile  Hellenists  in  32  linguistic  and  any  way?  other  geographical Luke,  at  sense. least,  identifiable  group  within  references  those  "scattered"  to  (8:4,  11:19)  ff.:  8:4  3 3  are  both  .  seems  the  loosely  But  Antioch  to  church. by  the  tied  connect The  the  leaders  are "men  selected  in  6:5,  one  .  while  .  in  them  an  to  subsequent of  Acts  Hellenists  f f . t e l l s of the e x p l o i t s of P h i l i p ,  .  distinct  two  persecution  to  34  Hellenist  were they  the  of  of the  8:1 6:1  seven  .  the  evangelists  of  of Cyprus and Cyrene" (11:20), or i n other words 35  Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, i . e . " H e l l e n i s t s , "  even i n H i l l ' s  36  lexicon. gospel 3 3  These  stories,  i n a widening H i l l 105 f . Goppelt  showing  spiral  to  the  Hellenists  Samaritans,  carrying  the  God-fearers  and  58.  L i k e H i l l (25 f f . , 46 f f . ) , I take i t t h a t the "seven" of A c t s 6:3-5 are l e a d e r s of the " H e l l e n i s t s " r e f e r r e d t o i n 6:1, both i n Luke's i n t e n t i o n and h i s t o r i c a l l y , though of course t h i s does not s e t t l e the q u e s t i o n of who e x a c t l y the H e l l e n i s t s might be. 3 4  Those t o whom these e v a n g e l i s t s spoke are i n my view not " H e l l e n i s t s , " Hellenistai (so NRSV, UBS) but "Greeks" Hellenes (RSV JB NAB NRSV mg. UBS mg.; KJV " G r e c i a n s " ) , or i n other words G e n t i l e s (so TEV), as r e q u i r e d by the c o n t r a s t w i t h "Jews," Ioudaioi (not "Hebrews"), of v. 19 (so Haenchen Munck Conzelmann A c t s Bruce Acts ad loc, Hengel 8, H i l l 23 and n. 15, Meyer 92, c f . Metzger T e x t u a l 342, a c c e p t i n g Hellenistai but d e f i n i n g i t as "Greek-speaking persons" i n c o n t r a s t t o Ioudaioi). 3 5  H i l l (94, 105) notes j u s t l y t h a t none of the H e l l e n i s t l e a d e r s of 6:5 i s mentioned a t 11:19 f f . or i n the l i s t of Antiochene l e a d e r s a t 13:1, but t h i s does not seem t o be a d e f i n i t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; t h e r e i s no reason t o assume t h a t o n l y seven H e l l e n i s t s had l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t y or m i s s i o n a r y zeal. 3 6  148 Gentiles to  (8:5 f f . , 26 f f . , 11:19  attribute  a missionary  the Jerusalem ff:,  church  can  11:22, 15 passim,  ff.),  suggest  consciousness only catch up  c f . 11:1  t h a t Luke means  to h i s Hellenists to after  the  that  fact  (8:14  f f . . ) . T h i s might, of course,  be  nothing more than Luke's schematization, but there i s independent evidence  from  represented  Paul's  day  i n Antioch  that  the  remained  p o i n t of view, or a t any  sort  of  controversial  r a t e was  missionary from  very d i f f e r e n t  work  Jerusalem's  from what  was  38  going on i n Jerusalem Paul's day,  (Gal 2:1-10  ). Whether t h i s was  so  before  I s h a l l d i s c u s s i n a moment.  I f Luke i s indeed t e l l i n g us t h a t the H e l l e n i s t s were ahead (to use  a  loaded  standard  Jewish  term) of Jerusalem  expectations and  i n terms of moving beyond  practices,  t h a t would a l s o f i t  w e l l as an e a r l y counterpart t o the loose a t t i t u d e toward Judaism i d e n t i f i e d i n the mainline f a i t h . Again, we c o u l d be d e a l i n g with Luke's evidence  schematization. t h a t the  successors,  Galatians  e v a n g e l i s t s of Antioch, more  lightly  or a t any  rate  f f . There,  ("certain people .  than  their  community: the s o - c a l l e d Antioch i n c i d e n t of G a l . 2:11 from Jerusalem  Law  independent  Jerusalem  37  the  supplies  the  delegates  took  But  from James") t u r n  up,  .  Cf. Goppelt 68 f . ; the involvement of P e t e r i n t h i s p r o c e s s i n the s t o r y of C o r n e l i u s , A c t s 10, c o m p l i c a t e s the matter and r a i s e s i s s u e s w e l l beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s , but i t does not c o n t r a d i c t the g e n e r a l r o l e of the H e l l e n i s t s . 38  G a l 2:1 does not a c t u a l l y say t h a t Paul and Barnabas go t o Jerusalem from A n t i o c h , but commentators normally understand i t so (e.g. Haenchen 464, Goppelt 75). Nor does the passage n e c e s s a r i l y make the Jerusalem " p i l l a r s " opponents of t h e G e n t i l e m i s s i o n , l i k e the " f a l s e b e l i e v e r s ; " but s t i l l they o b v i o u s l y need some c o n v i n c i n g , f o r i t i s a matter of "when they saw..." (v. 7), "when [the p i l l a r s ] r e c o g n i z e d . . . " (v. 9 ) .  149 and  at  then  their  the  arrival  local  first  Jewish  the  visiting  Peter  C h r i s t i a n s (except  ("Cephas"),  Paul),  withdraw  and from  t a b l e f e l l o w s h i p with G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n s . This  incident  longstanding  policy  disregarded  at  convincing. Gentile  reads  An  and  in  table. extreme  Jewish  most  naturally  which  the  Contrary case  as  Law  a  reversal  has  been  explanations  i s the  C h r i s t i a n s had  do  suggestion always  of  eaten  of  a  routinely not  seem  Downey  that  separately  and  39  t h a t the i n c i d e n t arose when Peter v i s i t e d a G e n t i l e t a b l e ; s i n c e Paul complains  of the d e f e c t i o n of "the other Jews" (Gal.  2:13), i n c l u d i n g Barnabas who 2:1,  cf.  Acts  fellowship  to  table  spent  13:1),  f o r them  e a r l y Antiochene  was  there  to  but  clearly  must  defect  p r a c t i c e was 40  fellowship,  14  but  a local  have  from.  been  Hill's  fixture  previous  own  guess  (Gal. table  i s that  more or l e s s observant with respect this  seems u n l i k e l y ;  Paul,  who  had  (or 11) years i n "the regions of S y r i a and C i l i c i a "  and  stood h i g h enough i n the Antioch congregation t o represent i t i n t a l k s i n Jerusalem observant  table  (Gal 1:21,  2:1  f f . , c f . Acts 13:1), takes  f e l l o w s h i p f o r granted  in his  account  non-  of  the  Paul's  own  41 incident. But  i s the Antiochene  contribution, period?  perhaps  from  a t t i t u d e toward the a  date  T h i s too seems u n l i k e l y . Downey 277, 280.  4 0  H i l l 140 f .  4 1  Cf. Goppelt  61.  very  For  one  early  Law  i n that  thing, t h i s  14-year  far-from-  150 s e l f - e f f a c i n g a p o s t l e makes no h i n t of a c l a i m i n G a l a t i a n s t h a t he  instituted  mixed  table  fellowship  or  other  Antiochene  p r a c t i c e s . He does not h e s i t a t e t o r e f e r t o "the gospel t h a t  was  proclaimed  by  me  the  practices  in  Antioch  eleutherian Christ  (hup'  hemon hen  Jesus"  emou)" only  (1:11),  as  "the  echomen, our  (2:4).  More  but  he  freedom  freedom  describes we  which  d e c i s i v e , however,  is  have we  (ten  have)  his  in  previous  h i s t o r y as a persecutor. He r e f e r s three times t o h i s p e r s e c u t i n g activities reason  i n the undisputed  l e t t e r s . One,  f o r h i s a c t i o n s ; the other two,  NT P h i l 3:6, the Law  1 Cor  Gal 1:13,  15:9,  gives  c f . v.  23,  (Gal 1:14,  blameless"). would  " t r a d i t i o n s of my  Most  have Jewish  Christians  or  obligations.  likely,  outraged  observant  Jewish  and  are c l o s e l y juxtaposed t o references t o h i s z e a l f o r ancestors;" NT P h i l 3:5,  t o the law, a Pharisee," v. 6 "as t o righteousness under the  who  no  then, him  he  in  Christians,  persecuted  that  respect,  rather  G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n s who  those  than had  not  law,  Christians  that  is,  observant taken  "as  on  non-  Jewish Jewish  From t h i s i t would f o l l o w t h a t such non-observant  4 2  Christians  existed  prior  to  Paul's  Damascus  road  experience. To be sure, none of t h i s evidence deals d i r e c t l y  with  A n t i o c h . But Gal 1 t e l l s us Paul "returned t o Damascus" a f t e r h i s call 22);  (v. 17) so  and was  his  "unknown by s i g h t " t o Judean C h r i s t i a n s (v.  hostile  encounters  with  non-observant  Jewish  C h r i s t i a n s seem t o have taken place p r i m a r i l y i f not e n t i r e l y i n  Z i e s l e r 25 f . ; c f . Conzelmann H i s t o r y 59, 65,  67.  151 the widening  s p i r a l of missionary a c t i v i t y which Luke a s s o c i a t e s 43  w i t h t h e H e l l e n i s t s , and which d i d e v e n t u a l l y reach A n t i o c h . I  have s a i d  entails which  this  above t h a t my  "Hellenist  much of the r e c e i v e d view: t h a t a d i s t i n c t  there  i s some  basis  for calling  evangelized G e n t i l e s and brushed and  prior  this, for  mission" explanation  t o Paul's  "the H e l l e n i s t s "  involvement.  terms  of  know whether  "Hellenists"  Luke  when  both  aside the Law, independently of In attempting  t o demonstrate  I must acknowledge many gaps i n the evidence. example,  group  himself  he  was  narrated  still  We do not, thinking i n  Philip's  mission  to  Samaria o r t h a t of the "men of Cyprus and Cyrene" t o A n t i o c h (he 44  never says so e x p l i c i t l y ) ; know  t o what  degree  these  and supposing t h a t he was, we do not Hellenists  45  construct,  were  an  •  after-the-fact  •  as opposed t o a s e l f - c o n s c i o u s s o c i o l o g i c a l  reality.  We do not know t h a t Paul's pre-conversion problem with t h e Jewish Christians  was  non-observance  46  "blasphemous"  .  as .  opposed  .  c l a i m of a c r u c i f i e d  to,  .  say, .  Messiah;  there  the .  i s more i n  h i s l e t t e r s t o support the former than the l a t t e r (see d i s c u s s i o n A c c o r d i n g t o some commentators, a l l (Goppelt 61) o r some (Bruce P e t e r . Stephen 78) of t h e e a r l y Damascus C h r i s t i a n s were observant Jews; c f . Ananias o f Damascus as "a devout man a c c o r d i n g t o t h e law and w e l l spoken of by a l l t h e Jews l i v i n g t h e r e , " A c t s 22:12 (Bruce Peter. Stephen 78). But Conzelmann's argument t h a t t h e r e must have been non-observant Jewish C h r i s t i a n s f o r Paul t o persecute (Conzelmann H i s t o r y 65) seems t o me c o n c l u s i v e . 4 4  45  Cf. H i l l 197. .  .  .  .  .  Which would not make them a f i c t i o n a l i z a t i o n , any more than e a r l y C a t h o l i c i s m o r m a i n l i n e f a i t h a r e f i c t i o n a l i z a t i o n s . Z i e s l e r 25.  152  above) , but h i s language i s suggestive, not e x p l i c i t .  We do not  know t h a t the C h r i s t i a n s Paul seems t o have been p e r s e c u t i n g i n 47 Damascus  (which  we a l s o do not q u i t e a c t u a l l y  know  ) were the  same s o r t of people or p a r t of the same missionary movement found later  i n Antioch.  observant  We  do not know  whether  t a b l e f e l l o w s h i p as an i n t e g r a l  Paul part  regarded  non-  o f "the gospel  t h a t was proclaimed by me" and thus o r i g i n a l t o him. But  we  do know  that  some  early  Jewish  C h r i s t i a n s spoke  p r i m a r i l y Aramaic, and some p r i m a r i l y Greek. We do know t h a t some took Law-observance more s e r i o u s l y and others l e s s s e r i o u s l y (Gal 2:11  ff.).  spread  We do know t h a t some stayed  i n Jerusalem  t h e message f a r and wide, even a t an e a r l y  alternatives  are not n e c e s s a r i l y b i n a r y  and others date.  oppositions;  merely be the ends of continua. But i t i s the l a t t e r i n each case —  Greek-speaking,  l e s s observant,  These  they  may  alternative  mission-minded  —  t h a t turns up i n Antioch; and i t i s the most n a t u r a l reading of Paul's  own  without  h i s help.  purpose:  a  Christians "Hellenist" j u s t those and  words  that This  not very who  this  ended  no connotation  about  i s "Hellenist  observant up  and " H e l l e n i s t terms, with  came  group  preaching mission"  i n the f i r s t mission"  instance  enough  f o r my  of Greek-speaking  Jewish  to Gentiles.  I  shall  t o mean a group d e f i n e d i n  "group" understood  of any a d d i t i o n a l  l e s s o f " H e l l e n i z a t i o n " i n the broader  i n the l o o s e s t  theological  sense,  views,  c u l t u r a l sense.  still  These a r e  the people t o whom I now propose t o t r a c e the mainline f a i t h . J . Sanders 153.  use  153  CHAPTER 13: THE HELLENIST MISSION AS SOURCE As  noted  promising  as  in  a  reservations  Chapter  source  and  of  12,  the  the  Hellenist  mainline  qualifications,  faith,  mission  and  i t s existence  seems  d e s p i t e many  stands  up  well  enough h i s t o r i c a l l y f o r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . But does the promised explanation  i n f a c t work out? I t i s time t o look once again  at  the elements of the mainline f a i t h which s t i l l need explanation. The with  r o l e of Judaism: I have argued t h a t the mainline  i t s disregard  stands  the  claims  ( i n Brown's terminology)  proposed that  of  to  argue t h a t the  a t t i t u d e . On  this  of  Judaism  t o the l e f t  Hellenist  latter  point  on  faith,  Christianity,  of Paul. I have a l s o  mission I can  i s the  look  source  f o r no  of  support  from most of the commentators I have been quoting. Hengel, f o r example, t r e a t s the H e l l e n i s t s as a "bridge" t o Paul, h i s t o r i c a l l y as w e l l as i n the l i t e r a r y conception of Luke. Goulder,  in  passing,  expresses  a  similar  view.  Hill,  though  d i s p u t i n g the very existence of the H e l l e n i s t s i n Hengel's sense, thinks out  to  Antioch  in parallel the —  more  moderate  i s the  extreme f i g u r e who  Hellenists in  the  loses  confrontation  a c o n f r o n t a t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y about Judaism's c l a i m  Christianity. theological  terms: Paul  Marshall,  whose  d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s are  doubts similar  about  the  to  Hill's,  at on  Hellenists' evaluates  H e l l e n i s t thought e n t i r e l y on the b a s i s of i t s i n f l u e n c e on Paul. Goppelt and Meyer take more complex p o s i t i o n s , but each i n e f f e c t t r e a t s the H e l l e n i s t s as a t r a n s i t i o n a l movement l e a d i n g t o full  the  flower of Pauline thought on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of Judaism to  154 C h r i s t i a n i t y . Only Brown and Meier, whose o v e r a l l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n 1 I  .  reject,  place  the  2  Hellenists to  the  left  of  Paul.  whole, i t i s f a i r t o say t h a t most commentators who  On  the  t h i n k of  the  H e l l e n i s t s at a l l (whether to a f f i r m or t o deny) t h i n k of them as Luke does: a stage on the road to Paul, who  i s the " r e a l goal of  the work [ A c t s ] " and "the one t r u e missionary t o the G e n t i l e s . " It  is  natural,  no  doubt,  to  see  the  t r a n s i t i o n a l and Paul as the f i n i s h e d product. no  books by  anyway;  the  H e l l e n i s t s i n the  New  Hellenists  A f t e r a l l , we  Testament,  not  as  have  avowedly  we have a t l e a s t seven by Paul, with s i x more claimants.  But t h i s proves nothing about the views of e a r l y C h r i s t i a n groups not represented  (or not d i r e c t l y represented)  quite  demands  properly  that  .  .  somewhere i f we it  does show up  i n our  Hellenist .  thought  should  show  but I am  arguing  somewhat developed t o be  that sure,  literature.  More  compelling  i s the  argument  that  the  H e l l e n i s t s must  have been more moderate than Paul, because they compromised 1  up  5  are t o take i t s e r i o u s l y ; at a l a t e r date,  i n the B i b l e . H i l l  with  See above, Chapter 12.  Hengel Between 29, 55; Goulder 8; H i l l 147; M a r s h a l l " P a l e s t i n i a n " 284 n. l c ; Goppelt 66, 70 f . ; Meyer 11; Brown "Rome" 6 f f . ; Meier 43 f . 2  3  Hengel Between 2,  4  3. .  The e x i s t e n c e of a H e l l e n i s t Antiochene source i n A c t s , comprising inter alia a number of the passages d i s c u s s e d i n the p r e s e n t chapter, i s much d i s p u t e d : i n f a v o r , e.g. Hengel Between 4, 54, Meyer 69; a g a i n s t , e.g. H i l l , 93 f f . , Haenchen 369. No p o s i t i o n i s taken here. 5  Hill  46.  155  the "James gang"  while he h e l d out, l e a d i n g t o h i s defeat i n and  b  .  departure  from  argument  depends  Hellenists  the  and  Hellenist upon  Paul,  on  H e l l e n i s t s went only so requirements,  .  stronghold  seeing  the  this  issue,  far in their  of  7  Antioch.  difference as  .  one  of  But  this  between  the  degree:  the  disengagement  Paul went f a r t h e r . I would argue,  from  Jewish  i n s t e a d , t h a t the  d i f f e r e n c e i s one of k i n d ; Paul and the H e l l e n i s t s were doing different the  t h i n g s . While  gospel  in  a  Paul almost  "Hellenist  certainly  mission"  first  heard  setting,  two  about  hence  his  p e r s e c u t i o n o f i t , he a l s o had  or a t l e a s t b e l i e v e d h i m s e l f t o  have  as  had  his  own  revelation,  well  as  his  own  history  of  c o n f l i c t i n Damascus and p o s s i b l y Jerusalem before ever coming t o Antioch 31);  (2 he  1 0  Cor also  11:32  f . , Gal  1:19,  retained t i e s  with  c f . Acts  Jerusalem not,  after  29-  apparently  them with A n t i o c h .  beholden  t o Antioch or the H e l l e n i s t s ; h i s approach was  and  was  9:23-25,  breaking  1 1  He  22,  i n short, a l t o g e t h e r his  own,  i t seems l i k e l y enough on the evidence of Gal 2 t h a t Paul's 12  approach was Pragmatism,  more p r i n c i p l e d , of  course,  the H e l l e n i s t s '  implies  a  certain  T h i s expression from J . Sanders  more  pragmatic.  detachment  from  160.  H i l l 147 among many others. 8  Conzelmann H i s t o r y 67.  9 Z i e s l e r 26 f  Goppelt  67.  10 H i l l 104 and n. 2. 11 Hengel Between 34. 12 Hengel Between 56; c f . Goppelt 66, Conzelmann H i s t o r y 67.  the  156 p r i n c i p l e s t o which i t i s a p p l i e d ; the w i l l i n g n e s s t o compromise at  Antioch  for  willingness  to  the  sake  brush  of  fellowship  aside  the  (Gal  whole  matter  expectations as outdated or even too d i f f i c u l t two  sides  of  the  c o n t r a d i c t i n g one far  more  same  another  credible  ancestors  of  coin,  equally  at a l l .  than  Paul  The  as  of  un-Pauline  Antiochene  view  and  but  Hellenists  and  the  Jewish  (Acts 15:10),  spiritual  Ignatius' patronizing  2:13),  are not are  intellectual  of Judaism,  and  of  the  c h e e r f u l a p p r o p r i a t i o n i s t viewpoint of our l i t e r a t u r e i n g e n e r a l . The  role  argument  of  succeeds,  Christ:  To  i t paints  the a  extent  fairly  that  clear  the  foregoing  picture  of  the  p o s i t i o n s taken by the v a r i o u s p a r t i e s concerning C h r i s t i a n i t y ' s ongoing  relationship  continuing  l o y a l t y and  to  Judaism:  observance;  for  the  Jerusalem  church,  f o r Paul, a r a d i c a l  critique  which n e v e r t h e l e s s maintained Judaism as a c e n t r a l i s s u e f o r the g o s p e l ; f o r the H e l l e n i s t s ,  a casualness w e l l on the way  t o the  i n d i f f e r e n c e or p a t r o n i z a t i o n found i n our l i t e r a t u r e . S i m i l a r c l a r i t y w i l l be d i f f i c u l t t o achieve concerning what the v a r i o u s p a r t i e s had t o say about the content of the gospel. T h i s i s p a r t l y because there i s l e s s evidence —  no e q u i v a l e n t of  the A n t i o c h i n c i d e n t or the persecution n a r r a t i v e —  and  partly  because the evidence that does e x i s t suggests t h a t the l i n e s were not  so  s h a r p l y drawn  over  this  issue  as  over  the  matter  of  comparison  of  a g a i n s t the  14  Judaism. Our primary  best evidence, texts:  c a n o n i c a l and  seven  already reviewed,  i s the  undisputed Pauline l e t t e r s  non-canonical documents by  s i x authors which make  157  up our l i t e r a t u r e . And our review has shown a d i f f e r e n c e which i s noteworthy  but  by  no  means  commonsensical  and  repentance  forgiveness of  and  and  theocentric  diametrical:  our  literature's  anthropocentric understanding  understanding  sins, of  of  atonement,  a g a i n s t Paul's p a r a d o x i c a l  the  breaking of  the  power  of  s i n . There are no pre-Pauline primary t e x t s which would permit us to  compare  the  views  of  the  Hellenists  and  the  Jerusalem  community on these matters; we have no r e c o r d of Aramaic-speaking Christianity  other than what i s mediated  through  Greek-speaking  13 Christianity, material  and commentators who  between  the  two  come up  t r y to apportion pre-Pauline with  different  example, the well-known pre-Pauline kerygmatic 15:3 by  For  formula a t 1 Cor  f f . i s a t t r i b u t e d t o the Hebrews by Meyer, t o the H e l l e n i s t s  Hengel. It  14  is  of  delineations  of  theology, of  results.  interest the  that  difference  Meyer's d i s t i n c t i o n  Easter  as  restoration  one  of  between  the  more  confident  and  Hellenist  Hebrew  between the Hebrew of  Israel  and  interpretation the  Hellenist  i n t e p r e t a t i o n of Easter as transcendence of "the e n t i r e o l d order of t h i n g s , " i s a v a r i a t i o n on, or perhaps view  of  the  two  groups'  differing  an i n f e r e n c e from, h i s  attitudes  toward  Hengel's p o s i t i o n t h a t Paul, i n h i s r o l e as a H e l l e n i s t ,  Judaism. differed  from the Jerusalem community i n " s o t e r i o l o g y and the d o c t r i n e of the law,"  seems t o be  i n the same category, though  Marshall "Palestinian"  285.  Meyer 131, Hengel Between 27.  Hengel  does  158 not  e l a b o r a t e on what he  Another  intriguing  suggests  that  Jerusalem  apostles  means by  soteriology i n t h i s  reconstruction  Paul  preached (and  is  much  that  the  of  same  context.  Goppelt,  message  t h a t t h e r e f o r e h i s synagogue  who  as  the  sermon  of  A c t s 13:16-41, so noted f o r i t s resemblance t o Peter's sermons i n Acts,  c o u l d w e l l be  requiring  historical),  c i r c u m c i s i o n of  the  comes t o t h e o l o g i c a l matters to  Judaism,"  Marshall's  christological  but  G e n t i l e s who  not  from them i n not  responded.  subsumable under  suggestion  disagreement  differed  that  i n Paul's  there  When i t  "relationship  is  no  anti-Jerusalem  sign  of  polemic  in  15  Gal 2 seems convincing. But while the evidence a v a i l a b l e does nothing t o d i s t i n g u i s h the H e l l e n i s t s observance, faith  from the Hebrews i n matters  i t does  in  certain  link  pre-Pauline  respects.  One  of  not  affecting  material to these  is  the  the  Jewish  mainline  matter  of  atonement or e x p i a t i o n . In Paul's l e t t e r s "the theme of e x p i a t i o n is  almost  formulas,"  wholly 16  confined  to  the  citation  of  pre-Pauline  and while Paul himself has expanded the  significance  17  of  the  cross  preoccupation literature.  to with  "the  whole  sins  Pre-eminent  and  human  dilemma,"  forgiveness  among such  formulas  the  familiar  resurfaces i s that  at  in  our  NT  Rom  15  Hengel Between 40, Goppelt 74, M a r s h a l l " P a l e s t i n i a n " 280. 1 6  Meyer  119.  17  Meyer 163. To g i v e a rounded p i c t u r e of Meyer's p o s i t i o n , i t should be noted t h a t w h i l e he sees P a u l as having gone beyond p r e - P a u l i n e c r o s s - a s - e x p i a t i o n f o r m u l a t i o n s , he a l s o sees e x p i a t i o n as remaining c e n t r a l t o Paul's thought r a t h e r than as i n any way p e r i p h e r a l (Meyer 117 f f . ) .  159  3:25,  which  makes  Christ  a  "sacrifice  of  atonement  'place of atonement') by h i s blood," hilasterion  (NRSV  mg.  ... en to autou 18  haimati.  Hilasterion  can  also  be  translated  "mercy  seat"  or  19 "propitiatory,"  the  with blood on the Day  l i d on  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  of Atonement, so t h i s formula  sprinked  inherited  by  Paul may be seen as implying t h a t Jesus supersedes the Temple 20 . . . . . . cult; Meyer d e s c r i b e s t h i s i m p l i c a t i o n as "the s i g n a t u r e of the 21 . . . hellenistai,"  but  of  course  this  interpretation  depends  h i s previously-mentioned dichotomy between Hebrews who as r e s t o r a t i o n and  H e l l e n i s t s who  saw  saw  Easter  i t as transcendence.  dichotomy has a c e r t a i n obvious p l a u s i b i l i t y ,  upon  That  but i t goes beyond  what can be proved from a v a i l a b l e evidence. The  r o l e of the C h r i s t i a n :  emphasis  on  Hellenistic,  moral  uprightness  though there  Still be  l e s s can our shown  to  be  literature's specifically  i s some room f o r s p e c u l a t i o n t o  this  e f f e c t . Moral uprightness i n f i r s t century Judaism was of course 22 . . t i e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o the Law. Paul's e t h i c s a l s o remain t i e d t o the  Law  in  theoretical G e n t i l e s , who but  who 1 8  practice, problems  as  for  E. "the  Sanders Jewish  notes, apostle  creating seeking  to  f o r m a l l y s a i d t h a t they were not bound by the  g e n e r a l l y thought t h a t they should do So both NRSV and BAGD a t Heb 9:5.  1 9  So Meyer 79.  2 0  So Meyer 79 f . ; Fitzmyer "Romans" 840 f .  2 1  Meyer 88.  2 2  Cf. Z i e s l e r 76, E. Sanders P a l e s t i n i a n  2 3  E. Sanders Paul  105.  what  544.  some win  law, 23 i t says."  160  Morals  are  Paul's  letters,  Christ  less  prominent because  r a t h e r than any  of  to  ethics.  Our  literature,  of  concern  its  lack  emphasize  the  his  sort  unwillingness 2 4  (though  point  no  emphasis  means on  of human e f f o r t  to  the  Law  as  a  neglected)  divine and  because  ground  of  i t s Jewish  of e t h i c s  heritage,  ( i . e . ultimately  .  higher,  plausibility  Jewishness —  of h i s  afford  to  (e.g. 1  Tm  ). There i s , t o put i t no  i n suggesting t h a t  rather  and  Law-based),  Jewish  with h i g h s u r v i v a b i l i t y i n a G e n t i l e church were mediated a Jewish movement t h a t was  in  25  f . , 1 Clement passim  a certain  in  Christian  can  without worrying overmuch about where they come from 1:8-11, 2 Pt 2:7  action  with i t s a n t h r o p o c e n t r i c approach  for  same s o r t  by  breezily  pragmatic  ideas  through  about i t s  i n other words, the H e l l e n i s t s as I have portrayed  them above. In summary, the H e l l e n i s t mission, as I have d e s c r i b e d i t , seems  a  toward  very  likely  Judaism.  theological Judaism,  and  source  Evidence ethical  of  on  the  the  mainline  faith's  content  of  apart  from  teaching,  the the  attitude  Hellenists* matter  of  i s t h i n , but such evidence as e x i s t s i s c o n s i s t e n t with  the c h i e f f e a t u r e s of the mainline f a i t h . A FEW  DIFFICULTIES AND  THEIR SOLUTIONS  The a p o s t o l i c decree and Paul's observance i n A c t s : As noted above  (Chapters 7,  denying  normative  10),  the  status  E. Sanders Paul 103, 2 5  picture  to  of  our  i t s Jewish  89.  Cf. Bultmann 112 f o r 1 Clement.  mainline f a i t h  heritage  is  as  marred  161 somewhat decree  by  two  of  aspects  15:20,  29  of  and  the the  Acts  narrative:  book's  the  portrayal  apostolic  of  Paul  as  observant, e s p e c i a l l y i n chapter 21. The decree i s the i m p o s i t i o n of a f o u r f o l d p r o h i b i t i o n , o r i g i n a t i n g i n the Law  or a t l e a s t i n  26 Jewish "from  sensibilities, things  whatever has  upon G e n t i l e converts: t h a t they a b s t a i n  polluted  by  idols  and  been s t r a n g l e d and  from  h i m s e l f w i l l i n g t o undertake refute  charges  t h a t he  from  fornication  blood"  (15:20).  an act of Jewish  preaches  abandonment of the  a normative  literature — faith  Paul shows  Law  to  (21:21-  (16:3) and t o  b e l i e f i n "everything l a i d down a c c o r d i n g t o the  law or w r i t t e n i n the prophets" Judaism  from  p i e t y designed  26), as w e l l as t o circumcise one of h i s a s s i s t a n t s p r o c l a i m h i s own  and  (24:14). I s not a l l t h i s t o g i v e  s t a t u s out of keeping  with the r e s t  of  our  and out of keeping with my t h e s i s t h a t the mainline  i s t o be  t r a c e d t o a group of Jewish  Christians  who  had  abandoned normative s t a t u s f o r Judaism? Acts,  u n l i k e the  rest  of  our  literature,  is a  narrative;  t h e r e f o r e i t i s always p o s s i b l e i n p r i n c i p l e t o e x p l a i n anything i n i t as genuine h i s t o r y r a t h e r than as t h e o l o g i c a l l y  motivated.  In p r a c t i c e t h i s i s always c o n t r o v e r s i a l where A c t s i s concerned, and  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  chapter 15,  of the a p o s t o l i c  the s o - c a l l e d  decree  "apostolic council,"  to  i t s context i n  i s especially  so;  even the c o n s e r v a t i v e Bruce suggests t h a t the chapter t r e a t s  two  d i f f e r e n t meetings as i f they were one.  27  Nevertheless, t h e r e i s  26  So, v a r i o u s l y , Conzelmann A c t s 118, Haenchen 469, Segal 197 f f . 2 7  Bruce "Paul of A c t s " 291.  Munck 140 f . ,  162 s t r o n g independent evidence f o r h i s t o r i c i t y of the decree or a t l e a s t  something  are found w e l l  very l i k e  it:  itself,  references t o s i m i l a r  rules  i n t o the second century or even the beginning of  the t h i r d . J u s t i n r e f e r s t o the p r o h i b i t i o n of meat s a c r i f i c e d t o idols  (Dialogue with Trypho  30:6)  and  Tertullian  consumption  34:7)  (Apology  and  9:13  Minucius  f.)  of blood, as does Eusebius  refer  Felix to  (Octavius  the  i n an account  ban  of a  on late  2 8  second-century  martyrdom  (Ecclesiastical  History  5:1:26).  None  of t h i s proves t h a t these r u l e s o r i g i n a t e d i n a formal decree as 29  portrayed  by  Luke,  .  but  .  at a minimum  .  i t seems c l e a r  r u l e s themselves were already r e a l i n Luke's own  that  the  time; Haenchen's  argument t h a t Luke would h a r d l y have a t t r i b u t e d the decree t o the Holy S p i r i t  (Acts 15:28) i f i t were not a matter of p r a c t i c e f o r  h i s own readers seems p e r s u a s i v e . The  30  s u r v i v a l of such r u l e s f o r so many decades i s i n i t s e l f  good evidence of a non-Pauline C h r i s t i a n mainstream. Paul h i m s e l f appears not t o have enforced any such decree i n h i s own a t any r a t e he does not mention  it,  even n e g a t i v e l y , when he i s  d i s c u s s i n g matters t o which i t might apply (NT Rom 8,  10) .  3 1  So  i t s survival  Achtemeier Goppelt 78 n. 4.  churches;  14,  15,  1 Cor  i n l a t e r orthodox  circles  can only be  85, Haenchen 471 f . , H i l l  144 n.  163,  W i l s o n G e n t i l e s 190, f o l l o w i n g Walter Schmithals i n P a u l and James (London, 1965), t r e a t s second-century c i t a t i o n s as " i n c i d e n t a l p a r a l l e l s " t o A c t s 15 which "do not e l u c i d a t e the decree i n i t s p r e s e n t c o n t e x t . " 3 0  Haenchen 470, c f . a l s o Wilson Related 61, G e n t i l e s  191.  Z i e s l e r 134 f . ; Bruce "Paul of A c t s " 291 f . ; Meyer 106 n. 2. Liidemann 171 suggests the decree may have been aimed o n l y 3 1  163  explained  by  Paul's,  stream  a  the  existence of which a t l e a s t  nevertheless  creates at  thesis  the  that  a  least  mainline  Christian ended up  a prima  faith  stream  parallel  orthodox.  facie  The  difficulty  exemplified i n A c t s  course, the r e s t of our l i t e r a t u r e ) had,  to  decree for  my  (and,  of  and came from a source  which had, no normative l o y a l t y t o Judaism. While matter that  of  i t seems very c l e a r that the decree o r i g i n a t e d  as  normative  hold  i t soon  Jewish  observance,  ceased t o be regarded  the decree was  many  in this  commentators  light.  Goppelt  generation  says  i n t e r p r e t e d as a p r o t e s t a g a i n s t paganism and  g n o s t i c , l i b e r t i n e C h r i s t i a n i t y " as e a r l y as the second  "a  Christian  as shown by Rev  2:14,  20, 24; while i n the second century i t was taken i n a moral  sense  to  apply  (hence e a r l y enough f o r A c t s ) ,  a  to  "the  three  mortal  sins:  idolatry,  murder  and  a d u l t e r y , " as shown by the "Western t e x t " of Acts which removes "whatever has  been s t r a n g l e d "  (the most o b v i o u s l y r i t u a l  from the p r o h i b i t i o n s a t both w. the "Golden R u l e . "  item)  20 and 29 and r e p l a c e s i t with  32  That the understanding of the decree was  solely  moral, even  i n the l a t e second century, cannot very w e l l be maintained,  since  Minucius F e l i x , T e r t u l l i a n and Eusebius' martyr B i b l i s a l l s t r e s s t h a t they cannot eat animals' of an a fortiori  blood, though  they say so as p a r t  argument that they cannot eat human beings or,  a t p l a c e s l i k e A n t i o c h and not even intended f o r P a u l ' s "predominantly G e n t i l e - C h r i s t i a n communities." Goppelt 78 f . and nn. 4, 5; c f . Haenchen 449 and n. 471 f . , Conzelmann H i s t o r y 90, UBS mg. 3 2  6,  164  for  Minucius  Felix  Felix,  30:6).  even  "hear  Tertullian  of  human  additionally  slaughter" mentions  (Minucius  that  pagan  p e r s e c u t o r s o f f e r suspected C h r i s t i a n s blood sausage t o t e s t them 33  (Apology origin  ,  9:14).  Nor  is  ,  .  i t credible  that  Luke  imagined  the  of the decree t o be a matter of m o r a l i t y , s i n c e he s e t s i t  (accurately  or  artificially)  in  the  midst  of  an  explicit  d i s c u s s i o n of Jewish observance. I t does seem a t l e a s t as  likely 34  as  not,  given the  lack  of Jewish  ties  of the  t h a t t h e i r understanding of the decree was  later  writers,  indeed anti-pagan, as  Goppelt suggests. Acts i t s e l f  i s a more problematic case. I t i s  perhaps  Luke  just  significance  possible  that  of  decree  notwithstanding only  subsequent  the  i t s origin; mention  of  also  as  regarded  anti-pagan  or  but he does not say the  decree  the  (21:25)  enduring  as  moral,  so, and  as h i s  i s also  i n the  context of a d i s c u s s i o n of observance, i t seems most u n l i k e l y . A more l i k e l y explanation of the r o l e of the decree i n Acts i s that, f i r s t ,  the content of the decree i t s e l f  35  .  reality; eyes)  i s a historical  secondly,  that  the  the  Christians  decree  i s one  more  were  zealous  not  proof to .  33  ( i n Luke's  offend against .  .  C f . a l s o Segal 197: church t r a d i t i o n on the q u e s t i o n o f "blood" o s c i l l a t e d between a m o r a l i z i n g and a r i t u a l understanding. 34  Haenchen 471, Achtemeier 65 f . 35  ,  ,  T h i s i s not t o suggest t h a t Luke i n c l u d e d every r e l e v a n t " h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t y " i n h i s n a r r a t i v e ; to take the most obvious case, he says n o t h i n g of the q u a r r e l between P e t e r and P a u l a t A n t i o c h (Haenchen 475 f f . , Bruce "Paul of A c t s " 290). I t i s , however, t o suggest t h a t t r u t h , even i f t o l d i n an " o r d e r l y " way which f a v o r s t h e o l o g i c a l purpose over h i s t o r i c a l d e t a i l ( c f . Achtemeier 73 f . ) , i s an important c r i t e r i o n i n h i s work.  165  Judaism,  so  t h a t any  and  a l l estrangement  Jewish s i d e ( c f . a l s o Acts 7:51  ff.;  3 6  i s the  13:46, 18:6,  fault  of  the  2 8 : 2 6 ) . That 37  the decree i s , from both i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l evidence, s t i l l i n e f f e c t f o r Luke's readers i s indeed an anomaly i n our and  a  modification  of  Luke's  more  literature,  characteristic  casualness 38  toward Judaism; but t h a t casualness remains the dominant note of Acts  (which Paul does not share (I again s t r e s s the  )  thoroughly  39  un-Paulme A c t s  ),  15:10  accords w e l l with  comes a l t o g e t h e r c r e d i b l y from  our  a movement such  literature, as our  and  Hellenist  mission which has ceased t o pay much a t t e n t i o n t o Judaism. A c t s ' p o r t r a y a l of Paul as observant the  decree  not  only  in  that  it  i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t of underlines  Christian  i n o f f e n s i v e n e s s t o Judaism, but a l s o i n t h a t there i s no d e c i s i v e reason why such  i t could not be h i s t o r i c a l l y t r u e . There i s indeed  e x t r a c a n o n i c a l evidence  f o r an  observant  Paul  as  for  no the  decree, and some commentators argue t h a t the r e a l Paul c o u l d not have  had  redemption  Timothy of  circumcised  Nazirites  (21:23  (16:3) ff.)  or for  gone the  through  stated  the  purpose  40 without  gross hypocrisy.  Against t h i s ,  i t may  Paul should be taken a t h i s word i n 1 Cor 9:20, "as one under the law," H i l l 74 f f .  be  argued  w i l l i n g to  that live  and t h a t the disputed events i n A c t s are  J O  3 7  Haenchen 729, Conzelmann Acts 106,  3 8  Goppelt  3 9  Haenchen 112 f .  4 0  E.g. V i e l h a u e r 39 f f .  57.  227.  166 .  41  an example of t h i s . is  .  .  To r u l e out the h i s t o r i c i t y of these  t o presume without  warrant  t h a t we  events  can know what Paul would 42  not  have  said  a p o s t l e as,  or  done  i n given  circumstances;  i n Munck's d e l i g h t f u l phrase,  to  treat  "the austere  the  champion 43  of  Paulinism, an arm  But  historical  or  c h a i r theologian and otherwise,  Paul's  not  a human being."  observance  (unlike  the  44  decree)  has  no  not r a d i c a l l y with  the  normative  status f o r Luke's readers,  out of keeping with the r e s t of our  theory  of  a  Hellenist  origin  f o r the  and  so i s  literature mainline  or  faith  embodied i n A c t s . The that  survival  the  of  the  "Hellenist  congregation  was  to  Hellenists  mission" the  left  i n Antioch:  which of  Paul  I  founded with  the  a l s o t h a t i t i s the  mainline  literature.  found  i n our  I have  accepted the widely-held view t h a t the non-observant the A n t i o c h congregation was the  right.  But  literature, Judaism,  and  is  as a key  43  the  however,  practice  of  exemplar of the mainline  faith  i n our  indeed the most d i s m i s s i v e of our authors toward  Ignatius  of  Stowers 76 f .  Munck xxxiv. Goppelt  of  its  s u c c e s s f u l l y ended by the f o r c e s of  Antioch,  So Bruce "Paul of A c t s " 294 182 f . and n. 96, and even Haenchen a c c e p t s o n l y the N a z i r i t e i n c i d e n t , Timothy, but t r e a t s even the l a t t e r Cf.  to  source also,  argued Antioch  respect  r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Judaism, and faith  have  79.  I  need  to  explain  how  f f . , more c a u t i o u s l y H i l l 611 f . , c f . 482. Haenchen not the c i r c u m c i s i o n of as Luke's honest b e l i e f .  my  167 Hellenist  trajectory  survived  i t s defeat  i n Ignatius' c i t y to  reappear 60 years or so l a t e r i n h i s l e t t e r s . Here  I  essentially Meier.  think  the account  While  incident,  the  the  solution offered,  principled  the pragmatic  is on  Paul  Hellenists  fairly  this left  simple.  specific town  It is  issue,  following  stayed and bided t h e i r  A f t e r 70 CE, the i n f l u e n c e of Jerusalem and of Judaism  by the  time.  i n general  45  diminished. decree  I f the community  (as i t may  well  continued t o obey t h e a p o s t o l i c  have  done,  see  discussion  above) ,  consciousness o f t h a t decree as an e x e r c i s e i n Jewish  observance  must  after  have  faded  rapidly.  The  result,  s i x decades  the  i n c i d e n t , i s the a t t i t u d e o f I g n a t i u s ; and while the pungency o f his  d i s m i s s a l o f Judaism may be p e c u l i a r l y h i s own, i t s substance  (or  l a c k o f substance, from a Jewish viewpoint) s t r o n g l y suggests  t h a t d i s r e g a r d of C h r i s t i a n i t y ' s Jewish h e r i t a g e was general i n his  congregation.  46  Clement and Ignatius on Judaism: My H e l l e n i s t hypothesis i s intended  to  explain  literature  Clement, who w r i t e about And  while  trajectory 4 5  46  with  Ignatius  can have  Judaism  including  i n strikingly  the question  survived  both  a setback  Ignatius  different  i s how t o reach  the  and  tones.  Hellenist  h i s day (see  Meier 43 f .  . . I do not f o l l o w Meier's l a r g e r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , which p l a c e s t h e h e a v i l y Jewish Gospel of Matthew s q u a r e l y on t h e t r a j e c t o r y from t h e A n t i o c h i n c i d e n t t o I g n a t i u s (Meier 13 f . and passim). While I agree t h a t I g n a t i u s p r o b a b l y knew Matthew's g o s p e l (Meier 24 f . and n. 57), i t seems t o me t h a t I g n a t i u s ' a t t i t u d e i s much e a s i e r t o e x p l a i n i f Matthew's m i l i e u p l a y s no p a r t i n h i s background.  168  discussion  above),  the  question  with  Clement  is  how  such  a  t r a j e c t o r y can be thought t o have been headed i n h i s d i r e c t i o n at all.  For I have defined the H e l l e n i s t s l a r g e l y i n terms of  their  low regard f o r Judaism as a normative f o r c e ; but Clement appears t o show a high regard f o r Judaism as a normative f o r c e , which i s one  reason he  is  to  the  i s o f t e n thought t o represent a Roman church  right  of  47  Paul.  Brown's  reconstruction  and  also  has  which Rome  48  evangelized  from  Jerusalem  is  supported  by  the  argument t h a t NT Romans represents Paul's attempt t o moderate h i s inflammatory  rhetoric  Jewish-Christian Not  audience.  everyone  Jerusalem,  from  Galatians  for  a  more  conservative  49  agrees  that  Christianity  came  or i n a conservative form. Koester  to  Rome  from  i s convinced  that  the gospel d r i f t e d i n t o the world c a p i t a l from v a r i o u s d i r e c t i o n s as was  converts  happened t o move there. Goppelt  probably  brand  of  Christianity;  congregation community  evangelized  K.  Aland  and  also  represented considers  t h a t Rome the the  same Roman  a H e l l e n i s t foundation; Meyer argues t h a t the Roman  was  "weak" and  from Antioch  suggests  Law-free  before  "strong" at NT Rom  Paul,  hence  the  discussion  of  14:1-15:13; and T. Robinson argues  t h a t the expulsion of p o s s i b l y C h r i s t i a n Jews by  Claudius  i n 49  CE  Claudius  25:4)  for  riots  "impulsore  Chresto"  (Suetonius,  E.g. J . Sanders 219; Brown "Rome" 159 f f . Brown "Rome" 103 f . Brown "Rome" 111 f f .  169 .  ,  .  .  .  .  50  suggests a r a d i c a l , not a conservative, Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y .  In  the end,  be  the o r i g i n  and  nature of Roman C h r i s t i a n i t y  .  51  •  determined on the a v a i l a b l e evidence, is  the  evidence  for  the  cannot  and what we are l e f t with  turn-of-the-century  community  as  r e f l e c t e d i n 1 Clement. Clement i s indeed kind and considerate i n h i s r e f e r e n c e s t o a l l t h i n g s Jewish, i n contrast t o the i r a s c i b l e I g n a t i u s . But argued  above  Judaism  as  Ignatius, history  (Chapter  Judaism and  substance  i s no  though  i n Rome up  7), h i s Jewishness  we  more normative remain  largely  t o Clement's time,  of Clement's own  Christianity  i s only  superficial;  f o r Clement ignorant  of  than  there i s nothing i n the that  would  not  Koester 94, Goppelt 61, K. Aland 48, Meyer 105, 78 f f . and n. 103. So T. Robinson  81.  for  Christian  f i t the  H e l l e n i s t hypothesis.  Robinson  as  T.  170  CHAPTER 14: EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS In Chapter Chapter  10 I answered the f i r s t  two questions posed i n  1: I s there a mainline f a i t h u n i t i n g our l i t e r a t u r e  a g a i n s t Paul? What i s i t s content? There i s , I concluded,  over  such a  m a i n l i n e o r i e n t a t i o n t o be found i n the l i t e r a t u r e , v a r i e d though it  i s , provided  one does not use too demanding  a standard of  " u n i t i n g , " and e s p e c i a l l y o f "over a g a i n s t . " For our l i t e r a t u r e i s seldom i f ever d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed t o the theology o f Paul's undisputed  letters;  commonsensical, with  respect  paradoxical, account  I c h a r a c t e r i z e d i t as c l u s t e r e d  general to  the  specific  and anthropocentric end of a topics  at  issue,  with  as i t d i f f e r s  from  Paul,  the  continuum  Paul  and t h e o c e n t r i c end. I a l s o  o f i t s content,  near  a t the  provided under  an  four  headings: the r o l e of C h r i s t , the r o l e of the C h r i s t i a n , the r o l e of Judaism, and the r o l e of Paul and the a p o s t l e s . In  Chapters  11-13  I have  been  attempting  remaining questions about the mainline f a i t h — from?  When  theories, literature tenets  d i d i t arise?  including  my  own,  —  by  Where d i d i t come several  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p  and Paul. I t i s time  o f the mainline f a i t h ,  examining  t o answer the  overall  between our  now t o r e t u r n t o the s p e c i f i c  t o see what has or has not been  demonstrated about the o r i g i n of each,  p a r t i c u l a r l y with r e s p e c t  t o my own theory of the H e l l e n i s t mission o r i g i n of the mainline faith.  171 THE ROLE OF CHRIST Christ settled Paul's  as  use  s a v i o r : Our  of  literature  " s a v i o r " as  s i n g l e use  of the  a  displays a  present-tense  noun, and  conventional,  title  for Christ.  h i s s i n g l e use  of  "save" i n reference t o C h r i s t , are both f u t u r e tense, reference  to  the  parousia.  As  "early  Catholicism"  is  i n terms of the  nothing  could be more n a t u r a l than t h a t " s a v i o r " should meaning  necessarily  mean  impossible say)  the  "true,"  an  of  atmosphere. course;  it  t h a t some e v a n g e l i s t s i n the  already  here,  i n such  preached  balance  of  C h r i s t as  the  probabilities  30s  verb  clearly  defined  future-tense  l o s s of an a c t i v e parousia  the  a  largely  expectation, lose i t s  "Natural"  does  is  logically  CE  not (the  present-tense  appears t o  not  Hellenists, savior.  favor  the  But  early  C a t h o l i c i s m theory. Christ's  atoning  death: As  this  P a u l i n e passages i n the undisputed it  dates  from  Hellenists  before  r e p l a c e s the  hellenistai"  "Hebrews" who Christian  saw  The  convenience  only be  Meyer 88.  noted  is  in  pre-  i t seems c l e a r t h a t specifically  i n Chapter  language of NT  as  who  the  r e s t o r a t i o n of  saw  demonstrable called  it  i s found  Rom  to  13,  3:25,  the  Meyer's i n which  "signature  of  the  h i s dichotomy between Jewish C h r i s t i a n  Easter  "Hellenists"  As  Temple c u l t ,  depends on  1  order.  atonement  letters,  Tracing  i s another matter.  a s s e r t i o n t h a t the Christ  Paul.  concept  i t as  transcendence  dichotomy  Hebrews  and  Israel  between  Hellenists  and of  Jewish the  old  may  for  involves  Law  what  172  observance (at l e a s t with respect t o t a b l e f e l l o w s h i p ) , as i n Gal 2.  That  that  attitudes own the  dichotomy  should  toward Judaism  reflect  a  broader  seems p l a u s i b l e enough,  dichotomy and  theory g e n e r a l l y a f f i r m s t h i s , but there i s no way details;  speculative atoning,  it  is  not  example)  the  impossible "Hebrews"  that too  i n a manner e i t h e r superseding  (to  saw  All  we  just  one  C h r i s t ' s death  or f u l f i l l i n g  as  the Temple  Law.  can know i s t h a t somebody i n the C h r i s t i a n movement  preaching  know whether latter  my  of knowing  take  c u l t , while s t i l l b e l i e v i n g themselves bound to the  was  indeed  of  C h r i s t ' s death as i t was  is likely  a  certain  enough.  But  atoning  before  somebody, or given  Paul;  we  everybody,  t h a t atonement  cannot and  language i s  pre-Pauline and s u r v i v e d to the time of our l i t e r a t u r e , and the geographical l i m i t a t i o n s on Paul's i n f l u e n c e , c e r t a i n t h a t atonement theology was  3  the  given  i t seems q u i t e  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of an  ongoing  stream of C h r i s t i a n teaching q u i t e apart from Paul. There i s no evidence  t h a t t h i s teaching o r i g i n a t e d with  t h e r e i s e q u a l l y no evidence,  and no  the H e l l e n i s t s ,  but  l i k e l i h o o d , t h a t i t was  not  p a r t of t h e i r teaching. The  lack  of  r e f e r e n c e s i n our  stress  on  C h r i s t ' s death:  The  l i t e r a t u r e t o C h r i s t ' s death and  vagueness  of  i t s function  4  was  noted  i n Chapter 3 and subsequently.  I t i s d i f f i c u l t to give  anything but a vague explanation f o r i t . The pre-Pauline passages 2 3  Cf. E. Sanders P a l e s t i n i a n 463. Conzelmann H i s t o r y 68,  112.  E.g. V i e l h a u e r 36, 45 f o r A c t s , Corwin 172 I g n a t i u s , Z i e s l e r 139 f o r the P a s t o r a l s . 4  f. for  173 noted i n Chapter 10 are vague up t o a p o i n t —  the  significance 5  of  Christ's  the  other  purposes,  death hand  as  " f o r us" goes unexplained i n them Paul  can  sharpen  i n adding h i s own  such  formulas  characteristic  for  to  get  a  reliable  picture  of  Bultmann c o n s i d e r s a lack of c l a r i t y  the  but his  "to s e t us  from the present e v i l age" t o the formula a t Gal 1:4, hard  —  6  pre-Pauline  on own  free  so i t i s situation.  i n the theology of C h r i s t ' s  .  .  7  death t o have been c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the " H e l l e n i s t i c kerygma," but h i s account  includes reference t o " H e l l e n i s t i c syncretism,"  which p l a y s no p a r t i n my  own  more r e s t r a i n e d d e f i n i t i o n of the  " H e l l e n i s t mission," so I cannot f o l l o w him with any confidence. It  seems u n l i k e l y ,  would lose  however, t h a t the theology o f C h r i s t ' s  clarity  over time, and  Christianity  took  death  its first 9  impetus from the r e s u r r e c t i o n r a t h e r than the c r u c i f i x i o n ,  so i t  seems  about  entirely  probable  C h r i s t ' s death was  that  our  literature's  vagueness  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a stream o r i g i n a t i n g before  Paul, s u r v i v i n g alongside him and appearing i n our l i t e r a t u r e . Repentance  and  exception of NT Rom  forgiveness of 3:25,  sins:  With  the  possible  forgiveness does not appear i n the p r e -  P a u l i n e passages, nor does repentance a t a l l .  Both are, however,  t i e d t o " s i n s " considered as transgressions, as i s atonement. A l l Z i e s l e r 91. E. Sanders P a l e s t i n i a n 465. 5  6  7  Bultmann 81. Q  Chapter 9  Once a g a i n I acknowledge the danger of anachronism. 1.  Koester 83 f .  See  174 are  part  of  the  first-century  Judaism  notwithstanding again, him,  a  and  same economy and  10  in  earliest  remain  so  Paul's more profound  trajectory surviving  arising into  in  our  Christian  Paul,  literature  Hellenists  of  in  literature,  continuing  i s the  most  Antioch  alongside reasonable  e x p l a n a t i o n . Once again, there i s no p o s i t i v e evidence Jewish  as  and p a r a d o x i c a l ideas. Once  before  our  Christianity  participated  that in  the this  t r a j e c t o r y ; once again, there i s no l i k e l i h o o d t h a t they d i d not. THE ROLE OF THE CHRISTIAN The  centrality  of  characteristics  of our  the  use  moralizing  p l e a s i n g God its  gospel" morals,  is  one  literature.  of  of  the  most  striking  T h i s i s shown i n many ways:  dikaiosune,  the  various  references  or doing good deeds, the s t a t u s of conscience.  clearest  exhortation  morals  manifestation  with  (1 Tm  is  expressions  in  such  1:11), expressions  the  as  association  "the  faith"  which suggest  or  of  to But  moral  even  "the  that t h i s , i . e .  i s what C h r i s t i a n preaching i s a l l about.  While  a  call  to  holy  passages noted  i n Chapter  difficult  see  to  in  10  living  i s part  of  the  pre-Pauline  (1 Thess 4:1-8, Gal 5:19-21), i t i s  these  paranetical  snippets  the  same  c e n t r a l i t y as i n our l i t e r a t u r e . On the other hand, i t i s easy t o see i n our l i t e r a t u r e an outlook c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a church t h a t has  lost  i t s e s c h a t o l o g i c a l edge and  focused d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y  on the r e c t i t u d e necessary t o maintain i t s e l f last indefinitely —  i n a world t h a t  t h a t i s , the outlook of e a r l y C a t h o l i c i s m .  E. Sanders Paul 78 f .  may  175 Against t h i s i t may brackets that and  i t s moral  i s at holy  least  living  found i n Acts ff.),  1  of Acts  teaching  with  officially  an  still  (24:15 f . , 17:30  (1 Tm  (ch.  6:14).  22  alive.  This  link  2 Peter,  f . and  f.,  literature  explicitly  eschatological  i s the whole p o i n t of  Clement  Pastorals  be noted t h a t our  in  of  and  elsewhere),  culminating  expectation parousia  i t i s also  Polycarp 23:5)  (2:1  and  the  Schwartz suggests t h a t the whole message  11  i s t h a t the general r e s u r r e c t i o n has  begun (with Jesus), 12  and  so  i t i s time  to  get  morally  prepared;  i f that  message  c o u l d be a t a l l c r e d i b l e h a l f a century or more a f t e r Easter,  how  much more so i n the e a r l y days? Moral parenesis was 13  the  earliest  gospel;  how  big  The  most  p l a u s i b l e answer i s t h a t the moralism of our l i t e r a t u r e has  roots  i n the e a r l i e s t preaching  a  part  but has  i s the  p a r t of  question.  been much accentuated  by e a r l y  c a t h o l i c trends. I  argued  briefly  i n Chapter  13  that  the  Hellenists,  t h e i r pragmatic a t t i t u d e toward Judaism, are good candidates mediated  church.  That they made m o r a l i t y as c e n t r a l as our l i t e r a t u r e does  another  Law-based  matter.  Again,  we  morality  have  no  to  the  direct  eventual  for  having  is  a  with  evidence  Gentile  of  the  H e l l e n i s t s ' p o s i t i o n , and I would not even c l a i m p l a u s i b i l i t y f o r any  suggestion  that  the  H e l l e n i s t s were  as  m o r a l i s t i c as  " I g n a t i u s (IgEph ch. 10-11:1) a l s o l i n k s p a r a n e s i s and p a r o u s i a , but h i s e x h o r t a t i o n i s t o h e r o i c C h r i s t i a n v i r t u e r a t h e r than t o stock m o r a l i t y . J  L  1 2  Schwartz 20 f f .  1 3  E. Sanders Paul  22.  the  176 Pastor  or Clement, but n e i t h e r i s i t p l a u s i b l e t h a t they were as  s u b t l e and p a r a d o x i c a l THE  ROLE OF PAUL AND Authority:  of  apostolic  notably to  be  the  We  have no  authority.  worth  they  Hellenists  anything,  the  pre-Pauline It  that he  citing  that  Paul.  THE APOSTLES  Galatians,  implies  i n t h e i r moral teaching as  as  account  obvious  considers  from  any  i n Acts  exercise  Paul's  letters,  of  would  counterparts  i t s u i t s him,  a u t h o r i t y . We point  the  his apostolic  a u t h o r i t i e s when  exercise  made  is  evidence of  have no  evidence  apostolic suggest  and  he that  authority;  that  the  if  apostles  were more concerned about the H e l l e n i s t s than v i c e - v e r s a . Unanimity: Any Paul's day that  of  total  a p o s t o l i c unanimity  i s b e l i e d by G a l a t i a n s . I t i s not l o g i c a l l y  there  disrupted, ideal,  suggestion  was but  such  a  concept  before  i t seems much more l i k e l y  f o s t e r e d by  e a r l y c a t h o l i c trends.  in  impossible  him,  which  he  then  that  i t was  a  later  There i s c e r t a i n l y no  reason t o a t t r i b u t e i t to the H e l l e n i s t s . Continuity:  Our  literature's  concern  for  continuity  of  a p o s t o l i c teaching or a u t h o r i t y reads most n a t u r a l l y as something that  has  become an  a r i s e n when enough time has  passed  for  continuity  i s s u e . At an e a r l i e r date, a l i v e l y enough  to  expectation  of the parousia would make c o n t i n u i t y an i r r e l e v a n c y . I t i s again not  logically  impossible  a p o s t l e s ' mind, but certainly  none  Hellenists. Catholicism.  This  that some form of c o n t i n u i t y was  there  that again  i s no  would  e a r l y evidence t h a t  attribute  appears  to  be  this a  i t was,  concern question  on  to of  the and the  early  177  Correct  doctrine:  The  early  Catholicism  explanation  that  c o r r e c t d o c t r i n e became an issue when threatened by heresy seems plausible. that,  I t would be hard  s i n c e concern  Paul's undisputed  t o put the matter  f o r correct  letters,  any higher  preaching can a l s o  and i t seems u n l i k e l y  than  be found i n  that  even the  e a r l i e s t preachers would be t o t a l l y unconcerned  or unaware of the  issue;  degree,  i t would  appear  t o be  a  matter  of  with  l i t e r a t u r e d i s p l a y i n g a concern that has grown over time.  our There  i s no evidence as t o the H e l l e n i s t s ' views i n t h i s area. THE ROLE OF JUDAISM The a t t i t u d e of our l i t e r a t u r e toward be  obvious  thesis,  by  and  now,  Judaism  i s , as should  the centrepiece of the argument  the t o p i c  on  which  I  differ  most  of  from  this  standard  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . I have argued that our l i t e r a t u r e i s , i n Brown's terminology, t o the l e f t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Judaism, Paul  Christianity  of Paul with respect t o C h r i s t i a n i t y ' s and a l s o that i t i s l i k e l y t h a t  i s a pre-Pauline rather  than  left-of-  a post-Pauline  development. 14  The though  popular view  of Paul as an a r c h - t r a i t o r  by no means without j u s t i f i c a t i o n  to  Judaism,  from a Jewish p o i n t of  view,  should not be allowed t o obscure the f a c t t h a t Judaism i s  still  normative  f o r Paul,  thinkers  status  f o r any of our authors, although  even  rituals  approve.  i f not i n a way n o n - C h r i s t i a n  Jewish  and  could  even  are a v a i l a b l e  B a r r e t t Paul 1.  Judaism  has no  such  normative  i t s scriptures,  for Christian  use  as  morals deemed  178 desirable.  Ignatius' dismissal i s brutal  Pastor, Polycarp, 2 Peter, and position  with  ultimately  greater  and  especially  courtesy.  Acts  i s more  Judaism  and  have  cannot  efforts  (e.g.  subject).  1 5  Theories attitude  be  done  of  everything  blamed  28:25-28,  of Paul's  Christianity  thought  cannot  and  was  merely  the passage of time, when Paul was  many  on  the  notwithstanding,  the  brought  What was was  their  stance  only one Paul, who  with him  i n h i s own  on  any  right;  cannot  be  about  by  been so passionate  t o understand  the  arguments  and not only because i t  could so reverse Paul's  who  of  t o the  among h i s s p i r i t u a l h e i r s . There i s a l s o the matter day  out  possibility  a drift,  i n v o l v e d . But t h i s i s h i g h l y improbable,  of Paul's own  fruitless  dead and most C h r i s t i a n s were  about or knew enough about Judaism  Christians  conciliate  statement  nobody remembered what Paul had  seems u n l i k e l y t h a t mere d r i f t  so  to  have a r i s e n  The  the  go only t o show  forces p u l l i n g  what i s needed i s a p u l l t o the l e f t .  G e n t i l e s and  last  but  status —  possible  book's  literature  that that " p u l l "  —  f o r abandoning  the  "Petrine"  shown i n our  combination  excluded  complicated,  i t s concessions t o Judaism's normative  Christians  the  Clement take the same  a p o s t o l i c decree and Paul's p u b l i c observance that  embarrassing;  were not  t h i s matter?  position  of the many  under h i s  influence.  Pauline? Hardly  —-  there  had enough t r o u b l e g e t t i n g people t o agree  churches  (a f a c t t o which we  owe  most of h i s  D i f f e r e n t l y Segal 275, r e g a r d i n g A c t s as a Jewish C h r i s t i a n document which g i v e s the Law a h i g h e r s t a t u s f o r C h r i s t i a n s than Paul does.  179 letters ).  Right  1 6  of Paul?  Some of them,  h e i r s would be even l e s s l i k e l y  no doubt,  simply t o d r i f t  but t h e i r  t o the p o s i t i o n  of our l i t e r a t u r e . A  left-of-Paul  stream,  on the other  hand,  would  provide  something stronger than a d r i f t . Such a stream c e r t a i n l y seems t o have e x i s t e d : Jewish  C h r i s t i a n s who had abandoned t h e Law t o a  significant  degree  before  Paul  inclination  t o c a r r y the gospel  j o i n e d them,  and who  showed an  beyond Judaism. V i a G a l a t i a n s ,  and a l s o v i a Acts, we meet these people i n Antioch. THE HELLENISTS AND THE MAINLINE FAITH The  non-observant  unrecorded  communities  day,  the  and  Hellenists  of Antioch  of non-Pauline  dismissive,  before  Paul, the  C h r i s t i a n s o f Paul's  appropriationist  authors  own  of our  l i t e r a t u r e : these are the stages on my proposed t r a j e c t o r y of the mainline f a i t h . The H e l l e n i s t s , I submit, were no mere bridge t o P a u l ; they were a broad highway past Paul t o our l i t e r a t u r e , t o the Great Church, and e v e n t u a l l y t o modern C h r i s t i a n i t y . Lacking their  Paul's  behavior  s u b t l e t y and Paul's  intensity,  as I t h i n k  i n G a l 2 demonstrates, the H e l l e n i s t s were w e l l -  s u i t e d t o occupy a p o s i t i o n near the "commonsensical, general and anthropocentric end" of the continuum of f i r s t - c e n t u r y thought.  Christian  I am not suggesting t h a t t h e i r p o s i t i o n was the same as  t h a t o f our l i t e r a t u r e i n general or of any one o f our authors, but  rather  that  their  general  orientation  develop i n t o t h a t shown by our l i t e r a t u r e .  Cf. B a r r e t t "Controversies" 229.  was  such  as c o u l d  180 Their  stance  characteristic casual  toward  feature.  non-observance  attitude  of an  more s u i t e d  Judaism I  do  was  Ignatius,  t o develop  i s their  not  suggest  accompanied  or even i n that  most that  by  original their  anything  than  somewhat like  the  but  i t was  far  the  theological  of a Clement; direction  and  c o n t o r t i o n s of Paul or the r e s o l u t e observance of James. T h e i r moral improbable  that  resurrection literature  teaching i s not a v a i l a b l e t o us, a group  would  does.  outlook  was  church,  less  give morality  But  less  operating almost as  such  i t i s likely  tied  to  embarrassed  the  Law  about  i n the the  that  the  than  that  the  Law  than  and  i t seems  shadow of  central  role  Hellenists' of  the  the our  moral  Jerusalem  Paul,  and  less  c o n s c i o u s l y concerned with the Law than e i t h e r , thus a n t i c i p a t i n g the g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i f not the c e n t r a l i t y  of our  literature's  moral outlook. The literature  uncertain also  the H e l l e n i s t s ;  emphasis  seems l i k e l y , i t certainly  on  Christ's  i f only by didn't  focus on atonement, repentance and  death  default,  come from  found  in  our  t o come from  P a u l . As  f o r the  f o r g i v e n e s s of s i n s ,  i t does  not appear t o be a H e l l e n i s t monopoly. Paul a f f i r m e d a l l of those t h i n g s , though they were not c e n t r a l t o h i s thought, and I would not doubt t h a t the Jerusalem church preached them a l s o . But H e l l e n i s t s , with a more mission-minded  outlook than Jerusalem and  a more a c c e s s i b l e theology than Paul, would l i k e l y best  success propagating these ideas,  forebears of our authors.  the  and  have had  the  as such would be  the  181 For what I am saying, u l t i m a t e l y , i s t h a t the H e l l e n i s t s had enormous success propagating t h e i r ideas. What spread a c r o s s the Roman Empire afterward,  i n the f i r s t  century  alongside Paul's  CE, i n Paul's  communities  l i f e t i m e and  and a t l e a s t  rivalling  them both i n towns evangelized and i n i n d i v i d u a l b e l i e v e r s , was the preaching we encounter i n Antioch. AND BACK TO OUR LITERATURE This  thesis  literature support  began  has e n l i s t e d  of material  from  the assumption  Paul's  he would  name, never  that  our primary  i n varying have  written  degrees,  in  h i m s e l f . An  inventory of t h a t l i t e r a t u r e has found t h a t t h i s i s t r u e , up t o a p o i n t . There are s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e s of emphasis, but t h e r e are no  real  binary  estimation), Judaism  oppositions.  the d i f f e r e n c e  Even  between  the  widest  gap  our l i t e r a t u r e ' s  ( i n my view  of  and Paul's, i s not d i a m e t r i c a l ; I g n a t i u s i s not Marcion,  the r e p u d i a t o r of the Jewish s c r i p t u r e s and the Jewish God, any more than Paul i s James. M o r a l i t y has a very d i f f e r e n t p l a c e i n our  literature  from  i t s role  i n Paul's t h e o l o g i c a l  scheme, but  Paul and our authors both preach m o r a l i t y . Our authors are f a r vaguer than Paul about the importance of C h r i s t ' s death, but they do  not d i s r e g a r d  repentance, affirms  them  i t ; Paul  i s less  and forgiveness of s i n s  interested than  i n atonement,  our authors,  a l l nevertheless. The f a t h e r i n g  but he  o f the mainline  f a i t h onto Paul by our authors does him l e s s than j u s t i c e , but i t a l s o does him no r e a l v i o l e n c e . It mainline  i s a l s o worthy o f note t h a t most o f t h e content o f the faith  appears  to  be  the  product  of  longstanding  182 o r i e n t a t i o n s , i n f a c t o l d e r than Paul's own i n v e n t i o n of a new Paul  has  been  generation of "bishops" or of " e p i g o n i . " That  i n considerable measure homogenized,  submerged i n our l i t e r a t u r e appears why  he was  m i n i s t r y , and not the  co-opted  or  t o be t r u e enough i n i t s e l f ;  chosen f o r such an honor would be a s u i t a b l e t o p i c f o r  another t h e s i s . But the suggestions such a l l e g a t i o n s o f t e n c a r r y , that  this  process  alternatively  that  was i t was  somehow  sinister  bumbling  in  in  intention,  i t s lack  of  grasp  C h r i s t i a n e s s e n t i a l s , are unwarranted. For our authors, as of  the  Hellenists,  business as u s u a l .  propounding  the  mainline  faith  was  or of  heirs simply  183  AFTERWORD: HUMAN AND The New the  number  first  Testament documents make up only a small f r a c t i o n of of  and  is  not  religious  early  manuscripts, scholarly  HOLY  and  second  secular centuries  a  these  coincidence.  This  being  of  The  level  Testament  of  interest,  i s due  so,  anything  r a i s e s questions the  New  written  about  about  Testament  whether  in This  1  among to  the  "holy book" of  the  should be conceived  New  Testament  a  holy has  context,  as  book.  for  the  Scripture  always s t r u c k i f heart  me  surgery  of as simply an indoor sport, a f e a t of  unconnected with saving human l i f e . Cf. Koester  the  i t s implications  as  c u r i o u s l y cut o f f from i t s own  1  and  rest.  almost e n t i r e l y  i s the o f f i c i a l  the  surviving  i n readership  s c h o l a r s h i p which disregards such questions as  in  from  3  automatically reading  But  27 w r i t i n g s dwarf a l l the  b e l i e v e r s or among non-believers, f a c t t h a t the New  surviving  CE.  i n modern e d i t i o n s i n p r i n t ,  activity,  Christians.  texts  skill  4  16 f . , Bruce Documents 14 f f .  2  .  .  Along with, o f course, the Hebrew S c r i p t u r e s , and i n some churches the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals; but these are not my focus here. 3  .  .  Cf. Malina 65 f . , making the same o b s e r v a t i o n of a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t p o i n t . 4  .  .  .  in  support  .  In view of my use of a s i m i l e i n v o l v i n g " s a v i n g , " I should perhaps make i t c l e a r here t h a t I am not s u g g e s t i n g t h a t o n l y those committed t o "holy book" s t a t u s have a r i g h t t o be B i b l e s c h o l a r s ; the B i b l e i s the world's most p u b l i c document. But I am s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the i m p l i c a t i o n s of s c h o l a r s h i p f o r t h a t s t a t u s , whether s u p p o r t i v e , p r o b l e m a t i c a l or n e g a t i v e , s h o u l d not be l e f t out of account.  184  This  thesis,  presuppositions  too,  and  raises  in  such  questions,  i t s conclusions,  certain  f e a t u r e s of the New  are not  obviously edifying.  by  both  in  its  i t s attribution  of  Testament t o human endeavors which In t h i s Afterword,  acknowledge these questions and propose my own  I would  like  to  answers t o them.  THE PROBLEM OF HOLY FORGERIES I noted i n Chapter take t o be and  critical  1 t h a t I accept w i t h i n t h i s t h e s i s what I  orthodoxy,  the judgement t h a t the P a s t o r a l s  2 Peter were w r i t t e n , not by Paul of Tarsus  Simon  Peter,  course  but  by  scripture  represented  as  ancient world,  later  w r i t e r s using  s c h o l a r s don't c a l l an  entirely  .  why  accept details  names.  of arguments and  custom  of  of  the  .  While t h i s may  evidence  be t r u e , there i s no  to the contrary. I t might  a f a l s e name should be used i f no one was  i t as t r u e ; which  Now  forgery; i t i s often  non-problematical  5  any but the u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d .  asked  their  disciple  not intended to deceive and not i n f a c t d e c e i v i n g .  shortage  this  or the  6  and  the  (assuming  P a s t o r a l s and  pseudonymity)  2 Peter  seem  best  expected are  be to  full  of  explained  as  7  l e n d i n g v e r i s i m i l i t u d e to a d e l i b e r a t e deception. the  unfrocking  of  a  second-century  presbyter  The  s t o r y of  f o r producing  pseudonymous Acts of Paul and Theela. d e s p i t e h i s pious  the  motives,  E.g. R o e t z e l 131; P.N. H a r r i s o n , The Problem of the P a s t o r a l E p i s t l e s (London: Oxford, 1921) 12, Samuel Holmes, i n R. H. C h a r l e s , ed., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O l d Testament (Oxford 1913) 1.525, both c i t e d by Metzger, " L i t e r a r y , " 15 and nn. 43 f . 5  6  Metzger " L i t e r a r y "  7  K e l l y 33, Sidebottom  16. 99.  185 suggests  that  pseudonymity  was  not  accepted  by  the  church  at  Q  least  at that point;  the  church seems t o have based  canonicity  p a r t l y on what i t took to be a u t h e n t i c i t y ; i t would not have been easy t o win  r e c o g n i t i o n as genuine f o r l e t t e r s 9  t o be g o o d - f a i t h pseudonymous works. divinely  And  i n s p i r e d book cannot contain  o r i g i n a l l y known  the popular view t h a t a  this  s o r t of deception  is  not easy t o shrug o f f . As  one  who  b e l i e v e s i n the  i n s p i r a t i o n of s c r i p t u r e ,  impressed enough by these arguments to consider of  the  Pastorals  and  2 Peter  must acknowledge t h a t with h i s p a r a d o x i c a l 3:19)  writing  1:8-11; and within fatal  the to  a  or  i t i s very view of the  open question.  2 Peter  Peter's  belief  own  Nevertheless,  f u n c t i o n of the  does not lifetime.  a  i n i n s p i r a t i o n . Taking  is  God  readers nor  —  and  neither  critical  fundamentalist  B i b l e scholars  —  who  ° Metzger " L i t e r a r y " 14, Guthrie New D. Robinson 144  f f . , c f . Guthrie New  like  fit a  I  Paul,  (e.g.  pseudonymity  Gal 1  Tm  context is  not  inspiration seriously  means b e l i e v i n g t h a t the B i b l e i s God's book, and it  real  Law  passage  appear t o But  am  pseudonymity  hard to imagine the  even c l o s e l y s u p e r v i s i n g  a l s o that real  an  the  I  1 0  i f t h a t i s so,  preachers gets t o  Testament  nor  pious  decide what  679.  Testament  678.  Not i t s v e r b a l d i c t a t i o n , which I t h i n k i s a s e l f c o n t r a d i c t o r y n o t i o n i n view of such passages as Lk 1:3, which p o r t r a y s the author as w r i t i n g an " o r d e r l y account" a f t e r c a r e f u l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and e s p e c i a l l y 1 Cor 7:25, where P a u l acknowledges he has "no command of the Lord." V e r b a l d i c t a t i o n would imply t h a t the Lord had commanded him t o w r i t e t h a t the Lord had not commanded him t o w r i t e . 1 0  186 belongs  in i t .  1  A holy  1  need no e x t e r n a l The a  book's contents are  what they  are,  and  justification.  supposed tendentiousness or f i c t i o n a l i z a t i o n of Acts  s i m i l a r problem  solution:  If  God  to  that  of  chooses  to  pseudonymity, inspire a  and  has  theological  a  is  similar  work  in  a  n a r r a t i v e guise, he i s e n t i t l e d to do so. But the problem i s l e s s pressing  in  any  case.  Even  conservative  scholars  concede  that  12 Luke does not that  i s not  Peter  give  to  the  "Pauline"  r u l e out  preaching  within  a  and  the  his  conventions  of  possibility  Law-observant  of  genuine samples of being  account  ancient  Paul's  that  career,  Paul's  conduct  in  historiography,  but  just-likeActs  were,  historically  " a l l things t o a l l people, t h a t I might 13  by a l l means save some." A  further  thesis all?  i f the In  question, Pastorals,  practice,  a l l our  literature  course,  is  e s p e c i a l l y , are  i t might  P a s t o r a l s were g e n e r a l l y of  of  never  have  accepted by  i t i s probably  what not  of  this  pseudonymous a f t e r  been  scholars the  becomes  written as  if  genuine,  Pastorals  the  since  which most  a t t r a c t the .sort of comment t o which t h i s t h e s i s i s a response. " Cf. W i l f r e d Harrington, "We can h a r d l y ever, i n f a c t , d e c i d e a p r i o r i what i s becoming or unbecoming t o God, f o r d i v i n e condescension goes deeper than we know," I r i s h T h e o l o g i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 29 (1962), 23f, quoted by Metzger " L i t e r a r y " 22 n. 67. Cf. a l s o Johnson's suggestion t h a t fundamentalism i s a c o n v i c t i o n ajbout the l i t e r a l t r u t h of the B i b l e which o f t e n f a i l s t o take s e r i o u s l y the l i t e r a l content of the B i b l e (Johnson 63). J  L  1 2  Bruce "Paul of Acts"  305.  13 See d i s c u s s i o n above, Chapter 13; c f . Bruce "Paul A c t s " 294 f f . , H i l l 182 f . and n. 96, Goppelt 74.  of  187 In p r i n c i p l e , gap  however, not very much would have t o change.  between Paul and  the mainline f a i t h  The  i s not d i a m e t r i c a l even  i f the P a s t o r a l s are i d e n t i f i e d wholly with the m a i n l i n e s i d e . I f Paul  wrote  them,  complicate  t h a t would  explanations  narrow  somewhat.  the  (We  gap  a  might  good  need  deal,  a  and  secretary  14  hypothesis t o e x p l a i n 1 Tm  1:8-11, f o r example;  more g e n e r a l l y ,  we might need t o bear i n mind Munck's observation t h a t Paul was human  being  literature's  and  not  overall  an  armchair  attitude  to  c o n v i c t i o n s on the subject from NT  Paulinist. ) 1 5  Judaism,  Romans and  But  Paul's  Gal  middle  2  1 6  would  remain; Paul  might  edge a  of the continuum, but the gap  G a l a t i a n s , and  go  my  incident  b i t closer  would not  our  deepest  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s t o the A n t i o c h of  a  to  away, and  the my  general explanation f o r i t would remain the same. SO WAS  PAUL WRONG THEN? P a r t of the p o i n t of t h i s t h e s i s i s t h a t Paul d i d not c a r r y 17  the day as  i n e a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y the way  anyone might t h i n k  contents.  The  from reading  Hellenists,  as  some s c h o l a r s  the  New  Testament  I decribe them, may  claim, or t a b l e of  w e l l have  more t o do with the e a r l y spread of C h r i s t i a n i t y than  had  Paul d i d ,  a t l e a s t numerically and g e o g r a p h i c a l l y , and t h e i r v e r s i o n of the gospel was 1 4  (and remains) more widely understood  and  accepted.  E.g. K e l l y 25 f f .  15 Munck x x x i v (see Chapter 13). Cf. a l s o Stowers' s u g g e s t i o n t h a t i f Paul had w r i t t e n an autobiography, i t would p r o b a b l y appear "un-Pauline" t o New Testament s c h o l a r s . See Chapter 12 above. 1 6  17  E.g. Goulder  passim.  188 Does t h i s mean that Paul l o s t ? That he was wrong? That he doesn't  really  count  any more? No,  understanding o f the New Testament  i t does not. A  "holy book"  implies t h a t e v e r y t h i n g i n i t ,  o b v i o u s l y i n c l u d i n g Paul's undisputed l e t t e r s , counts as " B i b l e . " The New Testament  canon demarcates what Dunn c a l l s "the l i m i t s of 18  acceptable d i v e r s i t y . "  A consequence  of t h a t  idea  i s t h a t the  m a i n l i n e f a i t h as presented i n Acts or the P a s t o r a l s o r 2 Peter cannot  be  merely  because  letters.  described  also 19  together; the  still  profound  can Paul's  or  less  un-Christian,  exciting  teaching be  as  Paul's  dismissed  merely  i t does not meet with the same widespread acceptance (or  comprehension) others  inadequate,  i t i s not as  But n e i t h e r  because  as  as the mainline f a i t h .  found  i n the New  The two  Testament,  and only thus does  s i n g u l a r Word of God.  1 8  Dunn 378.  1 9  Cf. Brown and Meier v i i i .  such  viewpoints, and  only count  human p l u r a l i s m  as  "Bible"  constitute  189  APPENDIX: COLOSSIANS AND The  New  NT EPHESIANS  Testament l e t t e r s of Paul t o the C o l o s s i a n s and  the Ephesians, o f t e n considered pseudonymous, the  literature  orientation  studied i n t h i s  is  thesis  significantly  were excluded  1  primarily  different  from  that  2  so  homogenized  that  or  they  their  of  our  Paul's  fewer  allegations  theology.  of  having  Nonetheless,  these  pseudonymous, are p a r t of the p o s t - P a u l i n e  " r e c e p t i o n of P a u l , " and faith  attract  submerged  i f i n fact  mainline  from  .  literature,  letters,  because  to  a comparison  identified  of t h e i r  i n the body of the  contents t o thesis  may  the  be  in  order here. A  number of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  are indeed t o be the  role  through his  of  found  Christ,  i n one  these  features of or both  Eph  (e.g. C o l 1:14,  NT  singular; (5:23).  4  and,  Eph  i n NT  Repentance,  Concerning  1:7)  role  and 1:7),  language  ("peace  "redemption  through  sins  with hamartia  never  Ephesians,  or t r e s p a s s e s found  a present-tense use i s mentioned  the  Christian,  both  E.g. Z i e s l e r 131, R o e t z e l 132 f . , 138 f f .  132  f . ; Koester 263  in  of  i n the "savior"  neither  letters  3  R o e t z e l 132, Kee 283 f o r C o l o s s i a n s .  4  Barth 34.  letter.  have  vice  f . , 267 f . ;  E s p e c i a l l y Hanson 7, c f . a l s o Beker 64 f . , K o e s t e r  f.  faith  With r e s p e c t t o  forgiveness of 3  however,  Col 1:20;  of  2  the  letters.  i n c l u d e atonement  the blood of h i s c r o s s , "  blood," NT  the m a i n l i n e  297  190  lists  (Col 3:5-10, NT  morality more  Eph  5:3-5) and  (Col 3:18-4:1, NT  even-handed  as  Eph  between  p r e s c r i p t i o n s of  5:22-6:9), though the  husbands  masters than those of our l i t e r a t u r e . i n a m o r a l i z i n g sense i n NT word i s not found the  Lord,  and  constitutive  Col of  wives  faith."  "The  and NT  or  Dikaiosune  Eph  5:10  faith" Eph  latter  are  slaves  and  i s always used  (4:24, 5:9,  6:1,  14) ;  of  "evil  the  deeds"  i s a l s o used  4:5  6  refers to pleasing  1:21-23 makes s t a y i n g c l e a r  "the  (Col 1:5,  Ephesians  i n Colossians. NT  mainline sense a t C o l 1:23 of t r u t h "  5  and  bourgeois  ("one  faith");  in  the  "word  7  NT Eph 1:13), however, appears t o s i g n i f y the  gospel proclamation r a t h e r than a body of d o c t r i n e i n the manner of our  literature.  Striking  differences  from  m a i n l i n e f a i t h are a l s o to be  our  found.  literature  2:2)  (Col 2:15)  from  (Col 1:13)  or of  than of  l i t e r a t u r e . Good works are represented as a consequence or  undisputed our  Eph our  fruit  (Col 1:10-13 c f . 2:20-23; NT Eph 2:4-10), as i n the  letters,  literature  r a t h e r than  (except  perhaps  as at  paragraph).  5 Koester  266.  6  Barth  7  R o e t z e l 132, Kee  Q  rulers  or of the "power of the a i r " (NT  i n a manner more reminiscent of Paul's thought  of the gospel  the  S a l v a t i o n i s made a matter  of God's breaking the power of darkness and a u t h o r i t i e s  and  34. 306.  Z i e s l e r 130 f o r Colossians.  central Col  t o the  1:21-23,  gospel see  as  in  preceding  191 Most s t r i k i n g of a l l ,  perhaps,  i s the emphasis p l a c e d i n NT  Ephesians on the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of G e n t i l e s i n t o the promises made to Israel to c a l l being  ( e s p e c i a l l y 2:11-3:6), which the author goes so f a r as  "the mystery of C h r i s t " made  Galatians,  1 0  i s quite such  different  While  9  from  a preoccupation  gospel t o God's covenant t o anything found  (3:4).  that  with  with I s r a e l  the s p e c i f i c p o i n t of  NT  Romans  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  Christ  than  i n our l i t e r a t u r e with the p o s s i b l e exception  our l i t e r a t u r e ' s  practices  o f the  i s f a r c l o s e r t o Paul  of A c t s . C o l o s s i a n s contains expressions s u p e r f i c i a l l y with  and  appropriationist  "a shadow of what  viewpoint,  i s t o come"  whose  compatible  making  Jewish  "substance" i s  (2:17), and t r e a t i n g Jewish p r o h i b i t i o n s as "simply human  commands and teachings" however, gnostic,  to  be  applied  Jewish-based  (2:22); these to  a  Christian  expressions would  specific heresy  11  syncretistic, r a t h e r than  appear, i f not  to  Judaism  as such. I  have  c h a r a c t e r i z e d my  commonsensical,  literature  as  grouped  near  the  general and anthropocentric end of a continuum,  with Paul a t the p a r a d o x i c a l , s p e c i f i c and t h e o c e n t r i c end. T h i s brief  investigation  suggests  Colossians and NT  Ephesians  f i t somewhere i n the middle.  9  R o e t z e l 143, Z i e s l e r 132.  Koester 270, R o e t z e l 140, 143, c f . a l s o B a r r e t t " C o n t r o v e r s i e s " 239 f . 1 0  1 1  Koester 264 f . , Roetzel 136 f .  would  192  WORKS CITED PRIMARY TEXTS (Includes o n l y the t e x t or t r a n s l a t i o n c h i e f l y r e l i e d on i n each case. Some works l i s t e d among commentaries a l s o c o n t a i n the author's t r a n s l a t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l New Testament t r a n s l a t i o n s are 1 i s t e d separately.) The A p o s t o l i c Fathers. Ed. and t r a n s . Kirsopp Lake. Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . London: Heinemann/New York: Putnam, 1985 [1912], Greek/Latin and E n g l i s h . The Greek New Testament. 4th r e v i s e d e d i t i o n . Ed. Barbara Aland e t al. S t u t t g a r t : Deutsche B i b e l g e s e l l s c h a f t , 1994. (United B i b l e S o c i e t i e s . ) (Cited as UBS.) The New Oxford Annotated B i b l e with the Apocryphal/Deuteroc a n o n i c a l Books: New Revised Standard V e r s i o n . Ed. Bruce M. Metzger, Roland E. Murphy. New York: Oxford, 1991. OTHER ANCIENT TEXTS Eusebius. The E c c l e s i a s t i c a l H i s t o r y . Trans. Kirsopp Lake. London: W i l l i a m Heinemann, 1926. J u s t i n Martyr. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: T r a n s l a t i o n s of the W r i t i n g s of the Fathers down t o A.D. 325. Ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Martyrdom of Polycarp. Trans. Massey Hamilton Shepherd J r . E a r l y C h r i s t i a n Fathers. Ed. C y r i l C. Richardson. New York: Macmillan, 1970. 141-158. Minucius F e l i x . Octavius. Trans. Gerald R e n d a l l . Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1984 [1931]. The Septuagint V e r s i o n : Greek and E n g l i s h . Ed. and t r a n s . S i r L a n c e l o t C L . Brenton. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. Suetonius. Suetonius with an E n g l i s h T r a n s l a t i o n . Trans. J.C. R o l f e . Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1959. T e r t u l l i a n . Apologeticus. Trans. T.R. Glover. Loeb C L a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1984 [1931].  193  COMMENTARIES AND STUDIES Achtemeier, Paul J . The Quest f o r Unity i n the New Testament Church: A Study i n Paul and Acts. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1987. Aland, Kurt. A H i s t o r y of C h r i s t i a n i t y . V o l . 1: From t h e Beginnings t o the Threshold of the Reformation. Trans. James L. Schaaf. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1985 [1980]. Babcock, W i l l i a m S., ed. Paul and the Legacies of Paul. D a l l a s : SMU Press, 1990. B a r r e t t , C.K. "Acts and the Pauline Corpus." E x p o s i t o r y Times 88 (1976-77): 2-5. . Paul: An Introduction t o H i s Thought. Westminster/John Knox, 1994.  Louisville:  . "Pauline Controversies i n the Post-Pauline P e r i o d . " New Testament Studies 20 (1973-74): 229-245. Barth, Markus. Ephesians: Introduction. T r a n s l a t i o n and Commentary on Chapters 1-3. The Anchor B i b l e . New York: Doubleday, 1964. Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy i n E a r l i e s t C h r i s t i a n i t y . Ed. Robert A. K r a f t and Gerhard Krodel. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1971 [1934]. Baus, K a r l . From the A p o s t o l i c Community t o Constantine. H i s t o r y of the Church, ed. Hubert J e d i n and John Dolan. V o l . 1. New York: Crossroad, 1990 [1962]. Beker, J . C h r i s t i a a n . H e i r s of Paul: Paul's Legacy i n t h e New Testament and i n the Church Today. Minneapolis: F o r t r e s s , 1991. Bornkamm, Gunther. Paul. Trans. D.M.G. S t a l k e r . San F r a n c i s c o : Harper and Row, 1971 [1969]. Boyarin, D a n i e l . A R a d i c a l Jew: Paul and t h e P o l i t i c s o f I d e n t i t y . Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1994. Brown, Raymond E. Jesus God and Man: Modern B i b l i c a l R e f l e c t i o n s . Milwaukee: Bruce, 1967. . "Rome." i n Brown, Raymond E., and John P. Meier. A n t i o c h and Rome: New Testament Cradles of C a t h o l i c C h r i s t i a n i t y . New York: P a u l i s t , 1983. ("Rome" i s used t o c i t e a l l Brown's i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the book.) —  and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of C a t h o l i c C h r i s t i a n i t y . New York: P a u l i s t , 1983.  194 Bruce, F.F. Commentary on the Book of the A c t s : The EnglishText with I n t r o d u c t i o n . E x p o s i t i o n and Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954. . "Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?" B u l l e t i n of the John Rylands L i b r a r y of the U n i v e r s i t y of Manchester V o l . 58 (1975-76) 282-305. . Peter. Stephen. James, and John: Studies i n E a r l y NonP a u l i n e C h r i s t i a n i t y . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. . The New Testament Documents: Are They R e l i a b l e ? 5th rev. ed. Grand Rapids: I n t e r - V a r s i t y , 1960 [1943]. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. V o l . 1. Trans. Kendrick Grobel. London: SCM Press, 1952 [1948]. C o l l i n s , Raymond F. "The F i r s t L e t t e r t o the Thessalonians." The New Jerome B i b l i c a l Commentary. Ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy. Student ed. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993 [1989]. 772-779. Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel and Donald H. J u e l . P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1987 [1972]. . H i s t o r y of P r i m i t i v e C h r i s t i a n i t y . N a s h v i l l e : Abingdon, 1973 [1969]. Corwin, V i r g i n i a . St. Ignatius and C h r i s t i a n i t y i n A n t i o c h . Haven: Yale, 1960.  New  de Boer, M a r t i n . "Which Paul?" Paul and the Legacies of P a u l . Ed. W i l l i a m S. Babcock. D a l l a s : SMU Press, 1990. 45-54. D i b e l i u s , Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The P a s t o r a l E p i s t l e s : A Commentary on the P a s t o r a l E p i s t l e s . Trans. P h i l i p B u t t o l p h and Adeia Yarbro. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1972 [1955]. D i l l o n , Richard J . "Acts of the Apostles." New Jerome B i b l i c a l Commentary. Ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy. Student ed. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993 [1989]. 722-767. Dodd, C H . The A p o s t o l i c Preaching and I t s Developments. York: Harper, 1962 [1936].  New  Downey, G l a n v i l l e . A H i s t o r y of Antioch i n S y r i a : From Seleucus t o the Arab Conquest. Princeton: P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1961.  Dunn, James D.G. Unity and D i v e r s i t y i n the New Testament: An Inquiry i n t o the Character of E a r l i e s t C h r i s t i a n i t y . 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1990. E l l i o t t , John H. I - I I Peter. Jude. Minneapolis: Augsburg, (In j o i n t volume with Martin, R.A., James).  1982  F a r k a s f a l v y , Denis M. "The E a r l y Development of the New Testament Canon." Farmer, W i l l i a m R., and Denis M. F a r k a s f a l v y , The Formation of the New Testament Canon: An Ecumenical Approach. New York: P a u l i s t , 1983. Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy. T i t u s . Rev. ed. Peabody, Hendrickson, 1988.  MA:  Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The L e t t e r t o the G a l a t i a n s . " The New Jerome B i b l i c a l Commentary. Ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy. Student ed. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993 [1989]. 780-790. . "The L e t t e r t o the Romans." The New Jerome B i b l i c a l Commentary. Ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy. Student ed. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993 [1989]. 830-868. . "Pauline Theology." The New Jerome B i b l i c a l Commentary. Ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy. Student ed. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993 [1989] 1382-1416. Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon: I t s Making and Meaning. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1985. Goppelt, Leonhard. A p o s t o l i c and P o s t - A p o s t o l i c Times. Trans. Robert A. G u e l i c h . London: Adam and Charles Black, 1970 [1962]. Goulder, Michael. St. Paul vs. St. Peter: A T a l e of Two M i s s i o n s . L o u i s v i l l e : Westminster John Knox, 1994. Grant, Robert M. The A p o s t o l i c Fathers: A New T r a n s l a t i o n and Commentary. V o l . 1: An Introduction. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1964. and H o l t H. Graham. The A p o s t o l i c Fathers: A New T r a n s l a t i o n and Commentary. V o l . 2. F i r s t and Second Clement. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1965. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3rd ed. (revised) Downers Grove: I n t e r - V a r s i t y , 1970. . The P a s t o r a l E p i s t l e s : An Introduction and Commentary. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leicester, Eng.: I n t e r V a r s i t y Press, 1990.  196 Haenchen, E r n s t . The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Trans. Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn, rev. R. McL. Wilson. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Westminster, 1971 [1965]. Hanson, A.T. The P a s t o r a l E p i s t l e s . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/ London, Eng.: M a r s h a l l , Morgan, 1982. H a r r i s o n , P.N. Polycarp's Two E p i s t l e s t o the P h i l i p p i a n s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1936. Hengel, M a r t i n . Acts and the H i s t o r y of E a r l i e s t C h r i s t i a n i t y . London: SCM, 1979 [1979]. . Between Jesus and Paul: Studies i n the E a r l i e s t H i s t o r y of C h r i s t i a n i t y . Trans. John Bowden. London: SCM, 1983. [1971-1983]. H i l l , C r a i g C. H e l l e n i s t s and Hebrews: Reappraising D i v i s i o n w i t h i n the E a r l i e s t Church. Minneapolis: F o r t r e s s , 1992. H i l l y e r , Norman. 1 and 2 Peter. Jude. Rev. Hendrickson, 1992.  ed. Peabody,  MA:  Hultgren, A r l a n d J . The Rise of Normative C h r i s t i a n i t y . Minneapolis: F o r t r e s s , 1994. . I - I I Timothy. T i t u s . (In j o i n t volume with Aus, Roger, I I Thessalonians.) Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984 J e r v e l l , Jacob. "Paulus i n der Apostelgeschichte und d i e Geschichte des Urchristentums." New Testament Studies 32 (1986). 378-392. Johnson. Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest f o r the H i s t o r i c a l Jesus and the Truth of the T r a d i t i o n a l Gospels. San F r a n c i s c o : Harper, 1996. K a r r i s , Robert J . The P a s t o r a l E p i s t l e s . Wilmington: G l a z i e r , 1979.  Michael  Kasemann, E r n s t . "Paul and E a r l y C a t h o l i c i s m . " New Testament Questions of Today. Trans. W i l f r e d F. Bunge. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1969 [1963]. 236-251. Kee, Howard C l a r k . Understanding the New Testament. 4th ed. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1983. K e l l y , J.N.D. A Commentary on the P a s t o r a l E p i s t l e s : I Timothy. I I Timothy. T i t u s . London: Adam and Charles Black, 1963. Koester, Helmut. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the New Testament. V o l . 2: H i s t o r y and L i t e r a t u r e of E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y . Paperback e d i t i o n . New York: De Gruyter, 1987 [1980]. Lindemann, Andreas. "Paul i n the Writings of the A p o s t o l i c  197 Fathers." Paul and the Legacies of Paul. Ed. W i l l i a m S. Babcock. D a l l a s : SMU Press, 1990. 25-45. ( C i t e d as "Apostolic") . Paulus im a l t e s t e n Christentum: Das B i l d des Apostels und d i e Rezeption der p a u l i n i s h e n Theologie i n der f r u h c h r i s t l i c h e n L i t e r a t u r b i s Marcion. Tubingen: Mohr, 1979. ( C i t e d as Altesten.) Liidemann, Gerd. E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y According t o t h e T r a d i t i o n i n A c t s : A Commentary. Trans. John Bowden. Minneapolis: F o r t r e s s , 1989 [1987]. MacDonald, Dennis Ronald. The Legacy of the Apostle: The B a t t l e f o r Paul i n Story and Canon. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Westminster, 1983. Malina, Bruce J . The New Testament World: I n s i g h t s from C u l t u r a l Anthropology. Rev. ed. L o u i s v i l l e : Westminster/ John Knox, 1993. M a r s h a l l , I . Howard. The Acts of the Apostles: An I n t r o d u c t i o n and Commentary. L e i c e s t e r , Eng.: I n t e r - V a r s i t y Press, 1980. . " P a l e s t i n i a n and H e l l e n i s t i c C h r i s t i a n i t y : Some C r i t i c a l Comments." New Testament Studies 19 (1972-73). 271-287. Meier, John P. "Antioch." i n Brown, Raymond E., and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of C a t h o l i c C h r i s t i a n i t y . New York: P a u l i s t , 1983. Metzger, Bruce. " L i t e r a r y Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha." Journal of B i b l i c a l L i t e r a t u r e 91 (1972), 3-24. . A T e x t u a l Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. S t u t t g a r t : Deutsche B i b e l g e s e l l s c h a f t , 1994. Meyer, Ben F. The E a r l y C h r i s t i a n s : T h e i r World M i s s i o n and S e l f Discovery. Wilmington: Michael G l a z i e r , 1986 Munck, Johannes. The Acts of the Apostles: I n t r o d u c t i o n . T r a n s l a t i o n and Notes. Rev. W i l l i a m F. A l b r i g h t and C.S. Mann. The Anchor B i b l e . New York: Doubleday, 1967. Neyrey, Jerome H. "The Second E p i s t l e o f Peter." The New Jerome B i b l i c a l Commentary. Ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy. Student ed. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1993 [1989]. 1017-1022. O ' C o l l i n s , Gerald G. " S a l v a t i o n . " The Anchor B i b l e D i c t i o n a r y . Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. V o l . V, 907-914.  198  Oxford S o c i e t y of H i s t o r i c a l Theology. The New Testament i n the A p o s t o l i c Fathers. Oxford: Clarendon, 1905. ( C i t e d as NTAF.) Paulsen, Henning. Die B r i e f e des Ignatius von A n t i o c h i a und der B r i e f des Polykarp von Smyrna. 2nd, rev. ed. of o r i g i n a l by Walter Bauer. Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1985. Reicke, Bo. The E p i s t l e s of James. Peter and Jude: I n t r o d u c t i o n . T r a n s l a t i o n and Notes. The Anchor B i b l e . York: Doubleday, 1964. Richardson, 1970.  C y r i l C.,  ed. E a r l y C h r i s t i a n Fathers.  New  Macmillan,  Robinson, Donald. F a i t h ' s Framework: The S t r u c t u r e of Testament Theology. Sutherland, New South Wales: A l b a t r o s s , 1985.  New  Robinson, Thomas A. The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy i n the E a r l y C h r i s t i a n Church. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1988. R o e t z e l , C a l v i n J . The L e t t e r s of Paul: Conversations i n Context. 3rd e d i t i o n . L o u i s v i l l e : Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Sanders, E.P. Paul. New ( C i t e d as Paul.)  York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press,  1991.  . Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1983. (Cited as Law.) . Paul and P a l e s t i n i a n Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of R e l i g i o n . London: SCM, 1977. (Cited as P a l e s t i n i a n . ) Sanders, Jack T. Schismatics. Sectarians. D i s s i d e n t s . Deviants: The F i r s t One Hundred Years of J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n R e l a t i o n s . V a l l e y Forge: T r i n i t y , 1993. Schoedel, W i l l i a m . Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the L e t t e r s of Ignatius of Antoich. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1985. Schwartz, D a n i e l R. "The End of the L i n e : Paul i n the Canonical Book of A c t s . " Paul and the Legacies of Paul. Ed. W i l l i a m S. Babcock. D a l l a s : SMU Press, 1990. 3-24. Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale, 1990. Shepherd, Massey Hamilton, J r . , ed. and t r a n s . "The L e t t e r of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, t o the P h i l i p p i a n s . " E a r l y C h r i s t i a n Fathers. Ed. C y r i l C. Richardson. New York: Macmillan, 1970. 121-137.  199 Sidebottom, E.M. James. Jude. 2 Peter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/ London, Eng.: Marshall, Morgan, 1982 [1967]. Stowers, Stanley K. "What Does Unpauline Mean?" Paul and the Legacies of Paul. Ed. William S. Babcock. D a l l a s : SMU Press, 1990. 70-77. Turner, H.E.W. The Pattern of C h r i s t i a n Truth: A Study i n R e l a t i o n s between Orthodoxy and Heresy i n the E a r l y Church• London: Mowbray, 1954. V i e l h a u e r , P h i l i p p . "On the 'Paulinism' of A c t s . " Trans. Wm. C. Robinson and V i c t o r P. Furnish. Studies i n Luke-Acts: Essays i n Honor of Paul Schubert. Ed. Leander E. Keck and J . Louis Martyn. Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1966 [1950]. 33-50. Wilson, Stephen G. Luke and the P a s t o r a l E p i s t l e s . London: SPCK, 1979. . The G e n t i l e s and the G e n t i l e M i s s i o n i n Luke-Acts. Cambridge: The U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. . Related Strangers: Jews and C h r i s t i a n s 70-170 Minneapolis: F o r t r e s s , 1995. Z i e s l e r , J.A. Pauline C h r i s t i a n i t y . Revised e d i t i o n . Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1990.  CE. Oxford:  EXEGETICAL TOOLS Bauer, Walter, W i l l i a m F. Arndt, F. Wilbur G i n g r i c h , F r e d e r i c k W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other E a r l y C h r i s t i a n L i t e r a t u r e . 2nd ed. Chicago:^ U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1979. (Cited as BAGD.) B l a s s , F., A. Debrunner, R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other E a r l y C h r i s t i a n L i t e r a t u r e . 1st ed. Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y Press/Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1961. (Cited as BDF.) Goodspeed, Edgar J . Index P a t r i s t i c u s : Sive C l a v i s Patrum Apostolicorum Operum. N a p e r v i l l e , 111: A l e c R. A l l e n s o n , 1907. Kohlenberger, John R. I l l , Edward W. Goodrick and James A. Swanson. The Exhaustive Concordance t o the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. K r a f t , H e i n r i c h . C l a v i s Patrum apostolicorum. Munich: K o s e l , 1963.  Morrison, C l i n t o n . An A n a l y t i c a l Concordance t o the Revised Standard V e r s i o n of the New Testament. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Westminster, 1979. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged D i c t i o n a r y of the E n g l i s h Language. New York: Gramercy, 1996. ADDITIONAL NEW TESTAMENT TRANSLATIONS Jerusalem B i b l e . New York: Doubleday, 1968. King James V e r s i o n . N a s h v i l l e : Thomas Nelson, 1977 [1611]. New American B i b l e with Revised New Testament. Washington, D.C.: C o n f r a t e r n i t y of C h r i s t i a n Doctrine, 1986. New American Standard B i b l e . La Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1963. New E n g l i s h B i b l e . 2nd ed. New York: Oxford, 1971. New I n t e r n a t i o n a l Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. New Jerusalem B i b l e . Garden C i t y , NJ: Doubleday, 1985. New King James V e r s i o n . N a s h v i l l e : Thomas Nelson, 1983. Revised E n g l i s h B i b l e . Oxford and Cambridge: Oxford and Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Presses, 1989. Revised Standard Version. Cleveland: World, 1962 [1946]. Today's E n g l i s h V e r s i o n (Good News B i b l e ) . 4th ed. New York: American B i b l e Society, 1976.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0088438/manifest

Comment

Related Items