I'm very interested in the Dutch radical scholars. The notion that a group of Bible scholars in the late 1800s could go as far as to reject the authenticity of the Pauline epistles is fascinating to me. These were people extremely well versed with both the New Testament as well as Patristics, and many among them had a background in Christian ministry.
I started to translate a bit of Van Manen's work from Dutch into English a few years ago, and it has been lingering since then, unpublished. Since I saw mlinssen on this forum has started to translate the same and it would be a shame my effort (or his) go to waste, I decided to publish what I've done so far.
Here is my translation of the introduction and chapter 1 of van Manen's book "Paulus" volume 1, which is about Acts.
https://flowers-grow.github.io/paulus_1.html
Enjoy!
My translation of van Manen's book Paulus volume 1 (chapter 1)
-
flowers_grow
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:24 am
Re: My translation of van Manen's book Paulus volume 1 (chapter 1)
Thanks for sharing this. FWIW, I've made a note of Van Manen's observations that stood out to me--
[In NT scholarship since F.C. Baur,] Paul has become the person in whom everyone places trust over Luke. Under the influence of the leaders and disciples of the Tuebingen school the authenticity of the Epistles became a weapon against every contradictory report in Acts, while usually everything that didn’t contradict, or didn’t appear to contradict, Paul’s own statements was considered to be historically correct and thus was included in the "life of Paul".
...
As J. W. Straatman.[2] and H. U. Meiboom.[3] have conclusively proven, after Overbeck.[4], Rovers.[5] and others, following Schneckenburger and Zeller who had drawn attention to this point in passing: everything is set up to the defense of Christianity in the Roman world and to uphold their right to exist in it. With the Jews they are finished; they have to be spared no longer. Although Christianity is nothing but the lawful continuation of the best of what Israel possessed, the Jews have, to their shame, rejected it. The author does not tire of arguing this, by mouth of Peter on the first day of Pentecost (2.14-36), in the Jerusalem temple (3.11-26), before the Sanhedrin (4.8-12 and 5.29-32), to Cornelius in Caesarea (10.34-43), by mouth of Stephen shortly before his death (7.2-53), Paul against the leaders of the synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia (13.16-41). None of these speakers neglects to make clear that the Romans did not crucify Jesus, although Pilate gave his permission for it, but that those guilty of the death of this innocent are none other than the Jews, who are accused of this repeatedly (2.23; 3.14; 4.10; 5.30; 7.52; 10.39; 13.28). They have displayed their deep contempt of the "Way", which they call a sect (αἵρεσις) (24.14), by mocking the work of the holy spirit (2.13), by first imprisoning Peter and John (4.1-4) and then the apostles (5.18), by killing Stephen (7.59), by the persecution of the community in Jerusalem (8.1), by the deliberation against Paul in Damascus (9.23-25), by their resistance against him and Barnabas in Antioch in Pisidia (13.45; 13.50), in Iconium (14.2), by stoning Paul in Lystra (14.19), by plotting against him and causing difficulty in his evangelizing in Thessalonica (17.5), in Beroea (17.13), in Corinth (18.6), in Ephesus (19.9), in Greece (20.3); by trying to kill him in Jerusalem (21.27-32), by becoming the cause of his capture and conveyance to Rome (21-28); and finally by showing their aversion to him there as well (28.23-28).
...
The Romans however, our historian argues continuously, had their eyes opened from the start to the value of Christianity and did not hesitate to give it their protection. Romans were among the first witnesses of the working of the holy spirit in Jerusalem (2.10). The first gentile converted by Peter was the noble Roman Cornelius in Caesarea, for whose sake the apostle travels and receives supernatural revelations (Acts 10). Similarly the first named individual who Paul won over to his view of the Gospel is a Roman official, the proconsul Sergius Paulus in Paphos on Cyprus (13.4-12). The Romans never engage in any persecution.
...
The unity of the work becomes equally visible by the spirit which permeates it. It’s the same throughout as well: a spirit of earnestness and peace, of truth and love, of tolerance and appreciation. There is only one exception to this rule and this exception too keeps recurring. This involves the Jews.
...
The universalism and consecration of the holy spirit are no innovations by Paul or one of his kindred spirits. They are as old as Christianity itself, specifically as old as as the activity of Peter and his friends. On the other hand Paul is not portrayed as hostile, with a sharp-edged antinomianism and as solely lead by the holy spirit, to the brothers of the parent community. He is rather taught immediately after his conversion by Ananias, who belongs to the older Christians; baptized and acquainted with the apostles in Jerusalem, where, so, to speak, he pops in regularly (9.1-30); fetched from Tarsus to Antioch by Barnabas, the trusted member of the Jerusalem community, who put him to work (11.26). Paul accompanies the capable preacher on his journeys as a second person, first to Jerusalem, to serve the brothers (11.30) and subsequently to Cyprus and through Asia Minor to preach the gospel (Acts 13-14). Only slowly he becomes the first and Barnabas steps into his shadow. In Antioch he belongs to those who "serve the Lord and fast" (13.2). He doesn’t speak to gentiles as a rule, unless the Jews force him to do so by their unwillingness. He is in a lively communion with the parent community from the start. He visits it continuously (9.26; 11.30; 15.2; 18.22, 21.15); helps with its relief (11.30); subjects himself to its pronouncements (15.1-35); does what it asks (9.30; 11.25; 16.1-4; 21.20-26); and continuously he shows himself to be full of reverence for the Law and its institutions and practices (16.1-4; 21.20-26; 23.2-5).
...
Finally we can add the witness of language and style to all this evidence for the unity of Acts. These too are generally the same in the entire book, even where different individuals speak. They betray a single hand. What Zeller.[6] and others, the most completely C. Nösgen, in his "Commentar über die AG (1882), have pointed out as particularities does not need to be repeated here. Nobody in the present day will hold Acts, with Schleiermacher and Schwanbeck, to be a simple collection of fragments taken from different sources. The book is a unity in form and content, the work of a single author.
...
We cannot doubt the unity of the work. We are dealing with a book and not a simple collection of traditions and fragments. But it does not follow from this that we can now consider Acts to be, with Bruno Bauer.[7], a "Werk der Dichtung und Reflexion" (a work of poetry and reflection) which contains at most a few correct traditions concerning Paul’s journeys, but certainly not "Notizen oder Denkschriften über die Urzeit der Gemeinde und über die Geschichte des Heidenapostels" (notes or memoranda about the early days of the community and about the history of the apostle to the gentiles), while the miracles assigned to Peter and Paul are "absichtlich under mit vollem Bewusstsein den Wunderberichten der Evangelien nachgebilded" (intentional imitations with full awareness of the reports of miracles in the gospels) and all participating individuals "Geschöpfe" (creations), "freie Schöpfung" (free creation) by the author.
...
As J. W. Straatman.[2] and H. U. Meiboom.[3] have conclusively proven, after Overbeck.[4], Rovers.[5] and others, following Schneckenburger and Zeller who had drawn attention to this point in passing: everything is set up to the defense of Christianity in the Roman world and to uphold their right to exist in it. With the Jews they are finished; they have to be spared no longer. Although Christianity is nothing but the lawful continuation of the best of what Israel possessed, the Jews have, to their shame, rejected it. The author does not tire of arguing this, by mouth of Peter on the first day of Pentecost (2.14-36), in the Jerusalem temple (3.11-26), before the Sanhedrin (4.8-12 and 5.29-32), to Cornelius in Caesarea (10.34-43), by mouth of Stephen shortly before his death (7.2-53), Paul against the leaders of the synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia (13.16-41). None of these speakers neglects to make clear that the Romans did not crucify Jesus, although Pilate gave his permission for it, but that those guilty of the death of this innocent are none other than the Jews, who are accused of this repeatedly (2.23; 3.14; 4.10; 5.30; 7.52; 10.39; 13.28). They have displayed their deep contempt of the "Way", which they call a sect (αἵρεσις) (24.14), by mocking the work of the holy spirit (2.13), by first imprisoning Peter and John (4.1-4) and then the apostles (5.18), by killing Stephen (7.59), by the persecution of the community in Jerusalem (8.1), by the deliberation against Paul in Damascus (9.23-25), by their resistance against him and Barnabas in Antioch in Pisidia (13.45; 13.50), in Iconium (14.2), by stoning Paul in Lystra (14.19), by plotting against him and causing difficulty in his evangelizing in Thessalonica (17.5), in Beroea (17.13), in Corinth (18.6), in Ephesus (19.9), in Greece (20.3); by trying to kill him in Jerusalem (21.27-32), by becoming the cause of his capture and conveyance to Rome (21-28); and finally by showing their aversion to him there as well (28.23-28).
...
The Romans however, our historian argues continuously, had their eyes opened from the start to the value of Christianity and did not hesitate to give it their protection. Romans were among the first witnesses of the working of the holy spirit in Jerusalem (2.10). The first gentile converted by Peter was the noble Roman Cornelius in Caesarea, for whose sake the apostle travels and receives supernatural revelations (Acts 10). Similarly the first named individual who Paul won over to his view of the Gospel is a Roman official, the proconsul Sergius Paulus in Paphos on Cyprus (13.4-12). The Romans never engage in any persecution.
...
The unity of the work becomes equally visible by the spirit which permeates it. It’s the same throughout as well: a spirit of earnestness and peace, of truth and love, of tolerance and appreciation. There is only one exception to this rule and this exception too keeps recurring. This involves the Jews.
...
The universalism and consecration of the holy spirit are no innovations by Paul or one of his kindred spirits. They are as old as Christianity itself, specifically as old as as the activity of Peter and his friends. On the other hand Paul is not portrayed as hostile, with a sharp-edged antinomianism and as solely lead by the holy spirit, to the brothers of the parent community. He is rather taught immediately after his conversion by Ananias, who belongs to the older Christians; baptized and acquainted with the apostles in Jerusalem, where, so, to speak, he pops in regularly (9.1-30); fetched from Tarsus to Antioch by Barnabas, the trusted member of the Jerusalem community, who put him to work (11.26). Paul accompanies the capable preacher on his journeys as a second person, first to Jerusalem, to serve the brothers (11.30) and subsequently to Cyprus and through Asia Minor to preach the gospel (Acts 13-14). Only slowly he becomes the first and Barnabas steps into his shadow. In Antioch he belongs to those who "serve the Lord and fast" (13.2). He doesn’t speak to gentiles as a rule, unless the Jews force him to do so by their unwillingness. He is in a lively communion with the parent community from the start. He visits it continuously (9.26; 11.30; 15.2; 18.22, 21.15); helps with its relief (11.30); subjects himself to its pronouncements (15.1-35); does what it asks (9.30; 11.25; 16.1-4; 21.20-26); and continuously he shows himself to be full of reverence for the Law and its institutions and practices (16.1-4; 21.20-26; 23.2-5).
...
Finally we can add the witness of language and style to all this evidence for the unity of Acts. These too are generally the same in the entire book, even where different individuals speak. They betray a single hand. What Zeller.[6] and others, the most completely C. Nösgen, in his "Commentar über die AG (1882), have pointed out as particularities does not need to be repeated here. Nobody in the present day will hold Acts, with Schleiermacher and Schwanbeck, to be a simple collection of fragments taken from different sources. The book is a unity in form and content, the work of a single author.
...
We cannot doubt the unity of the work. We are dealing with a book and not a simple collection of traditions and fragments. But it does not follow from this that we can now consider Acts to be, with Bruno Bauer.[7], a "Werk der Dichtung und Reflexion" (a work of poetry and reflection) which contains at most a few correct traditions concerning Paul’s journeys, but certainly not "Notizen oder Denkschriften über die Urzeit der Gemeinde und über die Geschichte des Heidenapostels" (notes or memoranda about the early days of the community and about the history of the apostle to the gentiles), while the miracles assigned to Peter and Paul are "absichtlich under mit vollem Bewusstsein den Wunderberichten der Evangelien nachgebilded" (intentional imitations with full awareness of the reports of miracles in the gospels) and all participating individuals "Geschöpfe" (creations), "freie Schöpfung" (free creation) by the author.
-
flowers_grow
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:24 am
Re: Willem Christiaan van Manen (1842-1905)
Thanks for that paper by Hansen especially, I hadn't seen that before!
Re: Willem Christiaan van Manen (1842-1905)
Hansen’s case for authenticity—
All one has to do is “collect the historical data” from the epistles!Eduard Verhoef has largely handled the central theory of whether any of the Pauline epistles are authentic, by presenting a methodology largely inspired by that of W. C. van Manen’s defense of 1 Thessalonians.29 The method relies on analyzing three main criteria by which one can then adduce similar authorship. To start with, one does not assume there is any specific author. Instead, Verhoef notes that the largest letter should be taken, that is Romans, to give the largest sample size of the three criteria: (1) theological views, (2) lexical/grammatical data, and (3) historical information. In this case, Romans provides us with the largest amount of vocabulary, as well as also only claims to be written by one author in the prescript. Thus, Verhoef takes this as his “point of departure” for then arguing authenticity.30 Based on the closeness the other epistles share in the three criteria, the more likely they can be said to be authored by the same person. From the historical data, which is then collected from these epistles, one can then assemble a broad view of the author’s history, name, socio-political/religious/economic context, etc. and thus we arrive at a figure called “Paul,” writing at least Philippians, Romans, and 1 Thessalonians in Verhoef’s view…
Such is the general quality of the argument. Also, contradictions in the epistles are meaningless, since humans contradict themselves all the time.
Hansen’s thunderous conclusion—
Not one stone is left upon another. All these critics “fail” and are “wrong.” The guild will never accept them.The Neo-Dutch Radicals, like their predecessors, fail to be particularly convincing with any of their arguments, neither in whole nor in part. As a result of all these issues, one will likely not expect to see their idea that the Pauline epistles are all inauthentic accepted by academics any time soon. Thus, the current evaluation of the school is largely in keeping with past findings on the old Dutch Radicals as well. The Dutch Radicals simply appear to be wrong.
Perhaps it’s worth noting that the article is published at www.biblicaltheology.com (“Illuminating God’s Word”).
-
flowers_grow
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:24 am
Re: My translation of van Manen's book Paulus volume 1 (chapter 1)
I thought Hansen's article gave a good overview of the Neo Dutch Radicals. Some of the criticism worked better than others. Verhoef is mentioned. While I really appreciated Verhoef's work on the Dutch radicals I myself was disappointed in how his work in showing Pauline authenticity didn't seem to engage their arguments.
The section on a potential interpolation in 1st Corinthians 15 was weakest. I agree Robert M. Price's research program at times appears to lacks coherence, but arguments about interpolation stand alone and should be engaged with.
The argument that the Pauline epistles aren't authentic because it doesn't fit the history derived from those epistles is clever but would make it impossible to declare anything inauthentic at all. In the end you can still look at consistency with what else we know.
I liked the section on Simon Magus, attempting to use the skepticism of the Neo Dutch Radicals against themselves. It's a dangerous strategy, but I think it makes a good point.
Overall I enjoyed reading this criticism; happy to see engagement with this material at all. I hope this won't be turned into "Hansen conclusively refuted the Neo Dutch Radical movement" though. There is more to learn.
The section on a potential interpolation in 1st Corinthians 15 was weakest. I agree Robert M. Price's research program at times appears to lacks coherence, but arguments about interpolation stand alone and should be engaged with.
The argument that the Pauline epistles aren't authentic because it doesn't fit the history derived from those epistles is clever but would make it impossible to declare anything inauthentic at all. In the end you can still look at consistency with what else we know.
I liked the section on Simon Magus, attempting to use the skepticism of the Neo Dutch Radicals against themselves. It's a dangerous strategy, but I think it makes a good point.
Overall I enjoyed reading this criticism; happy to see engagement with this material at all. I hope this won't be turned into "Hansen conclusively refuted the Neo Dutch Radical movement" though. There is more to learn.