Redrawing the Boundaries

The Date of Early Christian Literature

J. V. M. Sturdy, Jonathan Knight

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317490814
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

Was the New Testament written in the early first century CE or at a much later date? Sturdy's work was conceived as a reply to John Robinson's Reading the New Testament, which dated the New Testament material very early. Sturdy argued that the Pauline letters are in places interpolated, Colossians, Ephesians and the Pastorals are pseudonymous, and that Luke and Acts are not by the same author. He believed that Matthew was the last Synoptic Gospel to be written, with John assigned to the period 140 CE. Redrawing the Boundaries offers a radical approach to New Testament Studies that stands in a long tradition of scholarship represented by the Tuebingen School in Germany.

Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM POSED

This book has been written in the conviction that the current tendency of scholars to give the bulk of the New Testament material an early date is wrong. Although it is true to say that New Testament scholarship has moved in recent years towards a greater acceptance of pseudonymity and of relatively late datings,¹ I have been prompted to write by the conviction that this broadening of horizons does not go far enough. Twenty years ago it would have been acceptable to suggest that, as well as the Pastorals, Ephesians is post-Pauline; but it would have needed apology and argument (at least in the English-speaking tradition) to add to these “disputed writings” Colossians and 2 Thessalonians. It is now more widely acceptable to place 1 Peter in 115 CE; and it is beginning to be acceptable to suggest that there are passages in the Pauline epistles which are later additions (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:24-35; 2 Cor. 6:14–7.1; Rom. 13:1-7).² It is interesting to note in the second edition of the Jerome Bible Commentary a remarkable shift from the first edition on just these points (although Jerome is still conservative in insisting on an apostolic authorship for 1 Peter!).³ We must be clear that scholarship moves in cycles and follows trends. This creates the need for critical voices to be raised against the dominant trends, so that the strengths and weaknesses of a particular position (and thus of a particular generation) can be given appropriate consideration.

I have written this book initially for those who have some sympathy with a radical position, but I hope that its merits lie in the fact that it argues a case and does not merely rehearse party convictions. I am myself a Christian – an Anglican priest – and I am convinced that an honest approach to this topic (even though some of its conclusions may initially prove disconcerting) can only be to the benefit of faith. My starting-point for the enquiry is the recognition that the fully conservative position which sets everything before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE (to which John Robinson returned in his later years) is very definitely wrong.⁴ Once the implausibility of this position is acknowledged, it becomes a much more open (and less easy) question to decide when the different documents were written. This matter must be approached with integrity, so that the question of honest probability is placed at the top of the agenda.

There are many other important questions about the New Testament besides the questions of the origin and date of the literature. But these are significant, if perhaps rather dry questions. They need to be answered (at least provisionally) before we can consider all the other matters that are connected with this body of literature. In what follows, I shall try to present the overall scheme of my argument as concisely as possible. I hope that my readers will understand that there are areas where my ideas are not yet fully developed and where I think that dialogue with other scholars is needed. But it will do no harm to “go public” on the research that I have undertaken so far and to demonstrate what I regard as the “planks” of my argument which hold the case together. This will allow the less certain areas to be tested in what I hope will prove to be an amicable and profitable debate.

I am primarily an Old Testament scholar but I have tried to keep up my reading and teaching in the New Testament area. I have discussed several of my ideas with patristic scholars, although I accept that some of what I say – not least about Ignatius – will produce more dissent than agreement among those who work in that field. I hope once again, however, that my readers will at least consider my arguments and acknowledge that many of the issues surrounding the date of primitive Christian literature are actually less certain than we would like them to be. This is an inevitable reflection of our relatively scarce knowledge of the period, and of the ambiguities of some of the texts themselves.

The Basis of the Argument

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

This chain of events (which I mention as only one instance) seems to me almost impossibly tight. It suggests there is a case for demanding a longer period of development. I came to this view through a more subjective route, initially by the strong feeling that Hebrews must be late with its concern about post-baptismal sin, the abandonment of worship and the formal character of its references to the Spirit. Hebrews, like Ephesians, is generally confined to c.85 CE on the hypothesis that the author of 1 Clement knew and used it. To me it feels rather later – say about 110 CE – which means that we must re-examine the date of 1 Clement if it is true that that document knows and uses both Ephesians and Hebrews.

To examine the date of 1 Clement demands consideration of the Epistle of Polycarp; and, since Polycarp is closely tied in with the Ignatian epistles, we must examine these as well. The conclusion I have reached is that 1 Clement is from roughly 130 to 140 CE; that both the Ignatian epistles and Polycarp are pseudepigraphal; the Ignatian epistles from about 170 to 180, Polycarp from a different writer and later again; and that, in consequence of this, the restraints on a later dating of much of the New Testament material are removed.

This is the thesis I shall argue in this book. Let me repeat that what I say goes against the grain of current New Testament scholarship. It is no doubt natural that those for whom the historicity of the sacred texts has a crucial significance should argue in favour of an early dating in order to bring them as near as possible to the events they record. There is something of a theological necessity in this. On the other hand, such is the tenacity of “established” scholarly positions (especially in today’s academic world) that a majority consensus is difficult to challenge except by the (most unlikely) discovery of new documentary evidence. This book is designed to mount a challenge to the established scholarly consensus. All that I ask is that my reader charitably follows my argument with care and that he or she engages with the material as I have presented it. I hope at least to communicate that ambiguity is the byword of this area, and that final certainty can hardly be provided in one direction or the other. This alone casts suspicion on the adequacy of “consensus models,” and suggests that there may yet be room for a radical in a common-room of more conservative scholars.

Chapter 2
1 CLEMENT

First of all, let us consider the date of 1 Clement. 1 Clement 1:1 (“because of the sudden and successive misfortunes and accidents we have encountered”) long used to point us to 96 CE. But these words do not obviously refer to persecution; and if they do suggest persecution, it takes us away from the time of Domitian because it is now widely accepted that there was no Domitianic persecution of the Christians in the last decade of the first century CE. Nor is there a bishop of Rome, secure in the episcopal lists, called Clement to keep us within a few years of 96. 1 Clement may therefore be quite a bit later than 96, so long as we remember that it is quoted by Polycarp.¹

So far as a proposed Domitianic persecution is concerned, the theory that Domitian persecuted the Christians towards the end of his reign has been very firmly criticized by L. L. Thompson and other scholars.² There is a little evidence that Domitian harassed people of Jewish descent at this time, but no evidence at all that these Jews were Christians (see Dio Cassius 67.14.2). Nor did Domitian apparently promote the imperial cult with any more fervour than his predecessors and successors. This evidence casts doubt on the possibility that Revelation comes from the end of the first century if – as seems likely – the letter reflects an authentic experience of martyrdom.³

The attribution of 1 Clement to Clement would still give an approximate date c.96 CE if he were, as tradition says, a bishop of Rome who died about 104 CE. But there are problems in this claim to which insufficient attention has been paid in the past. 1 Clement itself is usually understood to contain no indication that monepiscopacy as such was established in Rome when the letter was written. The tradition that the author was the monarchical bishop of Rome has no support in the letter and cannot be true. The list of Roman bishops was composed – not taken over – by Hegesippus in about 165 CE and it is unlikely to be reliable for more than a few names back. It seems certain that no earlier list existed and that monepiscopacy itself does not go very far back in Rome.⁴ The earlier names on the list were no doubt remembered as leading figures of the Roman church and are not simply fictitious; but there is no reason to believe that they functioned as monarchical bishops, still less that the dates assigned to them have real value. One is entitled to a measure of scepticism in this matter given the date and nature of Hegesippus as the primary source.⁵

Many different facets must be examined in a fresh attempt at dating 1 Clement. These include its extensive use of the books in the New Testament; its concept of ministry with a pattern of succession emerging; and the identity of the author to whom the text is assigned. My initial feeling is that this combination of themes was not made in the first century CE. This feeling is substantiated by external evidence.

External Attestation

Such evidence as there is to determine the date and authorship of 1 Clement takes us to a period beyond 96 CE. The letter does not say that it comes from Clement, the bishop of Rome. If it is felt proper to identify this Clement with a known figure in the Roman church, the best candidate by far is the Clement who is mentioned by the Shepherd of Hermas as the foreign correspondent of that church: “You are to write out two booklets and send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Clement then is to send it to the cities outside, for that is his function” (Vis. 2.8). The date of Hermas is also uncertain. The earliest direct evidence is that of the Muratorian Canon (c.180–200 CE) which says that “Hermas wrote the Shepherd quite lately in our time in the city of Rome when on the throne of the city of Rome his brother Pius was seated.” The date generally assigned to Pius is c.140–154 CE. This would suggest that the Clement whom Hermas mentions wrote not too long before these dates – say between 130 and 150 CE. It remains possible that the Muratorian canon displays a tendentious concern to devalue Hermas by suggesting that it is only a recent text; but the nature of the text makes it difficult to place it much earlier, and most scholars still date it in the time of Pius.

The external attestation of 1 Clement sets a limit to a late dating. The first substantial allusions to it are in the Letter of Polycarp. Polycarp is traditionally dated to 115 CE. But P. N. Harrison has argued that chapters 1-12 and possibly 14 of Polycarp are to be dated c.135 CE.⁶ It is not clear whether, if they are authentic, there are strong reasons to date them much before the death of Polycarp. The date of this in turn is disputed. It is usually put c.156 CE, but a date as late as 177 has been held to be possible.⁷ I shall discuss this matter further in Chapter 4. For the moment it can be said that if, on other grounds, 1 Clement seems late then all the relevant parts of the Letter of Polycarp can be placed after a date for 1 Clement even as late as 140 CE. If so, the first reference to a letter which is clearly Clement’s is in Hegesippus.

A Second Century Air

The evidence for the theological character of 1 Clement needs to be handled with caution since we must allow for development at different speeds in different parts of the church. But despite this it can still be said that the picture of a well-developed church with a formal structure and understanding of succession, and a more developed understanding of “Catholicism” than is found in any other New Testament writing, fits in much more happily with a date after 100 CE and even one well on the way to 150 CE. The absence of a reference to monepiscopacy is one feature that is not strikingly late; but the emergence of monepiscopacy itself (as will be argued below) is to be placed well on in the second century.

One feature of 1 Clement is particularly telling for this later date; this is Clement’s use of New Testament quotations and allusions. If we follow Hagner,⁸ whose treatment of the issue is the fullest and most careful, it appears that 1 Clement quite certainly knows Hebrews, 1 Corinthians and Romans and probably 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians (or Colossians), 1 Timothy, Titus, James, 1 Peter and Acts; possibly one or more of the Synoptics and 2 Timothy; but probably not John, 1 John and the Apocalypse. This means that 1 Clement knows and alludes to a remarkably large part of the New Testament literature. This includes works which are generally dated to after 96 (1 Timothy and Titus). Clement does not quote these books as scripture as he does the Old Testament, but his allusive use of such an extensive cross-section of the New Testament writers suggests that he writes at a time when there was a developing awareness of the importance ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• 1. The Problem Posed
• 2. 1 Clement
• 3. The Letters of Ignatius
• 4. Polycarp
• 5. Early Christian Literature: Some Parameters of Date
• 6. The Relationship of the Synoptic Gospels
• 7. Mark
• 8. Luke
• 9. Matthew
• 10. Acts
• 11. The Pauline Corpus: Its Growth and Development
• 12. The Catholic Epistles
• 13. Johannine Literature
• 14. Summary and Conclusions
• Appendix
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index of Names
• Index of References