When and How was the Pauline Canon Compiled? An Assessment of Theories

  • Stanley E. Porter
Part of the Pauline Studies book series (PS, volume 1)

Abstract

There are three periods in the development of the Pauline canon: the period during which the letters were actually written (whether by Paul or by later authors), the period during which the letters were gathered into a corpus, and, finally, the period of transmission during which the texts of these letters were firmly and finally established and used by the Church.1 There is some, almost inevitable, overlap between these three periods. For example, for those who do not believe that Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to him (that is, probably the majority of New Testament scholars), the period during which the letters were actually written is an extended period that clearly overlaps with the period during which the letters were gathered, as will be discussed below. However, despite some of this apparent contiguity of the developmental periods, I find it perplexing to note just how little significant insight into this overlap there is in the scholarly discussion. As an example, it is not uncommon for those who are concerned with the authorship of the Pauline letters, even those who discuss the purportedly pseudepigraphic letters, such as Ephesians or the Pastoral Epistles, not to enter into serious discussion of the gathering together or collection of the Pauline corpus, even though theories regarding pseudepigraphic authorship are often directly related to how the gathering togethether of the letters took place—for example, the pseudepigrapher is often thought to be dependent upon knowing some of the authentic Pauline letters. Similar comments can be made about those who are concerned to describe the transmission of the Pauline letters. Often discussion is about the transmission of a particular letter (or parts of a letter, when purportedly composite letters are discussed, such as 2 Corinthians or Philippians), or, more usually, the transmission of a particular textual variant unit (such as the doxology of Romans in 16:25–27)—almost as if a Pauline canon did not exist (apart from the necessary reference to manuscripts that sometimes have other Pauline letters in them, such as that designated P46, etc.). Even for those relatively few scholars who are convinced of widespread interpolation into the Pauline letters (to say nothing of composite letters), previous discussion has usually been of individual books, rather than of the larger Pauline corpus.2 Discussion of the process of gathering the letters is often kept completely apart from that of the role that the letters have played in the Christian Church.3 However, even though integrated study of all three dimensions is clearly necessary, there have been relatively few such dedicated studies.

Keywords

Clay Posit Encapsulation Defend Lost 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    This is similar to D. Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994 ), 50, but without prejudging the role of Paul in the collection. Cf. now also his The First Edition of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000 ).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See J.C. O’Neill, The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London: SPCK, 1972);Google Scholar
  3. J.C. O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975); W.O. Walker, Jr., `The Burden of Proof in Identifying Interpolations in the Pauline Letters’, NTS 33 (1987), 610–18; idem,`Is First Corinthians 13 a Non-Pauline Interpolation?’, CBQ 60 (1998), 484–99; idem,`Romans 1.18–2.29: A Non-Pauline Interpolation?’, NTS 45 (1999), 533–53; and their essays in this volume.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    This is a common problem of so-called canonical critical methods. See S.E. Porter and K.D. Clarke, `Canonical-Critical Perspective and the Relationship of Colossians and Ephesians’, Bib 78 (1997), 57–86.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    This information can be found in virtually every introduction to the canon.Google Scholar
  6. Volumes worth examining include: B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 7th edn, 1896 [1855])Google Scholar
  7. C.R. Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament ( Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907 )Google Scholar
  8. A. Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (rev. C.S.C. Williams; London: Duckworth, rev. edn, 1954 [1913])Google Scholar
  9. H. von Campen-hausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (trans. J.A. Baker; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972 [19681)Google Scholar
  10. B.M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987 )Google Scholar
  11. F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture ( Glasgow: Chapter House, 1988 )Google Scholar
  12. L.M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995); among others.Google Scholar
  13. 5.
    See G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents: Their Origin and Early History ( London: Macmillan, 1913 ), 217.Google Scholar
  14. 6.
    M.D. Goulder, `The Visionaries of Laodicea’, JSNT 43 (1991), 16.Google Scholar
  15. 7.
    J. Duff, `346 and the Pastorals: A Misleading Consensus?’, NTS 44 (1998), 578–90. It must be noted that there have been attempts to date to as early as the late first century: see Y.K. Kim, `Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century’, Bib 69 (1988), 248–57.Google Scholar
  16. See the assessment by S.R. Pickering, `The Dating of the Chester Beatty-Michigan Codex of the Pauline Epistles (c))46)Google Scholar
  17. T.W. Hillard, R.A. Kearsley, C.E.V. Nixon and A.M. Hobbs (eds.), Ancient History in a Modern University (2 vols.; New South Wales, Australia: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre Macquarie University; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 2. 216–27.Google Scholar
  18. 8.
    On dating, see G.M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (OTM; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), who follows A.C. Sundberg, Jr., `Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List’, HTR 66 (1973), 141, in arguing for a fourth-century date. This has been disputed by a number of peopleGoogle Scholar
  19. E. Ferguson, `Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance’, StudPat 17 (1982), 677–83Google Scholar
  20. E. Ferguson, Review of Hahneman, JTS 44 (1993), 691–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. P. Henne, `La datation du canon de Muratori, RB 100 (1993), 54–75 Google Scholar
  22. C.E. Hill, ‘The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon’, WTJ 57 (1995), 437–52.Google Scholar
  23. On issues related to the ordering principles of the Muratorian canon, see K. Stendahl, `The Apocalypse of John and the Epistles of Paul in the Muratorian Fragment’, in W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder (eds.), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper ( London: SCM Press, 1952 ), 239–45Google Scholar
  24. N.A. Dahl, `The Particularity of the Pauline Epistles as a Problem in the Ancient Church’, in Neotestamentica et Patristica: Eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag überreicht (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962 ), 261–71.Google Scholar
  25. 9.
    Recent surveys that have especially helped me in my study include H.Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 35–46Google Scholar
  26. D. Trobisch, Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfängen christlicher Publizistik (NTOA 10; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989 ), 110Google Scholar
  27. A.G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon ( Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1995 ), 80–87Google Scholar
  28. J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, his Options, his Skills ( Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995 ), 114–30Google Scholar
  29. cf. the brief summaries in V.P. Furnish, `Pauline Studies’, in E.J. Epp and G.W. MacRae (eds.), The New Testament and its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 321–50, esp. 326–28Google Scholar
  30. H.Y. Gamble, `The Canon of the New Testament’, in Epp and MacRae (eds.), New Testament and its Modern Interpreters, 201–43, esp. 205–208.Google Scholar
  31. 10.
    The language is that of Gamble, New Testament Canon, 36, and Patzia, Making of the New Testament, 80. See C.F.D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 3rd edn, 1982), 263, for the original reference to `snowball’, and who is sympathetic to this position.Google Scholar
  32. 11.
    See T. Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols.; Erlangen and Leipzig: Deichert, 1888–1892), 1.811–39; idem, Grundriss der Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons: Eine Ergänzung zu der Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Deichert, 1904), esp. 35–37Google Scholar
  33. A. Harnack, Die Briefsammlung des Apostels Paulus und die anderen vorkonstantinischen christlichen Briefsammlungen (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926), 6–27. This encapsulation also draws upon the summaries in B.S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994 [1984)), 423Google Scholar
  34. C.L. Mitton, The Formation of the Pauline Corpus of Letters ( London: Epworth, 1955 ), 15.Google Scholar
  35. 12.
    See also G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (Schweich Lectures 1946; London: British Academy, 1953), 278–79, who discusses Ephesus and Corinth as places where this process may have occurred, though he endorses Alexandria as the place of origin as a corpus (p. 279).Google Scholar
  36. 13.
    Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons,1.835.Google Scholar
  37. 14.
    Harnack, Die Briefsammlung,7–8.Google Scholar
  38. 15.
    Harnack, Die Briefsammlung,6.Google Scholar
  39. 16.
    Followed by W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1971 [19641), 221–22. On the possible response to Marcion, see also Bruce, Canon of Scripture,144, and von Campenhausen, Formation of the Christian Bible,148.Google Scholar
  40. 17.
    K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul: Their Motive and Origin ( London: Rivingtons, 1911 ), 356–59Google Scholar
  41. Cf. K. Lake and S. Lake, An Introduction to the New Testament ( London: Christophers, 1938 ), 96–101.Google Scholar
  42. 18.
    B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins ( London: Macmillan, 1930 ), 526–27Google Scholar
  43. B.H. Streeter, his The Primitive Church: Studies with Special Reference to the Origins of the Christian Ministry ( London: Macmillan, 1929 ), 159–62.Google Scholar
  44. 19.
    Lake, Earlier Epistles,358–59.Google Scholar
  45. 20.
    See D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 3rd edn, 1970 ), 646.Google Scholar
  46. 21.
    Lake (Earlier Epistles,357) admits that Tertullian probably knew Colossians and the Pastoral Epistles, even though he did not list them.Google Scholar
  47. 22.
    E.g. W.G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. H.C. Kee; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 17th edn, 1975 ), 186Google Scholar
  48. W.O. Walker, Jr., `Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered’, JSNT 24 (1985), 3–23Google Scholar
  49. S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans (eds.), The Pauline Writings (BibSem 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 55–74; cf. also Streeter, Four Gospels,555. It is fair to say that much recent work is finding more of the Pauline letters in Acts (see below).Google Scholar
  50. 23.
    J.C. Hurd, Jr., The Origin of I Corinthians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, new edn, 1983 [1965]);Google Scholar
  51. J.C. Hurd, Jr., `Good News and the Integrity of 1 Corinthians’, in L.A. Jervis and P. Richardson (eds.), Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker (JSNTSup 108; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994 ), 38–62Google Scholar
  52. M. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994, 2000 ), 1. 3–49.Google Scholar
  53. 24.
    See Guthrie, New Testament Introduction,647.Google Scholar
  54. 25.
    Lake and Lake, Introduction,96, who note that it is `rather improbable that [Marcion] made the Corpus, for the Church would hardly have accepted the work of a heretic’.Google Scholar
  55. 26.
    Childs, Canon,424. Cf. Trobisch, First Edition,5, who notes that the influence of Marcion remains unresolved in scholarly discussion.Google Scholar
  56. 27.
    In some ways, Goodspeed was anticipated by J. Weiss, Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period A.D. 30–150 (2 vols.; completed by R. Knopf; trans. ed. F.C. Grant; New York: Harper & Row, 1937; repr. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1970), 2.682–83. This work was completed after Weiss’s death in 1914, but this part appears to have been written by him.Google Scholar
  57. 28.
    Guthrie, New Testament Introduction,647.Google Scholar
  58. 29.
    See, especially, E.J. Goodspeed, New Solutions of New Testament Problems (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), esp. 1–103; The Meaning of Ephesians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933); and An Introduction to the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937), esp. 210–21. The following is based mostly upon his Introduction,but with reference to theGoogle Scholar
  59. 30.
    See Goodspeed, Meaning of Ephesians,82–165.Google Scholar
  60. 31.
    See Goodspeed, New Solutions, 94–103. Cf. J. Knox, `Acts and the Pauline Letter Corpus’, in L.E. Keck and J.L. Martyn (eds.), Studies in Luke—Acts ( Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966 ), 279–87.Google Scholar
  61. 32.
    Goodspeed, Meaning of Ephesians, 7.Google Scholar
  62. 33.
    Others do not think that this phrasing makes so much sense in the light of textual difficulties. See B. Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament (trans. A.J.K. Davidson; 2 vols.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887 ), 1. 43 n. 1.Google Scholar
  63. 34.
    J. Knox, Philemon among the Letters of Paul (London: Collins, rev. edn, 1959 [1935]), 10, referring to how his idea (found in the first edition of his work in 1935) was later accepted by Goodspeed in his The Key to Ephesians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956). Some scholars have thought that Tychicus was the author of Ephesians (e.g. W.L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939], 203Google Scholar
  64. C.L. Mitton, Ephesians [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], 230), but that does not necessarily mean he was the collector of the corpus (contra R.P. Martin, New Testament Foundations. II. The Acts, the Letters, the Apocalypse [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. edn, 1986 ], 278 n. 9 ).Google Scholar
  65. 35.
    Knox, Philemon,67–78. On the seven-letter corpus, see Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment,117–18Google Scholar
  66. H.Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 59–61.Google Scholar
  67. 36.
    C.L. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), 45–54; expanded in his Formation. An early exception was Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles,184 and n. 4.Google Scholar
  68. 37.
    See, e.g., E. Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians ( ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998 ), 66.Google Scholar
  69. 38.
    Zuntz, Text of the Epistles,276.Google Scholar
  70. 39.
    Zuntz, Text of the Epistles,276–77. Goodspeed (Meaning,18) does not take the opening of Ephesians as having the blank, but interprets it as part of the encyclical opening: `to God’s people who are steadfast in Christ Jesus’. See also his New Solutions,11–12, 17. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans. R.W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 213, take this as `impossible’. Its existence in the manuscripts might make one wonder if it is, indeed, impossible, or just unusual.Google Scholar
  71. 40.
    The most recent major advancement of this theory is by G.W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles ( NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992 ), 21–52.Google Scholar
  72. 41.
    The major representatives of the late and early dates are J.C. O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 1970), 21; and A. Harnack, Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte and zur Abfassungszeit der Synoptischen Evangelien (BENT 4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1911), a revision from his earlier view, which conformed to the majority position.Google Scholar
  73. 42.
    Besides above, see now S. Walton, Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians (SNTSMS 108; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), who cautiously marshals a number of parallels between the Miletus speech and 1 Thessalonians that point to the author of Acts knowing and using this letter.Google Scholar
  74. 43.
    See Bruce, Canon,130 n. 47; Patzia, Making of the New Testament,81.Google Scholar
  75. 44.
    See Best, Ephesians,66.Google Scholar
  76. 45.
    F.C. Baur developed his reconstruction in a number of important works. These include a series of articles, such as, `Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christentums in der alten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom’, Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831), 61–206 (repr. with other essays in Historisch-kritische Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament [introduction by E. Käsemann; Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: F. Frommann, 1963 ], 1–146); and are reflected in two major works of relevance for New Testament studies: Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre ( Stuttgart: Becher & Müller, 1845Google Scholar
  77. ET Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, His Life and Work, his Epistles and his Doctrine [2 vols.; trans. A. Menzies; ed. E. Zeller; London: Williams & Norgate, 2nd edn, 1873, 1875]); and Das Christentum und die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte (Tübingen: Fues, 2nd edn, 1860 [1853]; repr. with introduction by U. Wickert; Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: F. Frommann, 1966Google Scholar
  78. ET The Church History of the First Three Centuries [2 vols.; trans. A. Menzies; London: Williams & Norgate, 3rd edn, 1878, 1879]).Google Scholar
  79. 46.
    W. Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics (trans. J.E. Steely; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1972 [1964]), 239–74, in a chapter first published as `Zur Abfassung und ältesten Sammlung der paulinischen Hauptbriefe’, ZNW 51 (1960), 225–45.Google Scholar
  80. 47.
    For important discussion, see H. Gamble, Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (SD 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), esp. 129–32.Google Scholar
  81. 48.
    For review of such theories regarding Philippians, see J.T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity (JSNTSup 136; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), esp. 124–52.Google Scholar
  82. 49.
    Gamble, New Testament Canon,39.Google Scholar
  83. 50.
    Moule, Birth of the New Testament,260.Google Scholar
  84. 51.
    Lake, Introduction,96; cf. Gamble, New Testament Canon,41; idem,`Canon’, 207. This would follow the view of Zahn, noted above. Following the ideas of Harnack, J. Knox (Marcion and the New Testament [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942], 39–76) proposed that Marcion was responding to an already gathered corpus, noting similarities between Marcion’s list and that in the Muratorian canon. As Moule notes in response (Birth of the New Testament,260-Google Scholar
  85. Knox’s theory is based upon the books being on two rolls each that were rewound backwards. Moule considers this an implausible hypothesis on both counts, since codexes may well have been used and the error in rolling easily detected and corrected. See also E.C. Blackman, Marcion and his Influence (London: SPCK, 1948 ), 23–41, esp. 38–41 on Knox; J.J. Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion (CBQMS 21; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989 ).Google Scholar
  86. 52.
    Moule, Birth of the New Testament,264–65.Google Scholar
  87. 53.
    Moule (Birth of the New Testament,265; `The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal’, BJRL 47 [1965], 430–52, with corrections and additions in Birth of the New Testamment,281–82) has also proposed that Luke was the author of the Pastoral Epistles. This would account for why the Pastorals were not present in the earliest references to the Pauline letters, and is reflected later by Marcion. Cf. S.G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979). See also F.J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in their Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 1937), 115–33, who proposes a follower of Paul but does not name him.Google Scholar
  88. 54.
    Guthrie (New Testament Introduction,653) must mean churches outside of Palestine, since relations near the end of Paul’s life with the Jerusalem church were apparently strained at best. See S.E. Porter, The Paul of Acts: Essays in Literary Criticism, Rhetoric, and Theology (WUNT 115; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999 [repr. Paul in Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001)1), 172Google Scholar
  89. 55.
    See, e.g., D. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul (London: Tyndale Press, 1956); New Testament Introduction, 584–622, 671–84Google Scholar
  90. D. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1990), esp. 224–40.Google Scholar
  91. 56.
    For a recent survey, which also addresses some of the ethical issues involved, see M. Davies, The Pastoral Epistles (NTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996 ), 105–18.Google Scholar
  92. 57.
    Gamble, New Testament Canon, 39. Cf. H.-M. Schenke, `Das Weiterwirken des Paulus und die Pflege seines Erbs durch die Paulusschule’, NTS 21 (1975), 505–18.Google Scholar
  93. 58.
    E.E. Ellis, `Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents’, in M.J. Wilkins and T. Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin (JSNTSup 87; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992 ), 212–24Google Scholar
  94. E.E. Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (BIS 39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), esp. 322–24Google Scholar
  95. S.E. Porter, `Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon’, BBR 5 (1995), 105–23Google Scholar
  96. D.A. Carson, `Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy’, in C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), 857–64. For a collection of earlier statements, see N. Brox (ed.), Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdisch-christlichen Antike (Wege der Forschung 484; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  97. 59.
    The question must be raised of why pseudepigraphic authorship would have been necessary, if the recipients would have known that the letters were not written by Paul.Google Scholar
  98. 60.
    See L.R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (HUT 22; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 18–22, who notes that the `noble lie’ is still a lie.Google Scholar
  99. 61.
    Furnish, `Pauline Studies’, 327.Google Scholar
  100. 62.
    Trobisch’s major works in this regard are Die Entstehung; Paul’s Letter Collection; and now First Edition. There is significant overlap among these volumes, all of which I draw upon in the summary that follows, though concentrating upon Paul’s Letter Collection.Google Scholar
  101. 63.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,5–17; cf. First Edition,38–41.Google Scholar
  102. 64.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,17–26; and Die Entstehung,56–62.Google Scholar
  103. 65.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection, 17.Google Scholar
  104. 66.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,20; but cf. his opinion in Die Entstehung,60. This point was already made by Zuntz, Text of the Epistles,1516.Google Scholar
  105. 67.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,24.Google Scholar
  106. 68.
    See Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,52–54.Google Scholar
  107. 69.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,25.Google Scholar
  108. 70.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,25–47.Google Scholar
  109. 71.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,54.Google Scholar
  110. 72.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,54.Google Scholar
  111. 73.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,101 n. 22.Google Scholar
  112. 74.
    See Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,55–96; cf. Die Entstehung,100104, 128–32.Google Scholar
  113. 75.
    See Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,62–70.Google Scholar
  114. 76.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,71–72, 88.Google Scholar
  115. 77.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,73–86, 89–91.Google Scholar
  116. 78.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,86–87.Google Scholar
  117. 79.
    Murphy-O’Connor, Paul,120–30.Google Scholar
  118. 80.
    See Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 121, 123. A still standard work on stichometry is J.R. Harris, Stichometry ( London: Clay, 1893 ).Google Scholar
  119. 81.
    Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 130.Google Scholar
  120. 82.
    According to Guthrie (New Testament Introduction,657), it was proposed by R.L. Archer, `The Epistolary Form in the New Testament’, ExpTim 63 (195152), 296–98, that, using Seneca as his model, Paul kept copies of his letters (p. 297).Google Scholar
  121. 83.
    E.R. Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (WUNT 2.42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), esp. 164–65, 187–88; followed by E.E. Ellis, `Pastoral Letters’, in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin, and D.P. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993), 660; idem, Making of the New Testament Documents, 86, 132, 297.Google Scholar
  122. 84.
    This seems to include Ellis, Making of the New Testament Documents, passim,who apparently wants to maintain a thirteen-letter corpus, with Paul as its originator.Google Scholar
  123. 85.
    This would seem to hark back to the Baur hypothesis, with the beginning stage being the four letters.Google Scholar
  124. 86.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,54. Note that it is not just `probable’, but `highly probable’.Google Scholar
  125. 87.
    It must also be noted that Richards’s theory that Paul made copies of his letters does not necessitate Paul as the direct instigator of the collection of his letters, as Richards himself clearly notes in his advocacy of a secretary hypothesis.Google Scholar
  126. 88.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,55; and Die Entstehung,100. See also Cicero, Att 16.7.1, for an indirect reference.Google Scholar
  127. 89.
    This passage can be used, however, by those who argue for authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles, such as Richards (Secretary,164–65) and Ellis (Making of the New Testament Documents,86, 297, but who also cites 1 Cor 5:19ff.).Google Scholar
  128. 90.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,56 on Cicero, Fam Bk 13, and 73–86 on the Corinthian letters; Murphy-O’Connor, Paul,127. Murphy-O’Connor (Paul,118) contends that Richards’s theory of a secretary using Paul’s copies cannot account for those letters that are composites. Murphy-O’Connor clearly assumes that theories of composite letters are proven.Google Scholar
  129. 91.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection, 48–50; idem, Die Entstehung, 84–88. The distinction goes back to G.A. Deissmann (Bible Studies [trans. A. Grieve; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901 (1895, 1897)], 3–59; `Epistolary Literature’, in T.K. Cheyne and J.S. Black [eds.], Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archaeology, Geography and Natural History of the Bible [4 vols.; London: A. & C. Black, 1899–1907], 2.cols. 1323ff.; Light from the Ancient East [trans. L.R.M. Strachan; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 4th edn, 1927 (1910)], 224–46), but is now seen to be overdrawn, at least in much English-language scholarship. For representative recent examples, see D.E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987 ), 161Google Scholar
  130. L.T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 251. Trobisch does not seem to know of the English-language scholarship that has questioned Deissmann’s categories, at least as reflected in his references in Die Entstehung.Google Scholar
  131. 92.
    Trobisch himself distinguishes between a letter being sent and hand delivered by the author, a particularly doubtful distinction, in the light of letters being seen in epistolary studies as a substitute for the personal presence of the author. See H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee and Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia B.102.2; Helsinki: Suomal-ainen Tiedeakatemia, 1956), esp. 88–127.Google Scholar
  132. 93.
    S.K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity ( LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986 ), 19.Google Scholar
  133. 94.
    Murphy-O’Connor, Paul,12–13.Google Scholar
  134. 95.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,13, who dates it to around AD 200. Trobisch appears to have modified his position since Die Entstehung (pp. 26–27 and n. 60), where he contends that the 200 date is not so certain and argues instead for the third century.Google Scholar
  135. 96.
    See F.G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible (rev. A.W. Adams; London: Duckworth, 3rd edn, 1975 [1936]), 70–71.Google Scholar
  136. 97.
    See Duff, 1346 and the Pastorals’, 578–90.Google Scholar
  137. 98.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,22.Google Scholar
  138. 99.
    Schmithals, Paul,254, citing the Muratorian canon (is this evidence for its early date?), Marcion, and Tertullian, Marc 4.5 and Haer 36.Google Scholar
  139. 100.
    See Gamble, Textual History, passim; J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993 ), 55–68.Google Scholar
  140. 101.
    Trobisch’s argumentation (Paul’s Letter Collection, 71) is difficult to grasp. He seems to assume that Romans 16 is a cover letter on the basis of there being many ancient examples of such letters (the one example he cites is from the third century AD). He then gives two characteristics of the cover letter, one that it is not addressed to the same place as is the original letter, and the other that it most often would mention the enclosed copies of the letter. Thus, he must take Rom 16:22 as `I [Tertius] copied the letter for you’.Google Scholar
  141. 102.
    Best, Ephesians,66; Zuntz, Text of the Epistles,276. It would be a dubious argument to claim that once the first four letters are removed, then Ephesians stands at the head of a collection. There is still the objection that the content of Ephesians itself it not appropriate as such a letter.Google Scholar
  142. 103.
    See M. Kiley, Colossians and Pseudepigraphy (BibSem; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 46–47, who argues that Paul mentions `financial transactions on behalf of his mission’ in the seven authentic letters.Google Scholar
  143. 104.
    See Murphy-O’Connor, Paul,128, who uses such information in terms of his collection B.Google Scholar
  144. 105.
    On the issue of the particularity of the letters and the problems related to collecting the Pauline letters, see Dahl, `Particularity’.Google Scholar
  145. 106.
    Schmithals, Paul,256.Google Scholar
  146. 107.
    Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,20.Google Scholar
  147. 108.
    Murphy-O’Connor, Paul,125.Google Scholar
  148. 109.
    Murphy-O’Connor (Paul,123) dismisses this as `an error without historical significance’.Google Scholar
  149. 110.
    Murphy-O’Connor (Paul,124) again dismisses this transposition as `an insignificant error’. Cf. Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection,17, where he claims that 5146 in its entirety is arranged according to length, with Hebrews placed before 1 Corinthi-ans so as not to separate the two Corinthian letters.Google Scholar
  150. 111.
    Zuntz, Text of the Epistles,263–83.Google Scholar
  151. 112.
    A possible exception is the numbering of the chapters in B 03 Codex Vaticanus. But, as Trobisch notes (Paul’s Letter Collection,21–22), it is only the numbering of the chapters that places Hebrews after Galatians, since the books themselves are written with Hebrews after 2 Thessalonians. Contra Murphy-O’Connor, Paul,123–25.Google Scholar
  152. 113.
    This pattern is thus found not only in modern arrangements of the Pauline canon (Bruce, Canon,130 n. 50), but in ancient times as well.Google Scholar
  153. 114.
    This is not the place to defend at length the hypothesis that all of these letters qualify as personal letters of sorts, except to note that Philemon is typically considered a personal letter even if it is more than that (J.A. Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon [AB 34C; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 23), and that much of the dispute over authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles concerns the personal elements found in the letters and the fact that they are addressed to individuals associated with Paul’s mission (see E.E. Ellis, Paul and his Recent Interpreters [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961], 49–57, for an older but representative survey of opinion). See now also J.T. Reed, `To Timothy or Not? A Discourse Analysis of 1 Timothy’, in S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (JSNTSup 80; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 90–118, who notes the clear indications of the personal nature of the correspondence addressed to Timothy.Google Scholar
  154. 115.
    I find Richards’s theory very plausible, in the light of practice in the ancient world, the nature of the Pauline correspondence, and the indications from the Pauline corpus as a whole. See also O. Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken Briefe (BWANT 4. 6; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933 ).Google Scholar
  155. 116.
    Critical scholarship would, as noted above, endorse seven letters, but the above formulation suggests that there are structural reasons regarding the shape of the Pauline corpus for seeing all thirteen as authentic. Less likely is that nine letters are authentic, since that requires bracketing out an entire category of letters, the personal letters, in which at least one letter is acknowledged to be genuine.Google Scholar
  156. 117.
    See Guthrie, New Testament Introduction,655–57, for defence of Timothy. The relationship of this theory to the issue of the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles is unavoidable.Google Scholar
  157. 118.
    See C.-J. Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen (WUNT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991 )Google Scholar
  158. Porter, Paul of Acts,187–206. It is even possible to accommodate the objection that this close companion assembled a number of smaller letters into larger ones, especially if he had been close to Paul and knew his mission strategy—this assumes that such a hypothesis is necessary.Google Scholar
  159. 119.
    See Dahl, `Particularity’, 265–66, who recognizes the problem.Google Scholar
  160. 120.
    I must confess to having lost sight of who first originated this analogy, and apologize for not making explicit reference to its source. The analogy, I believe, is so pertinent that I think it merits inclusion in any case, and I would welcome being informed of its originator so that I can include reference in any future reprint or use of it.Google Scholar
  161. 121.
    Walker, `Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered’, 63–70, following especially M.S. Enslin, “`Luke” and Paul’, JAOS 58 (1938), 81–90Google Scholar
  162. Walker, `Once Again, Luke and Paul’, ZNW 61 (1970), 253–71; and now with further evidence in W.O. Walker, Jr., `Acts and the Pauline Corpus Revisited: Peter’s Speech at the Jerusalem Conference’, in R.P. Thompson and T.E. Phillips (eds.), Literary Studies in Luke Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson ( Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998 ), 77–86.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanley E. Porter
    • 1
  1. 1.McMaster Divinity CollegeHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations