[German original, copyright J.C.B.Mohr, Tübingen, 1934] Second German Edition ed and supplemented byGeorg Strecker [Copyright J.C.B.Mohr, Tübingen, 1964] English Translation ed and supplemented byRobert A. Kraft andGerhard Kroedel with a team from the Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins [Copyright Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1971] Updated Electronic English Edition byRobert A. Kraft [Copyright Robert A. Kraft, 10 April 1993] ***Not yet fully edited for consistent electronic release***
[[ET 195 ]][198] [ch 9]
It is one thing to use the Old Testament (and the same holds true or sayings of the Lord or writings of the apostles) for the purposes of supporting or even refuting a view which is already in existence, and thus to regard it as a weapon. It is quite another thing when those writings become contributing factors in the formation of a particular brand of Christianity, whether in a positive manner or because they arouse opposition. It is not always easy, however, to differentiate between these usages in the period of origins with which our investigation is concerned. The two can blend together and one can be transformed into the other. The possibility also exists of employing scripture in support of a doctrine, even though it had no special importance for the establishment of that position, at least in the consciousness of those who produced it and who represent it. As a point of departure, we move from the end of the second century, prior to the stage of development represented by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian which shows the church to be in possession of the two testaments, willing and able to use them in every respect in support of orthodoxy, and proceed backward toward the beginnings. What significance does the Old Testament have in the interplay of forces within Christianity?[1] [199] [[ET 196]]
Perhaps Hegesippus could give us an impression of the ecclesiastical situation at the end of our period. But as a witness he is not fully satisfactory. He claims to have found, on his journey to Rome, that "in every succession and in every city,"[2] the basis of faith had been "the Law and the Prophets and the Lord" (EH 4.22.3) -- that is, the Old Testament and the Lord.[3] Eusebius immediately draws the conclusion from the words of Hegesippus that the latter has had contact with a great many "bishops" (EH 4.22.1; see above 190 ff. on Eusebius' use of superlatives) in the course of his journey to Rome. Hegesippus himself, in the portion reported in Eusebius, speaks only of contact with the heads of the Christian communities in Corinth and in Rome (EH 4.22.2-3). And even when we take into consideration everything else reported about him, we hear nothing at all about orthodox bishops with whom he had been in accord apart from James and his successor in Jerusalem (EH 4.22.4). Even Polycarp and Papias, who usually like to appear on [200] such occasions, are not present in the account. But as far as Corinth and Rome are concerned, [[ET 197]] Hegesippus' formula is no longer adequate for the churches of his day since for them, the Apostle Paul with his collection of letters has undoubtedly already assumed a regular place alongside the Old estament and the Lord around the year 180. The formula "Old Testament and the Lord" apparently applies more satisfactorily to the Jewish Christian communities of Palestine, whence Hegesippus came (EH 4.22.8), or preserves an expression which to some extent adequately described he ecclesiastical outlook of a Justin[4] and a Papias a generation earlier. What we learn from Hegesippus concerning the state of affairs in all orthodox churches of his time can therefore only to a very limited degree be regarded as a result of his investigations on a journey to the West in which the current situation was recorded impartially. But for our present purposes (see further below, 213 f.) it suffices to note that wherever Hegesippus went, he found the Old Testament acknowledged to be holy scripture in the ecclesiastical brotherhoods. That is certainly correct. That there were orthodox Christians at that time who denied the Old Testament is extremely unlikely since its rejection was one of the chief characteristics of abominable heresy.
According to the view of the Basilidians, the Old Testament derived
from the creators of the world, and the law in particular came from their
chief (
The mode and manner by which the heretics discharged their
obligations with regard to the Old Testament varied, and sometimes
exegetical devices played a part. Such skills made possible the assertion
that the prophets contradict themselves and thereby betray their complete
unreliability (Apelles in EH 5.13.6;
With that, the line is already established along which the
ecclesiastical valuation of the Old Testament proceeds. It contains no
contradictions, and neither Jesus nor the apostles stand in opposition to it.
The cleft which, for example, Marcion in his
The Old Testament was only of limited usefulness in opposing the
heretics. This was not simply because it is not possible to use it for
convincing people who do not acknowledge it. It was not very much
different with those who did accept it, since they read it also from their
own perspective and did not allow themselves to be influenced by the
opposing viewpoint; they had their "own interpretation" (
Nevertheless, such instances are only sporadic in the period under
discussion. [203] It seems to be more typical when Polycarp, who hates
the heretics as much as he values scripture (
As we have already seen with respect to
On this point (cf. Irenaeus AH 1.26.2 [= 1.22]), and on the whole
in the acknowledgment of the Old Testament as the record of divine
revelation, orthodoxy could easily come to an understanding with Jewish
Christianity. But as soon as one began to deal with particular details, there
became evident even here disagreement that separated the known Jewish
Christians from that portion of the gentile Christians who had not
renounced the old covenant. To be sure, both groups consciously
subjected themselves to the guidance of the Old Testament and the
gospel. But it made a great deal of difference whether one attempted to
understand the latter on the basis of the former, or whether one
approached the former from the viewpoint of a gentile Christian
interpretation of faith in Christ. The inevitable controversy died out only
with the demise of Jewish Christianity itself. As long as Jewish Christianity
existed, gentile Christians who came into contact with it were offended by
what they regarded as a Judaizing perversion of the Christian heritage,
and were accused in return of having deprived the Old Testament -- and
therefore a major portion of the divine revelation -- of its true meaning just
as the arch-heretic Paul had done. We are no longer able to determine
whether the lost writing of Clement of Alexandria entitled "Ecclesiastical
Canon, or Against (or `To') the Judaizers" (
Justin plays off the orthodox understanding of the Old Testament
and the gospel against the "human" convictions of the Jewish Christians
(
At the center of the gospel stands the Lord, the other
authority for that Christianity of which we learned above -- an authority
superior to the "scriptures" not only because it dictates the way to
understand them, but also because all the believers agree in respect for it.
But even at this point there is great diversity. Each individual and each
special group is fighting for its Christ and against the Christ of the others,
and is endeavoring to enlist tradition and theological inference in his
service. Here one attempts to produce what is considered to be the most
authentic possible tradition of the life and teaching of Jesus -- attributed to
the eyewitnesses themselves -- primarily by [[ET 203]] dressing up the
tradition and supplying an appropriate interpretation. In my earlier work
dealing with traditions about Jesus (
Jewish Christianity, in accord with the
diversity it spawned, has at its disposal several gospels: the
On this matter, it is scarcely possible to make any distinction
between a Clement of Alexandria or an Origen and the heretical gnostics.
The former also assume that in his teaching, Jesus acted differently toward
those whom he trusted than toward the common people, and that [207]
with reference to the apostles, he made a further distinction between the
time before and the time after his resurrection (cf.
Papias' conclusion was that apostolic tradition about the life and
teaching of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels of Mark/Peter and of
Matthew, and also here and there where his perception and probably
even more, his particular preference had come across material that was
agreeable and thereby proved itself to be genuine. We have suspected
that he ignored the Third and Fourth Gospels because their usefulness had
been called into question by the esteem with which they were held by the
heretics. To be sure, Matthew and [[ET 205]] Mark also were used by
heretics,[15] but apparently not in so blatant a
fashion as the other two. In addition, the place which Matthew and Mark
occupied within the "church" was already so secure at the time of Papias,
and the two gospels, especially the first, had become so indispensable,
that there could no longer be any question of abandoning them. The
encroachment by the heretics had to be countered in another way,
namely, through
Papias felt that he could acknowledge only two of our biblical
gospels. Perhaps this was because his particularly vulnerable situation
made it advisable for him to limit himself only to what was completely
reliable. It was somewhat different for his contemporary and coreligionist
Justin. Justin did not shrink from using Luke as a source for the earthly life
of Jesus, in addition to the other synoptics, and because he considered all
three of these gospels to be written by apostles or their companions
(
Perhaps Justin knew the gospel of John, but even if he did, his outlook is intrinsically foreign to it.[16] It is basically so foreign that we can scarcely silence the voice that would bid us to give up altogether any thought of such an acquaintance. Justin completely follows the narrative sequence of the synoptics, even where they conflict with John. Like John, Justin is possessed with the idea of existence of Christ as the Logos prior to the creation of the world, but he does not derive his proof from the Fourth Gospel, neither from the prologue nor any other portion; moreover he does not even derive it from the letters of Paul, [209] but seeks laboriously to press the synoptics into the service of such ideas. The miraculous birth or the confession of Peter must bear the brunt of providing a proof which John could have given with no difficulty. Whenever we feel certain that John can no longer remain silent, we find ourselves disappointed.[17] That becomes all the more striking when we observe, in contrast, how Justin is able unreservedly to take advantage of his sympathies with the Apocalypse, where he has such. The least that we can say is that the gospel of John has left no noticeable impression on Justin. But in this respect, Justin represents the position of ecclesiastically oriented Rome in the middle of the second century. This is all the more evident insofar as the old Roman confession assumes the same stance toward the canonical gospels as does Justin, and like him follows the synoptic line.
Can it be a coincidence that immediately after Justin, the enemy of
heretics who also took aim at the Valentinians (
I am convinced that the Roman presbyter Gaius, whom Hippolytus
also thought he should refute explicitly, is closely connected with those
people whom Epiphanius [210] opposes as "alogoi" on the basis of
statements made against them by the Roman Hippolytus.[18] Their view concerning the Fourth Gospel is
already present by the year 175, as the opposition of Irenaeus indicates
(above, 141); and even if Gaius had not been active before the end of
the century, he nevertheless appropriated for himself many of the views
of that group. But he did not thereby fall under the charge of heresy on
the part of his catholic opponents. They were, on the contrary, in complete
agreement with his unrelenting condemnation of gnostics and Montanists.
It was thus permissible for a Roman Christian from these circles, and an
officeholder as well, to consider not only the Apocalypse but even the
gospel of John as a forgery of the gnostic Cerinthus. [19] He reproaches it for its contradictions with the
other gospels, plays Mark off against John (Epiphanius
If we listen to the sources without prejudice, it seems to me that this
is the result: a current of caution with regard to the gospel of John runs
continuously through ecclesiastical Rome, that center of
orthodoxy, right up to almost the end of the second century -- a mood that
manifests itself through silence and through explicit rejection. Even the
silence becomes eloquent if one notices that people such as Ptolemy,
Heracleon and Tatian, who are sharply attacked by the church, can
treasure the gospel for similar reasons. Gaius in his own way gives
expression to a feeling which dominated Roman orthodoxy [211] ever
since the Fourth Gospel appeared on its horizon and which doubtless
accounts for Justin's attitude when he consciously appeals to the synoptics
for support, just as do the alogoi. Apparently the gospel of John was
introduced into the world capital by personalities whose recommendation
could not be accepted by the "church" there. Up until the end of the epoch
with which we are dealing, it had still not overcome such reservations. To
around the close of the second century, history is unable to name a single
orthodox Roman for whom the Fourth Gospel had been of any
significance. The line of orthodox admirers is first attested in Rome with the
If we go back to the period prior to Justin, I still remain convinced that it is impossible to demonstrate that any of the apostolic fathers used the Fourth Gospel.[21] That is particularly noteworthy in the case of Polycarp, of whose bond with Rome based on a common enmity toward heresy we already are aware (above, 107). A survey of the gospel-like material[22] seems to me to suggest that the situation with respect to Polycarp is quite similar to that of the Roman Clement, with whom he is so intimately familiar.
The first letter of Clement (about 95/96) as well as the letter of
Polycarp (about twenty years later) make no use of the Fourth Gospel.
And [212] just as, in my opinion, the hypothesis is fully justified that the
former, like its contemporaries the first and third evangelists, knew the
gospel of Mark and also a sort of "sayings-source," so also with regard to
Polycarp we need not suppose anything different. Nor has C. Taylor been
able to convince me that
This awareness should also guide us as we investigate whence Ignatius, who lived quite a bit earlier, came to know something of the life of Jesus. Many think he had access to the Fourth Gospel. But the oft-cited "reminiscences" are ambiguous and do not lead to a firm conviction of dependence; on the contrary, they make the absence of any actual quotations appear to be be all the more curious.[25] In any event, he does not appeal to that gospel for his great confessional statements concerning Christ in which to some extent he is in harmony with the gospel of John -- for Christ's pre-existence, deity, [[ET 210]] and status as "Logos." And for many things that seem to us to be "gospel"-like in nature and might have come directly or even indirectly from a written gospel, John simply does not enter the picture.
The Fourth Gospel knows nothing of the claim that Mary was a
descendent of David,[26] or that the Tetrarch
Herod took part in the crucifixion (
The situation with Ignatius is basically the same as with Justin
(above, 205 f.). Both believe in the heavenly pre-existence of Christ, and
yet the gospel writings which both of them use begin only with the
miraculous conception of Jesus. In
Rather, the hypothesis that Ignatius used the gospel of Matthew
might seem more appealing;[28] but no really
convincing evidence can be adduced even for this. Nevertheless it is
certain that this gospel, if it does play some role, by no means exhausts
what Ignatius thinks he knows about the life of Jesus. What was especially
valuable for Ignatius in the tradition concerning Jesus was that which
revealed the divine glory of the Lord,[29] and what
further [214] appeared to be appropriate for proving, in opposition to the
view of the docetics, that Jesus had been a real human with flesh and
blood throughout his entire life, as well as after his resurrection (cf.
especially
On the other hand, it appears to me to some extent demonstrated that the Gospel of John had a difficult time gaining recognition in the "church." But it succeeded. In Asia, the "apostolic" protector of the indigenous orthodox church took it under his wing.[30] And neither the Asian Irenaeus, nor the "gnostic" Clement in Alexandria, nor the Montanist Tertullian in North Africa (whose inclinations in that direction were much older than his break with the church) were in a position to doubt or even to challenge the tradition that was thus [[ET 212]] produced. When the gospel canon was defined, which was to be valid for the entire church, Rome found itself overruled, to put it rather crudely. The resistance offered previously, and perhaps more instinctively than consciously, was abandoned all the more willingly since the reasons which had caused Rome to view the Fourth Gospel in a suspicious light no longer retained their old force around the year 200. At that earlier time, the danger of heresy was a burden to Rome, but now the gospel of John could perform a valuable service in the construction and establishment of the ecclesiastical proclamation of Christ, as it had developed, without fear of undesirable side effects.
If we have correctly understood and described the position of the "church" with respect to the biblical gospels, then the peculiar order which they assume in its canon becomes self-explanatory. Irenaeus (AH 3.1.1 [=3.1.2]) and the Muratorian list already attest the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. At first, [215] if we may begin after the period when one had to be content with just Mark and "Q" (see above, 209), the church made use of only the first two gospels, and probably arranged them according to size, following a principle that prevailed also with respect to the collection of Pauline epistles. After some delay, and not without encountering resistance, Luke followed, and only at the very last was John included. The idea that the chronological sequence of composition determined their order is merely an attempt to come to terms with an arrangement that originally had been established for different reasons.
Alongside the scriptures of the Old Testament and the Lord in the
gospels, appear the apostles as the third authority of
Christianity (see already the New Testament reference in Eph. 2.20). Their
incomparable significance for the faithful does not need to be verified
once more from the statements of the latter. Nor is it necessary to
demonstrate that the apostles, by whom the tradition from the earliest
Christian times is supported (as we already know), possessed enormous
value for the ideological struggle. The apostles are introduced explicitly
into the fight against the heretics by the epistle of Jude (17-19), which is
paralleled in 2 Peter (3.2 ff.), or by Polycarp (
The apostle Paul holds claim to a special place. It may be even more necessary here than elsewhere to approach the evidence without prejudice. What is the significance [216] of the Apostle to the Gentiles in the ideological struggle? Where do we encounter his influence? Where is there a sense of obligation to him? Once again we will proceed by moving back from the end toward the beginning. At the same time, we would do well to remember what we have already discovered to be the probable history of many a community founded by Paul. We need to be clear about the fact that the Apostle did not always succeed in maintaining a firm hold over what he possessed. Even outside the circle of the Jewish Christians,[31] with their bitter hatred of Paul and the resulting blunt rejection of everything influenced by him, we hear him disparaged.[32]
Hegesippus took his stand as a follower of the Old Testament and
the Lord, but aroused our doubts (above, 196f.) as to whether he really
had listed completely, as he apparently intended, the fundamental basic
authorities for all orthodox churches of his time. We have denied that this
was the case for those at Corinth and Rome, where the apostle Paul with
his collection of letters must have stood [[ET 214]] alongside the Old
Testament and the Lord around the year 180. But for Hegesippus himself
that does not yet seem to have been the case, so that for him "the law and
the prophets and the Lord" were, in fact, ill disposed toward this
supplementation by means of Paul. This follows not only because in the
other relevant passage he also simply refers to "the divine scriptures and
the Lord" (above, 196 n. 3). It is much more significant that he was
acquainted with the first epistle of Clement to Corinth (EH 4.22.1 f.,
3.16), but not with 1 Corinthians. Rather, in the second passage
mentioned above (196 n. 3), in a manner expressing complete ignorance,
he immediately plays off against it "the divine scriptures and the Lord,"
particularly the saying of the Lord "Blessed are your eyes, since they see,
and your ears, since they hear" (according to Matt. 13.16).[33] In 1 Corinthians 2.9, however, quite the opposite
is said -- "The good things prepared for the just no eye has seen nor ear
heard," etc. Now in the fifth book of his
When we move back from Hegesippus to one of similar stripe, Papias, and ask what this bishop of a community that belonged to the regions reached by the Apostle to the Gentiles and was already in existence during Paul's lifetime (Col. 4.13) thought of Paul, it appears to me that again only one answer is possible -- nothing. We are already to some extent prepared for this since we fittingly connected Eusebius' failure to record any expression of opinion by Papias concerning [[ET 215]] the Gospel of Luke with the fact that the Third Gospel was the gospel used by the heretic Marcion (see above, 184 f., 187). When EH 3.39.12-17 informs us that Papias valued the Apocalypse quite highly, that he used the apostolic gospels of Matthew and of Mark/Peter along with other traditional materials from the circle of the twelve and finally that he also cites from 1 John and 1 Peter while in the same context various persons of the apostolic age to whom Papias appealed are mentioned by name (EH 3.39.2-10), its silence about Paul and his letters is completely clear, and cannot be interpreted any differently from the corresponding approach toward the gospels of Luke and John. Papias must have assumed a negative attitude here as well, even if it also may have manifested itself only through silence. That, in fact, the remains of the literary activity of Papias never show anything even vaguely resembling Pauline coloration is only mentioned in passing, since if this observation had to stand alone, it would prove precious little in view of the paucity of the remnants of Papias. Taking everything together, however, we find in Papias a churchman who, in addition to the Apocalypse and the genuine gospel tradition emanating from the bosom of Palestine, holds those two writings in highest regard which indicate their ecclesiastical orientation in a particularly clear way, the one [218] by its origin in Rome and its Petrine authorship [1 Peter], the other by its explicitly anti-gnostic thrust [1 John]. The letters of Paul (so long as we still must disregard the pastoral Epistles) could in no way compete with such writings, especially since they were compromised through the patronage of people like Marcion.
Justin, the contemporary and coreligionist of Papias, was no more
successful than the latter in acquiring anything from the Apostle to the
Gentiles. That is even more peculiar in his case since he carried on his
activity in Rome, where "Peter and Paul" was the watchword, and at least
Romans and 1 Corinthians were available. But in the case of Justin also,
one must sharply minimize the claims of Pauline reminiscences in order to
arrive at an acceptable result.[35] Such allusions
are of no help to me, since at best they spring up occasionally from the
subconscious but evidence no kind of living relationship with Paul. Or
what is one to think of this matter in view of the fact that it does not occur
to the apologist to mention Romans 13 when [[ET 216]] he argues that
the Christians have always patriotically paid their taxes
(
The fact that in Rome, unlike Hierapolis, the gospel of Luke did not
experience a temporary rejection together with the letters of Paul is surely
due to geographical considerations. Perhaps one might wish to explain in
a similar manner the fact that another churchman, who stood in the
forefront of the battle with heresy and whom we know especially as an
opponent of Marcion, Polycarp of Smyrna, has a much more positive
relationship to the letters of Paul than did Justin. [[ET 217]] Still, it is more
accurate to find the reason for this in chronological rather than
geographical limitations, and to remind ourselves that Polycarp wrote his
epistle to the Philippians a good while before Marcion appeared. Thus he
needed to feel no reservations about using Paul for support as he
attempted to strengthen the backbone of the ecclesiastical minority in a
Christian community that the Apostle to the Gentiles had founded and to
which he had sent epistolary instructions (see above, 71-74). For him the
blessed and illustrious Paul, with his wisdom, was a most valuable ally --
Polycarp knew full well that the Apostle to the Gentiles had instructed the
Philippians not only orally, but also by means of letters.[37] And although Polycarp apparently was not even
exactly clear as to the number of such letters, and does not avoid the kind
of language illustrated by the matter-of-fact way in which his ecclesiastical
consciousness associates "the other apostles" with Paul (9.1), this is
insufficient reason to doubt that he was acquainted with the canonical
epistle to the Philippians. Concerning the other Pauline epistles, it seems to
me that there are clear indications only for his having read 1 Corinthians
and probably also Romans. Galatians and Ephesians also might have
belonged to his collection, but I cannot free myself from doubts concerning
the pastoral [220] Epistles.[38] Polycarp clearly
agrees with Papias, however, in the use of 1 Peter, which Eusebius had
already noted (EH 4.14.9), and of 1 John (Polycarp
We have already heard of the sympathy which the Antiochian
churchman Ignatius, probably stimulated by Rome, showed toward the
apostles Peter and Paul (above, 112, 117). In contrast to Polycarp,
Ignatius does not betray any knowledge (as yet) of 1 Peter, nor of 1 John.
But when we then inquire further as to the influence of Paul and his
epistles, the result also is not very impressive. To be sure, alongside
obvious deviations Ignatius advocates ideas, or perhaps better, attitudes
that we similarly observe in the Apostle to the Gentiles who, like Ignatius,
was facing martyrdom, and here and there Ignatius comes close to Paul
with regard to external form. But a direct, fully conscious dependence on
the letters of Paul still does [[ET 218]] not occur. In the single letter of
Polycarp, who can be called a spiritual disciple of Paul only in a very
limited way, the latter is mentioned by name three times (3.2, 9.1, 11.2-
3), and once a Pauline saying is explicitly quoted (11.2 = 1 Cor. 6.2). But
in the seven letters of Ignatius, with the exception of the Roman
watchword concerning Peter and Paul (
The reason I will have nothing to do with the question of indirect influence is the futility of an argumentation based on only halfway satisfactory evidence. Although such an influence cannot be denied for Paul in those decades in general, we are in no position to define and delimit it with precision in this particular instance any more than in others. My awareness of the extremely fragmentary nature of our knowledge also prevents me from speaking on this matter even with limited confidence. I cannot possibly adopt a procedure which draws straight lines between the few more or less sure points that can still be ascertained, and thus manages to make connections between relatively remote items -- connections the possibility and nature of which remain completely obscure. Paul and Ignatius are separated by a full half century that was quite rich in events of great significance for the [[ET 219]] Christian cause, and within which the development of Christianity in Antioch is almost completely unknown to me. The history of Paul has not encouraged me to expect that this city, where the Christian community did not belong to his circle during his lifetime and which received no letter from him, should suddenly open itself to him and to his writings (see above, 63). The period after Paul's death would seem to us to have been much more a time of diminution of the Pauline sphere of influence, rather than expansion. And what we may still have been in a position to ascertain concerning the shape of Christian life in Antioch to the time of Ignatius (above, 65-67) indicates that influences other than that of Paul were at work there and connects Ignatius to them, despite all his resistance.
Of course, all doubt would fade away if in the essentials of his
teaching Ignatius were perceptibly dependent on statements from the
Pauline epistles. But that is not the case. The only letter that could with
certainty be ascribed to Ignatius' use was, as we saw above, 1
Corinthians -- that unit among the major Pauline letters which yields the
very least for our understanding of the Pauline faith. And it is not even a
"dogmatic" passage such as 1 Corinthians 15 that had bewitched
Ignatius. But the Pauline proclamation certainly can not overflow into the
postapostolic age through the channel of 1 Corinthians. [222] If the
preservation and promulgation of the Apostle's preaching really had been
the intention behind the original circulation of Pauline letters in this period,
then Romans and the terribly neglected second letter to the Corinthians,
which completely sank into oblivion alongside the first, would have had to
provide the source to a much greater extent that actually took place. But
in our investigation of the impact of the Pauline writings, whenever we
come from the marshy ground of "reminiscences" and "allusions" to firmer
territory, again and again we confront 1 Corinthians. This was true for
Polycarp (see above, 217), is true for Ignatius, and will also be true for
We already know what made 1 Corinthians so valuable to the
author of
If we are not content to believe that it was by an accident of fate that, in the course of scarcely twenty years, precisely 1 Corinthians came to be firmly established and given special honor within the churches of Rome, Smyrna, and Antioch, then it must have been that church in which 1 Corinthians first came to be prized so highly -- indeed, the only church that had a discernible reason for such an attitude -- it must have been Rome that took the initiative. Rome did not want to withhold such an approved weapon from its allies in the fight against heresy. On this occasion Smyrna also may have [[ET 221]] received the epistle to the Romans, the use of which cannot be established for contemporary Antioch, although that possibility is not thereby excluded. Perhaps at that time both communities also obtained 2 Corinthians from the world capital, a document that Rome surely brought home as valuable booty from its Corinthian campaign. Some sort of compelling evidence of such possession, to be sure, can be offered at present neither for Smyrna nor even for Antioch. But such considerations may be left aside, even though they might throw a ray of light, albeit a woefully weak one, on the lengthy and obscure history of the collection of Pauline epistles.[44] [224] It appears to me to be to some degree probable that 1 Corinthians was put at the disposal of the orthodox communities in Symrna and Antioch by Rome, about the year 100. That it at that time may also have received the widely discussed "ecumenical" stamp (1.2)[45] is a suggestion that may be excusable in a book that is forced to rely so heavily on conjectures.
The small collections of Pauline letters, which were cherished at the beginning of the second century in the "churches" of Rome -- doubtless just as in similarly oriented Corinth, in Antioch and Smyrna[46] -- were then surpassed and replaced by Marcion's more complete collection. I would regard him as the first systematic collector of the Pauline heritage. He who ruthlessly rejected the Old [[ET 222]] Testament and everything of primitive Christian tradition that stemmed from Palestine, was plainly bent on giving his teaching as broad a Pauline foundation as possible, while on the other hand, he was in a position to realize his aspirations since he was a well-traveled, educated, affluent person with numerous connections. It would not surprise me if we owed to his perception the short communication of Paul to Philemon, this purely private letter that hardly would have been read in communities prior to Marcion. And whoever wonders with Harnack why "the letter to the Galatians has been preserved for us at all"[47] perhaps may also feel himself indebted to Marcion, since prior to his activity sure traces of Galatians are lacking, while the uncertain traces are sharply limited to Polycarp.
It is well established that Marcion came from Pontus, the neighbor of Galatia, and as he traveled out into the world, he could not have avoided the communities to which Paul had addressed his communication. Possibly he had already become acquainted with this letter in his native land. In any event, it is certain that it was from Galatians[48] [225] and not, say, from Romans with its concise explanation that Christ was the end of the law (10.4), that Marcion got the idea about how he could break the back of the Old Testament, so highly treasured by so many Christians, and drive the Jewish apostles of Jerusalem from the field. Then on his journey through Asia Minor, and as he went further westward until he reached Rome, he may have collected everything that anyone here or there in the Christian communities possessed from Paul. Perhaps, together with the note to Philemon, he also brought to the West at that time the epistle to the Colossians, of which we are unable to detect even the faintest trace prior to Marcion.[49]
In line with this approach, it is difficult for me to believe that Marcion had already known the pastoral Epistles, which are not included in his canon. He who with utmost passion was in hot pursuit of every line from Paul -- he had to be! -- and who because of the paucity of traditional material would hardly permit any large scale wastefulness, also would have pressed these three epistles into his [[ET 223]] service by reworking them. There would have been even less reason to reject all of them together insofar as the epistle to Titus, which from Marcion's perspective would not be wedded for better or worse to the epistles to Timothy,[50] offered very little of offense to him. But if this assumption is correct and is taken seriously, the further hypothesis seems to me valid that the pastoral Epistles still were not in existence at the time that Marcion made his decision as to the extent of the Pauline material. I see no way to accept Harnack's view: {blockin} Around the year 140, Marcion knew a collection of only ten letters; in all probability he did not reject the pastoral Epistles, but simply did not know them. But we are in the fortunate position of being able to trace back to around the year 100 not only the collection of the ten letters, but even that of the thirteen letters, for Polycarp's letter to the Philippians at the time of Trajan shows us through its quotations and allusions that [226] our present collection, including the pastoral epistles, was already in use both in Smyrna and in Philippi. The Pastorals thus had been added to the collection of ten letters already prior to Marcion, and the older collection was supplanted immediately in almost all the churches. Not only the original collection but also that containing 13 letters take us back to the end of the first century as the terminus ad quem![51] {blockout}
Thus there is portrayed for us here a Marcion who comes through
Asia to Rome, but the pastoral Epistles elude him despite the fact that they
have been in use -- and indeed not sporadically here and there, but as
parts of a collection in official use -- for more than a generation, and even
right in Smyrna, a city with which Marcion was in contact during his
journey.[52] Such a Marcion seems to me to be an
impossibility, and for that reason the observations that led Harnack to his
conclusions should be assessed differently. The basic reason for assigning
an early date to the Pastorals is, for Harnack and many others, the notion
that Polycarp reproduces "three passages from the pastoral Epistles in his
letter."[53] Whoever agrees with me in [[ET 224]]
concluding from the negative stance of Marcion toward the Pastorals that
prior to him (to say nothing of the time of Trajan) they cannot already
have received recognition as letters of Paul (to choose a very guarded
form of expression), will explain those "quotations" either (1) by denying
that they reflect any direct dependence[54] but
instead derive from the common use of an established stock of ideas (as in
the corresponding case of the contacts between Ignatius and the Fourth
Gospel; see above, 209 f.), recalling that such connections also exist
between the Pastorals and
If we want to understand the origin of the pastoral Epistles, we
must remember that just as the gospel of John began its existence as a
heretical gospel, so Paul also enjoyed the favor of the heretics to a great
extent. Marcion simply represents a high point, and is by no means a
unique case. Zahn thoroughly demonstrated the close relationships of
Valentinus and his school to the Apostle to the Gentiles;[57] according to Clement of Alexandria
In this light, the reluctance with which the representatives of the church made use of the Apostle to the Gentiles around the middle of the second century (Papias, Justin, Hegesippus; above, 213-215) seems to me to be explicable. Perhaps, as the situation developed, some would have preferred henceforth to exclude Paul completely and to rely exclusively on the twelve apostles. But it was already too late for that. Rome (together with the "church," which it led) had already accepted too much from the Apostle to the Gentiles, had appealed to him too often, suddenly to recognize him no longer. He had become a martyr-apostle of Rome -- had helped it to develop the popular slogan "Peter and Paul"; and even if Rome did not really know how to begin to put to use Paul's letter to the Romans, 1 Corinthians had proved itself to be extremely productive for purposes of church politics in the hands of Rome. By that means, Paul and his letter came to have permanent claims on the "church." There were other cases as well where Christianity subsequently had to come to terms with all sorts of things that it had originally accepted without [[ET 226]] question and from which it could not simply retreat as circumstances changed. Thus initially one spoke without embarrassment, in accordance with the facts (and it is easy enough to find additional examples) about how Jesus also had been baptized; he was happy to be able thus to anchor the Christian practice to the life of Jesus. But then, in the struggle with evil or contrary antagonists, he took great pains to make a convincing case for the superiority of Jesus over John, or to explain just what Jesus could have expected to gain by being baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Thus, despite all heretical misuse, Paul had to be retained as the
"church's" apostle. But it was, of course, desirable henceforth to mark him
unequivocally with the ecclesiastical and anti-heretical stamp. In the light
of this, I am inclined to see the pastoral Epistles as an attempt on the part
of the church unambiguously to enlist Paul as part of its anti-heretical front
and to eliminate the lack of confidence in him in ecclesiastical circles. As its
answer to the heretical Apostle of the epistles to Laodicea and
Alexandria, "forged in the name of Paul" (
However unpopular this view currently may be and however little I
myself shared it a short time ago, it no longer seems to me today to be
improbable that 1 Timothy 6.20 refers to Marcion's
I cannot accept the outlook which rejects such a late origin for the
Pastorals because "in that case a reference to the great gnostic [[ET 227]]
systems would be expected."[61] We do, in fact,
know of an orthodox author who doubtless flourished subsequent to
Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion, and yet makes no clear reference to
these teachings; but in spite of this he wants to draw the Apostle to the
Gentiles into the ecclesiastical phalanx of heresy fighters in much the same
way as we have suspected of the author of the pastoral Epistles. I am
referring to that presbyter in Asia who produced the
The price the Apostle to the Gentiles had to pay to be allowed to
remain in the church was the complete surrender of his personality and
historical particularity. If already in the pastoral Epistles he has strayed far
from his origins, in the
[1] That is the only thing of concern to us here.
We leave aside the question of that use of the Old Testament which does
not clearly relate to the disagreement within Christianity. So far as we can
tell, Christians had not written commentaries on Old Testament books in
the period with which we are dealing. Such activity first commences in a
modest way with the
[2]
[3]
[4] Cf.
[5] Perhaps the same is true of the Valentinian Theotimus; cf. above, 48.
[6]
[7] Jülicher-Fascher,
[8]
[9] Clement of Alexandria
[10] Cf. Bauer,
[11] Irenaeus AH 3.11.9 (= 3.11.12). [A
Coptic verion of a
[12] Irenaeus AH 1.31.1 f. (= 1.28.9). [See
Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1: 313 f. Whether this gospel, attributed to the
"traitor" Judas by Irenaeus, has any relation to the recenily discovered
(Coptic)
[13] E.g. the Carpocratians and the
"Gnostics" according to Irenaeus AH 1.25.5 [= 1.20.3] and 1.30.14 [=
1.28.7]; Ptolemy
[14] Cf. my detailed arguments in Hennecke\2, pp. 114 f.
[15] Mark, for example, by Cerinthus (Irenaeus AH 3.11.7 [= 3.11.10]). We need not list the evidence for Matthew -- it was used by Jewish Christians as well as by gnostics (e.g. Ptolemy, Heracleon) and Montanists.
[16] So Jülicher-Fascher,
[17] Cf. W. Bousset,
[18]
[19] Epiphanius
[20] Cf. Harnack
[21] See Bauer,
[22] Conveniently collected in
[23] C. Taylor,
[24] [For a recent survey of the material, see
H. H. Graham,
[25] [See now R. M. Grant,
[26] Ignatius
[27] Origen traces the story back to the
"
[28] In the opinion of B. H. Streeter,
[29] He proved this, however, with gospel material of a different type and origin than was used by the fourth evangelist, for whom this was also a concern of utmost importance.
[30] Even if the Fourth Gospel had already
been brought into relationship with the apostle John before it came into
the sphere of influence of the church, that does not produce any
difficulties. Peter also is claimed to be the author of the heretical gospel
that bears his name, as well as being the patron of the ecclesiastical
gospel of Mark. And John the son of Zebedee was also the hero of the
gnostic
[31] On the attitude of the Jewish Christians toward Paul, see my treatment in Hennecke\2, pp. 127 f., [and in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 71. See also below, 236, 262 f.].
[32] See above, 149 n. 5. Appeal may also be made to James 2.14-26 as evidence of how difficult it was to retain an undistorted recollection of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
[33] Stephen Gobarus, according to Photius,
[34] See Bauer,
[35] On this matter, cf. Bousset,
[36] It is fitting also to be reminded of Celsus,
who could hardly have gained his insight that orthodoxy represented the
"great" church over against the heretics (Origen
[37] Polycarp
[38] Cf. M. Dibelius,
[39] If Ignatius also knew Ephesians
(compare the inscription to his Ephesian letter with the Pauline Eph. 1.3 ff.;
this has the best claim after 1 Corinthians), and already knew it as a letter
to Ephesus (which is unlikely on account of Marcion [who seems to call it
"Laodiceans"]), then the plural implied in the words "every letter" would
be explained. [Grant,
[40] In the
[41] Strictly speaking, he uses it only for the
purpose of moral admonition --
[42] It also seems that the letter to the Philippians was not yet used in Clement's Roman church. Otherwise he surely also would have remembered Phil. 2.1-12 when he refers to the example of the humble Christ (16.17) and when he matched Paul against the Corinthians (47.1).
[43] Indeed, the
[44] The situation with regard to the
collection of the Pauline epistles is entirely different from that of the letters
of Ignatius. The latter were written one after another and then were
immediately brought together. With Paul, those letters which are surely
genuine cover a period of a decade, and were sent to at least six
different, in part widely separated localities (Galatia, Colossae, Philippi,
Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome). Further decades were required to establish
the prerequisites according to which pseudo-Pauline letters could be
added (Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians; prior to the year 110 according to
Jülicher-Fascher,
[45] Cf. Harnack,
[46] Here the development flourished most extensively, since Polycarp possessed especially wide-ranging connections. He was an Asiatic, but also was in touch with Antioch and Rome, and even had contacts in Macedonia.
[47] Harnack,
[48] That is the only way to explain the fact that in Marcion's holy sciptures, Galatians stands first in the collection of Paul's letters.
[49] With the exception of Ephesians, if it is spuious; but we do not know when and where it made use of Colossians.
[50] Just as little as it was for those heretics
who, according to Clement of Alexandria, rejected only the two epistles to
Timothy (
[51] Harnack,
[52] Harnack,
[53] Harnack,
[54] Cf. M. Dibelius,
[55] [H. F. von Campenhausen has even
argued that Polycarp was the author of the Pastorals; see below, 307. On
the problem in general, see also Schoedel,
[56] Moreover, even the
[57] Zahn,
[58] Italics mine. However, I reject Zahn's continuation as an unproved prejudice; "That was precisely the phraseology that Valentinius found to be dominant in the church and that his school appropiated."
[59] Cf. R. Liechtenhan,
[60] This sort of analysis of the purpose of the Pastorals does not, of course, exclude the other view which sees them as a weapon in the conflict with the heretics. Cf. above, 76.
[61] As in Dibelius,
[62] Rolffs in Hennecke\2, pp. 196 f. [See now also Schneemelcher in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 2: 348.]
[63] See above, 114 n. 6, and cf. C. Schmidt ''Ein Berliner Fragment der alten Praxeis Paulou,'' Sb Berlin 6 for 1931, pp. 5 f. [= 39 f.].