Earliest reference to Pauline letter?

[rgprice]

What's the earliest reference to a Pauline letter? I assume it would probably be to 1 Corinthians. In what early works are Pauline letters quoted?

[Ben C. Smith]

What's the earliest reference to a Pauline letter? I assume it would probably be to 1 Corinthians. In what early works are Pauline letters quoted?

Hard to tell which reference is the earliest, since the texts which first refer to the Pauline epistles are themselves hard to date. Here are most of the usual suspects:

2 Peter 3.15-16.
1 Clement 47.1-3.
Ignatius to the Ephesians 12.2.
Armenian text of Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse, commentary on Revelation 12.7-9, quoting Papias as referring to "the apostle," which in context must be Paul. However, it is disputed whether the quotation of Papias (A) is accurate or (B) extends as far as the bit about Paul.
Polycarp to the Philippians 3.2-3; 11.2b-3.
Tatian apud Jerome, preface to his commentary on Titus.
The so called Marcionite prologues (Old Latin).
Muratorian canon, lines 39-68.

By this point we arrive at the time frame of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Gaius of Rome.

Consider also the Marcionite epistles, of course, and their implications for Justin Martyr, who supposedly wrote an heresiology against Marcion.

[MrMacSon]

Armenian text of Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse, commentary on Revelation 12.7-9, quoting Papias as referring to "the apostle",a which in context must be Paul. However, it is disputed whether the quotation of Papias (A) is accurate or (B) extends as far as the bit about Paul.

a Robert M Price has noted, "Walter Schmithals argues1 that the concept of an apostle was not native to either Judaism or Christianity but instead grew up in oriental Gnosticism." (Chapter 5, 'The Original Gnostic Apostles', in The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2012)

1. Walter Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church, trans. John E. Steely (New York: Abingdon, 1969), 114-97.

.
Schmithals envisioned Gnostic apostles who did not preach a historical individual called Christ but rather an invisible cosmic Christ, a redeemer who had done his saving work among the aions and the archons far from the numb senses of men. This Christ was the universal Man of Light who dwelt in the souls of the elite among the human race, those whom the Gnostic apostles sought in their Diogenes-like quest.[7] This Christ spoke authoritatively through the Gnostic apostles because they were the very few in whom the Redeemer’s light had awakened self-consciousness.

Price, RM The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul, chapter 5.

7. Diogenes the Cynic was said to have been on a quest for one honest man, for which he carried a lamp during daylight hours in order to illustrate the impossibility of the task. He died in 323 BCE in Corinth.
.

Furthermore, -

.
There had already been wandering Gnostic and Cynic apostles before the Christian apostles came onto the scene. As Thomas Whittaker pointed out,[9] the circle of apostles, so jealously restricted in the New Testament to the Twelve (plus, according to some, Paul), must at first have been a wide-open field. We can tell this from the discussion of apostles in the Didache, an early church manual from Syria which scholars believe stems from the first or early-second century. It seems to preserve very old traditions, including a primitive, pre-Gospel version of the eucharistic liturgy containing none of the features familiar to us from the Synoptic Gospels and Paul. The Didache outlines proper church conduct for anyone claiming to be an apostle while acknowledging his authority for regulating Sunday worship. These itinerant apostles who demanded food and shelter are the “wandering radicals” described so well by Gerd Theissen who drew on New Testament sources for a picture of these wing-and-a-prayer evangelists.[10] They were men who had heeded the call to “let goods and kindred go” for the gospel’s sake, to tread dusty paths in imitation of the Son of Man, who had no floor on which to lay his head. They took no bag, no money belt, no staff or spare provisions, but trusted God to feed and house them through the charity of those they preached to. It worked because their hearers responded to the promise of a reward equal to the apostle’s own for accommodating him (Matt. 10:41). These gospel vagabonds were the apostles, and their ministry continued for decades. The restriction of apostleship to twelve men portrayed in the four Gospels came later and was artificial.

At some point a concern developed for weeding out false apostles who were sponging off the church—the “gospel bums” as their modern-day counterparts were known in the 1970s Jesus Movement.[11] For example, the Didache warns that the apostle who stayed longer than three days without commencing to work should be asked to pay for his keep. If he says that the Holy Spirit wants the congregation to give him money, like a modern TV evangelist, he should be hounded out of town as a false prophet. Such self-serving “oracles” by these panhandling prophets perhaps underlie the passage Mark 14:7. The synoptic mission charge[12] seems to belong to this debate, as also the clashing beliefs in 1 Corinthians 8-9 about whether an apostle ought to accept money from clients.

As these free-lance apostles lost out to consolidating church institutions, history was rewritten to depict a limited number of twelve apostles who had been pupils of a historical Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 1:21-22). This was the work of what Käsemann called nascent Catholicism.[13] ...

... A limited number of apostles attesting to a historical being and his teachings became useful as a guarantee against uncontrollable future pronouncements from spiritual sources that would introduce chaos into the church. The historical Jesus was one on whom the emergent Catholics could bestow their doctrine; the twelve apostles, composites drawn from the original Gnostic apostles, were the guarantors of those doctrines.

Interestingly, the only reference to the Twelve in any of the Pauline literature is in a late interpolation, 1 Corinthians 15:5.[17] The Pauline epistles know of leaders in Jerusalem called “the pillars,” including James, “the Lord’s brother;” Cephas, who may be Peter; and John (the son of Zebedee? John Mark?). Paul mentions apostles but does not number them (1 Cor. 9:5). They seem to include the pillars (Gal. 1:19) as well as Paul himself! He has opponents in the apostolic guild, whom he vilifies as “super-apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5, 12:11), “false apostles” (2 Cor. 11:13), and apostles of Satan (2 Cor. 11:13-15). What makes Paul a genuine testifier of the Lord Jesus is his having seen him for himself (1 Cor. 9:1) and having thereafter brought converts to the church and performed miracles among them (2 Cor. 12:12). His vision of Jesus may have been private and interior: “It pleased God to reveal his Son in me” (Gal. 1:16).

... We usually do not imagine the claim made in 1 Corinthians 9:1 (“Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord?”) to mean that Paul saw Jesus of Nazareth during the latter’s earthly career. It is, rather, the divine heavenly Christ whom he sees. Consequently, that must have been enough to qualify the other apostles, too. One might say that there was not yet an earthly existence of Jesus to claim to have seen. The fabrication of such a character and such a career (created by rewriting stories from the Septuagint) is one with the fabrication of a group of twelve apostles to verify the account of him. That is why it is the pseudo-historical, narrative gospels in which we first hear of the twelve disciples, not the epistles.

Mark knew of “disciples” and of “twelve” men but not yet the term “apostles” in reference to church officials. In Mark 6:30, where Jesus sent a few men out on errands, they are called the apostoloi, meaning “the ones he sent.” Similarly, where twelve apostles are listed in Matthew 10:2, they are the ones who were “sent out,” not necessarily called to office. It is Luke who creates the notion, unattested anywhere else, of “twelve apostles” (6:13, “he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles”) ...

Price, RM The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul, chapter 5.

.9. Thomas Whittaker, The Origins of Christianity: With an Outline of Van Manen’s Analysis of the Pauline Literature, 4th ed. (London: Watts, 1933), 158-59.
10. Gerd Theissen, “The Wandering Radicals,” in Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New Testament, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 33-59.
11. “He is the person who travels around from one Christian [communal] house to another sometimes getting saved at each, but always getting a free meal and a place to sleep. ‘It’s not a bad life,’ one young man named Rich told me. ‘I just go from place to place, and if the Christians think you’re saved too, they don’t bug you. If one comes up and starts to lay a rap on me, I just pick up a Bible or close my eyes to pray. Sometimes I even talk in tongues, and they really think that’s heavy” (Michael McFadden, The Jesus Revolution [New York: Harper & Row, 1972], 173-74; cf. Lowell D. 12. Streiker, The Jesus Trip [New York: Abingdon Press, 1971], 38; Jack Sparks, God’s Forever Family [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974], 62-64).
12. Mark 6:7-13; Matt. 10:5-15; Luke 9:1-9; 10:1-12.
13. Ernst Käsemann, “Paul and Early Catholicism,” trans. Wilfred F. Bunge, in Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 236-51.

17. Robert M. Price, “Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation,” in Price and Jeffery J. Lowder, eds., The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2005), 69-104.
.

[MrMacSon]

Consider also the Marcionite epistles, of course, and their implications for Justin Martyr, who supposedly wrote an heresiology against Marcion.

Isn't there a view that Justin Martyr gives very little indication of having known the Pauline epistles?

[Ben C. Smith]

2 Peter 3.15-16.
Armenian text of Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse, commentary on Revelation 12.7-9, quoting Papias as referring to "the apostle",a which in context must be Paul. However, it is disputed whether the quotation of Papias (A) is accurate or (B) extends as far as the bit about Paul.

a Robert M Price has noted, "Walter Schmithals argues1 that the concept of an apostle was not native to either Judaism or Christianity but instead grew up in oriental Gnosticism."

I gave that view some thought a while back, but soon gave up on it. The apostolic concept is a very easy derivation from the idea that Moses and the rest of the prophets were sent by God.

Consider also the Marcionite epistles, of course, and their implications for Justin Martyr, who supposedly wrote an heresiology against Marcion.

Isn't there a view that Justin Martyr gives very little indication of having known the Pauline epistles?

Yes, but I have given up on that view, too. Justin knew the Pauline epistles; he borrows his arguments and cribs scriptural references from him; he just had no need or cause to refer to the Pauline epistles openly as such in the three works we have remaining from him: two apologies and especially a dialogue about Jewish-Christian relations.

[Charles Wilson]

What's the earliest reference to a Pauline letter? I assume it would probably be to 1 Corinthians. In what early works are Pauline letters quoted?

RGP --

If you would forgive a Contribution from Way Out There, please accept this offering:

I believe that "Saul/Paul" is traceable to Mucianus, Procurator of Syria. Mucianus and Vespasian are involved in a spat until Titus, son of Vespasian and much admired by Mucianus, convinces Mucianus to throw-in with Vespasian. This is the Vision on the road to Damascus.

There is a massive rewrite of, especially, Tacitus. Yes, the earliest of these Textual Rewrites is probably in 1 Corinthians 1: 11 - 17 (RSV):

[11] For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
[12] What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
...
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
...
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Verses 11 - 13 are rewrites of the Interregnum between the end of the Julio-Claudians and the ascension of Vespasian. See below, especially the details of Mucianus drawing State Power into his hands. There is a Deadly Problem to deal with, that of Primus Antonius.

The second section from 1 Corinthians above is from Tacitus, Histories, Book 4.
Verse 17, the third section here, appears to be Interpolation.

"Original" for rewrite of verses 11 - 13:

"While things were in this state, while there was division in the Senate, resentment among the conquered, no real authority in the conquerors, and in the country at large no laws and no Emperor, Mucianus entered the capital, and at once drew all power into his own hands. The influence of Primus Antonius and Varus Arrius was destroyed; for the irritation of Mucianus against them, though not revealed in his looks, was but ill-concealed, and the country, keen to discover such dislikes, had changed its tone and transferred its homage. He alone was canvassed and courted, and he, surrounding himself with armed men, and bargaining for palaces and gardens, ceased not, what with his magnificence, his proud bearing, and his guards, to grasp at the power, while he waived the titles of Empire...

Next,

"The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins. Julius Priscus, who had been prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Vitellius, killed himself rather out of shame than by compulsion..."

This is, if I am correct, cross-referenced in Acts:

Acts 6: 15, 7: 54 - 60 (RSV):

[15] And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.
...
[54] Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth against him.
[55] But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;
[56] and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God."
[57] But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together upon him.
[58] Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.
[59] And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
[60] And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

The full Analysis of the complicated Acts 6 and 7 takes up a lot of space. Two characters, Frugi Piso and Galerianus have been telescoped into one composite Character. Note the single difference between the deaths of the two characters with "the face of an angel...". One is escorted outa' town where the soldiers open his veins. The other is taken outa' town and is stoned.

As I always ask when I quote these sections: "Do you fall asleep when you are stoned?"

Verse 17 is Interpolation. It's Cognitive Value is Vacuous: "...lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power..." Wait! What?!? Maybe a date could be found for this, after Orthodoxy had begun to turn out the early Heresies and the ties to the Original (Mucianus and Vespasian) MUST be hidden.

In short, I tend to agree with you in regards to "Paul". I think, however, that this "Earliest" mention is what we find when we assign Historical Characters to the NT stories which appear to me to be very derivative.

YMMV.

Thanx,

CW

PS: Note the importance of verse 16:

"I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else..."

"Baptize" may not carry the connotation that you might think here. The "Household of Stephanas" should refer here to the Piso Family, which is being warned off from further Imperial Mischief by having the handsome Calpurnius Galerianus murdered. Mucianus is telling this Family: "Proceed no farther!!!" Vespasian will be arriving on the next bus. Primus wrote letters to Vespasian and if Acts matches up properly, this snake is thrown into fire. Again, see Tacitus. Compare with:

Acts 28: 3 - 6 (RSV):

[3] Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, when a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand.
[4] When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, "No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live."
[5] He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.
[6] They waited, expecting him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead; but when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

Note the "...bundle of sticks...", identified possibly with the Fasces, now under control of Mucianus. This part is the Interregum, with Mucianus taking Imperial Power into his hands. The Senate is being warned here as the Piso Family is. There is dual meaning here, as the Symbolism ties also with the planks of the "Camarae Boats", described in Tacitus and the "Servile War" against Anicetus in Histories.

[davidmartin]

Yes, but I have given up on that view, too. Justin knew the Pauline epistles; he borrows his arguments and cribs scriptural references from him; he just had no need or cause to refer to the Pauline epistles openly as such in the three works we have remaining from him: two apologies and especially a dialogue about Jewish-Christian relations

could the question be framed another way - how important is the Pauline gospel to him? Does he express all the key Pauline concepts in his own way without directly quoting Paul or is his understanding different in any ways from Paul, there must have been something to make people think he did not know Paul?
It's interesting to note that for modern Christians especially protestants the Pauline epistles are massive key texts, were they for this earliest of church fathers?

[Ben C. Smith]

It's interesting to note that for modern Christians especially protestants the Pauline epistles are massive key texts, were they for this earliest of church fathers?

There was probably about as much ancient variety on that topic as there is modern variety. (So many reconstructions I come across of ancient Christianity are flat and unrealistic, based on stereotypes and robotic views of how humans work.)

[MrMacSon]

Robert M Price has noted, "Walter Schmithals argues that the concept of an apostle was not native to either Judaism or Christianity but instead grew up in oriental Gnosticism."

I gave that view some thought a while back, but soon gave up on it. The apostolic concept is a very easy derivation from the idea that Moses and the rest of the prophets were sent by God.

I wasn't clear in what I was thinking.

You said

.
Armenian text of Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse, commentary on Revelation 12.7-9, quoting Papias as referring to "the apostle", which in context must be Paul. However, it is disputed whether the quotation of Papias (A) is accurate or (B) extends as far as the bit about Paul.

I was inferring that "the apostle" which Andrew of Caesarea said Papias referred to may not necessarily have been Paul given the view that an apostle may have not been a solely Christian domain.

Isn't there a view that Justin Martyr gives very little indication of having known the Pauline epistles?

... Justin knew the Pauline epistles; he borrows his arguments and cribs scriptural references from him ...

Is it possible that the direction was reversed in some cases? That at least some scriptural references in Paul were derived from Justin?

[Ben C. Smith]

Robert M Price has noted, "Walter Schmithals argues that the concept of an apostle was not native to either Judaism or Christianity but instead grew up in oriental Gnosticism."

I gave that view some thought a while back, but soon gave up on it. The apostolic concept is a very easy derivation from the idea that Moses and the rest of the prophets were sent by God.

I wasn't clear in what I was thinking.

You said

.
Armenian text of Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse, commentary on Revelation 12.7-9, quoting Papias as referring to "the apostle", which in context must be Paul. However, it is disputed whether the quotation of Papias (A) is accurate or (B) extends as far as the bit about Paul.

I was inferring that "the apostle" which Andrew of Caesarea said Papias referred to may not necessarily have been Paul given the view that an apostle may have not been a solely Christian domain.

In context, in the bit from Andrew of Caesarea, that is not the case.

Isn't there a view that Justin Martyr gives very little indication of having known the Pauline epistles?

... Justin knew the Pauline epistles; he borrows his arguments and cribs scriptural references from him ...

Is it possible that the direction was reversed in some cases? That at least some scriptural references in Paul were derived from Justin?

Yes, it is possible. I have pointed out potential cases of this before. But those cases do not extend far enough to relieve Justin of his knowledge of the Pauline epistles, IMO.