Not By Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and Christian Canon

276 Pages·2007·1.09 MB·English

by  David R. Nienhuis

Not By Paul Alone

Not By Paul Alone
The Formation of the Catholic
Epistle Collection and the
Christian Canon
David R. Nienhuis
Baylor University Press
© 2007 by Baylor University Press
Waco, Texas 76798
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanicc
cal, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing
of Baylor University Press.
Cover design by Donna Haberstaat
Library of Congress CatalogingcincPublication Data
Printed in the United States of America on acidcfree paper with a minimum of 30%
pcw content.
For Teresa
A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter; he that has found one has found a treasure.
Sirach 6:14

Contents
Foreword ix
Acknowledgments xi
Abbreviations xiii
1 Introduction 1
2 A Canonical History of the New Testament Catholic Epistle Collection 29
3 Early James Traditions and the Canonical Letter of James 99
4 Reading James as a Canon-conscious Pseudepigraph 163
5 Conclusion 233
Bibliography 239
Index 259
vii

Foreword
The soccalled “Catholic Epistles”—James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and
Jude—are usually studied in isolation from each other. Of course, obvious points
of contact are duly noted and discussed. 2 Peter is intended as a sequel to 1 Peter,
and is probably dependent on Jude; 2 and 3 John serve as appendices to 1 John; and
there are striking parallels between the three major letters in the collection (James,
1 Peter, 1 John), parallels commonly explained by appeal to shared parenetic tradicc
tion. Otherwise, the individual letters are normally interpreted without reference
either to each other or to the later canonical process of forming them into a single
collection. Fourthccentury canonizers created the canonical collection out of texts
that simply happened to be in circulation within the catholic church: or so it is
assumed. On this model, the coherence thus imposed on these texts is artificial and
secondary, and the interpretative task is to restore to each text its original indepencc
dence and autonomy. We do not need to interpret James in the light of 1 Peter any
more than we should interpret Matthew in the light of John; the various canonical
collections are of little or no interpretative significance.
This anticanonical model is presupposed by scholars who otherwise differ concc
siderably in their estimate of the individual texts. It unites those who believe that
the letter of James was indeed written by the brother of the Lord, perhaps in Jerusacc
lem in the early ’40s C.E., and those who hold it to be a late firstccentury pseudepicc
graph. Whatever their other differences, it does not occur to either party to dissent
from the consensus that James should be read on its own terms, without reference
to its later canonical context.
ix