In using these Epistles, they all three make a reservation to the effect that any evidence which they may supply in favour of the historicity of Jesus, and which cannot be explained away, shall be regarded as an interpolation; and as it is something that slays his hypothesis, Mr. Robertson has taught us to call such evidence “vital interpolation.” It must die in order that his hypothesis may live. They also claim, ab initio, to deny Pauline authorship to any epistles that may turn out to be a stumbling-block in the way of their theories, and lean to the view of Van Manen and others, who held that the entire mass of the Pauline letters are the “work of a whole school of second-century theologians”—in other words, forgeries of the period 130–140. Defying textual evidence he relegates the Paulines to second centuryThey would, of course, set them later than that, only it is overwhelmingly certain that Marcion made about that time a collection of ten of them, which he expurgated to suit his views, and arranged in order, with Galatians first; this collection he called the Apostolicon. It runs somewhat counter to this view that, twenty years earlier, we already have a reference to these Epistles in Ignatius, who, with an exaggeration hardly excused by the fact that he is addressing members of the Ephesian Church, informs us that the Ephesians are mentioned “in every letter” by Paul. Those who desire ample proof that Ignatius was well acquainted with Paul’s Epistles cannot do better than refer to a work, drawn up and published in 1905 by members of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, entitled The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. In this the New Testament originals and the citations are arranged in parallel columns in the order of their convincingness.
Professor Smith’s kindred thesis offends the facts At a still earlier date—say A.D. 95—Clement of Rome cites the Paulines. As Professor W. B. Smith makes Herculean efforts to show that he did not, I venture to set before my readers a passage—chap. xxxv, 5, 6 of his Epistle face to face with [ Romans i, 29–32]—so that they may judge for themselves. I print identical words in leaded type:—
| 1 Clement. ἀπορρίψαντες ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν καὶ ἀνομίαν, πλεονεξίαν, ἔρεις, κακοηθείας τε καὶ δόλους ψιθυρισμούς τε καὶ καταλαλίας, θεοστυγίαν, ὑπερηφανίαν τε καὶ ἀλαζονείαν, κενεδοξίαν τε καὶ ἀφιλοξενίαν. ταῦτα γὰρ οἱ πράσσοντες στυγητοὶ τῷ θεῷ ὑπάρχουσιν· οὐ μόνον δὲ οἱ πράσσοντες αὐτά, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ συνευδοκοῦντες αὐτοῖς. | Romans. πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ, πονηρίᾳ, πλεονεξίᾳ, κακίᾳ, μεστοὺς, φθόνου, φόνου, ἔριδος, δόλου, κακοηθείας, ψιθυριστάς, καταλάλους, θεοστυγεῖς, ὑβριστάς, ὑπερηφάνους, ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀσυνέτους, ἀσυνθέτους, ἀστόργους, ἀνελεημόνας, οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεου ἐπιγνόντες, ὅτι τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν, οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσι τοῖς πράσσουσι. |
The dependence of Clement’s Epistle on that of Paul’s Letter to the Romans is equally visible if the English renderings of them be compared, as follows:—
[Translation.]
| Clement xxxv, 5, 6. Casting away from ourselves all unrighteousness and lawlessness, covetousness, strife, malignity, and deceit; whisperings and backbitings, hatred of God, haughtiness and boastfulness, vainglory and inhospitableness. For they that practise these things are hateful to God. And not only they which practise them, but also they who consent with them. | [ Romans i, 29–32]. Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they which practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them. |
Some of the sources of Paul approximate in text still more to Clement—e.g., the reading πονηρίᾳ “wickedness” is not certain. In some, “malignity” precedes “deceit.” In some, “and” is added before the words “not only.”
In the above parallel passages the agreement both in kind and sequence of the lists of vices is too close to be accidental; and this is clinched by the identity of sense and form of the clauses which follow the two lists. Nor is this the only example of the influence of the Paulines on Clement. We give one more, giving the English only:—
| Paul ([1 Cor. i, 11–13]). For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. | Clement xlvii, 1. Take ye up the epistle of the blessed Paul, the Apostle, what did he write first to you in the beginning of the good tidings. In verity he spiritually indited you a letter about himself and Cephas and Apollos. |