We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
In my book Authority in Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter, I claim to have established not certainty, but a balance of probability, that an extensive layer of Pastoral-type redaction overlies this literature. I did so on the basis of an accumulation of converging lines of evidence which came to light in applying different kinds of criteria to relevant passages. Something I did not do, which I propose now to consider and illustrate, is how to weigh degrees of probability that particular passages are later addition or interpolations, whether they can be connected with the Pastoral Epistles or not.
1 Munro, W., Authority in Paul and 1 Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (NTSMS 45, Cambridge: CUP, 1983) 21–5.Google Scholar
2 Munro, Authority, 19.Google Scholar
3 Walker, W. O. Jr, ‘The Burden of Proof in Identifying Interpolations in Pauline Letters’, NTS 33 (1987) 610–18, p. 615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Fortna, R. T., The Gospel of Signs (SNTSMS 11, Cambridge: CUP, 1970).Google Scholar
5 Lake, K. (tr.), The Apostolic Fathers I (London: Heinemann, 1912) 167–9.Google Scholar
6 This is a given for most theories of the composition of 1 Peter. Cf. my brief survey in Authority. 6–9.Google Scholar
7 Cf. Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1975) xxiv, xxviii.Google Scholar
8 Funk, R. W., Scott, B. B., Butts, J. R., The Parables of Jesus: Redletter Edition (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1988).Google Scholar
9 Walker, W. O. Jr, ‘Text-Critical Evidence for Interpolation in the Letters of Paul’, CBQ 50 (1988) 622–31, 624–5.Google Scholar
10 Cf. e.g. Fiorenza, E. S., Women in the Pre-Pauline and Pauline Churches', USQR 33 (1978) 153–66, pp. 153–4;Google ScholarIn Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroads, 1983) 10, 14–15.Google Scholar
11 Walker, W. O., ‘1 Corinthians and Paul's Views regarding Women’, JBL 94 (1975) 94–110;Google Scholar ‘Text-Critical Evidence’, 625.
12 Fortna, Gospel, 15–22.Google Scholar
13 Munro, Authority, 24.Google Scholar
14 Cf. Munro, Authority, 131–47; Walker, W. O. Jr, ‘Evidences of Interpolation in the Pauline Corpus’, unpublished paper.Google Scholar
15 Walker, ‘Burden of Proof’, 612.Google Scholar
16 Munro, Authority, 23.Google Scholar
17 Munro, Authority, 140.Google Scholar
18 Barnikol, E., ‘Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung der absoluten Obrigheitsbejahung von Romer 13.1–7’, SNTP 77 (1961) 65–133;Google Scholar Munro, Authority, 18, 140.
19 Munro, Authority, 140.Google Scholar
20 Dijkman, J. H. L., ‘1 Peter: a Later Pastoral Stratum?’, NTS 33 (1987) 265–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. my statement that ‘in shaping Christian tradition according to this model the codes of subordination were evidently intended to parallel Stoic categories of duties just as was the somewhat similar teaching in the writings of hellenistic Judaism. Just how ‘Pastoral’ paideia compares with Roman hellenistic and Jewish precedents, and how each paideia relates to t e social patterns of authority and subjection of the patriarchal household cannot be shown here but is set out in the longer, original version of this study. Though hellenistic Judaism is evidently taken as an example to be followed, the Pastoral material is concerned to achieve dissociation from Judaism…’ among other objectives (Authority, 2); cf. Munro, W., Authority and Subjection in Early Christian ‘Paideia’ with particular reference to the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (Columbia University Ed.D. 1974; Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms) 370–506.Google Scholar Dijkman also errs in saying I ‘totally ignore’ connections with James (cf. Authority 47–8), and automatically assume it is late (268). I do not in fact pronounce on the date of James. Significantly, Dijkman acknowledges the anti- Judaism of the Pastorals, but tries to except 1 Peter (267). It would not have been credible to repudiate Judaism directly in a letter purporting to be from an acknowledged apostle to the Jews (Gal 2. 7), but there is certainly dissociation from any rejection of, or revolt against the Roman imperial system, such as was perceived to characterize the Jews in the first two centuries CE.
21 Fiorenza, E. S., Memory, 230.Google Scholar
22 Munro, W., ‘Women, Text, and Canon: The Strange Case of 1 Corinthians 14.33–35’, BTB 18 (1988) 26–31, p. 29.Google Scholar
23 Fiorenza, E. S., ‘Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians’, NTS 33 (1987) 386–403, p. 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Dijkman, , ‘1 Peter’, 266; Munro, Authority, 37.Google Scholar
25 Metzger, Textual Commentary xxii; Walker, ‘Burden of Proof’, 612.Google Scholar
26 Canon, C. G., The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1983) 110 n. 24.Google Scholar
27 Cf. e.g. Crouch, J. E., The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (FRLANT 109; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972) 10–11, 144, 149–51.Google Scholar
28 Walker, ‘Text-Critical Evidence’, 630.Google Scholar
29 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 126.Google Scholar
30 Metzger, Textual Commentary xxiv, xxviii.Google Scholar
31 Munro, Authority, 24–5.Google Scholar
32 Walker, ‘Text-Critical Evidence’ 626.Google Scholar
33 Kümmel, W. G., Feine, P., Behm, J., Introduction to the New Testament tr. 14th ed. (New York: Abingdon, 1966) 222–4.Google Scholar
34 Munro, Authority, 24–5.Google Scholar
35 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 533–6, 540.Google Scholar
