Abstract
Eleven scholars contributed articles to this second volume of the Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate series which focuses on how Paul was received in the Apostolic Fathers. In the introduction, Wilhite hints at what could be perceived as either the volume’s strength or weakness: ‘no standard set of criteria was prescribed for the contributors…instead, the authors establish their own rationale’ (p. xviii).
The articles vary in how they define and analyze the way Paul was ‘received’ in the Apostolic Fathers. For example, even though ‘reception’ studies are often expected to shed light on how Paul influenced the writings and theology of later authors, Hartog’s analysis (ch. 2) illustrates how Polycarp’s understanding of Paul’s missionary/letter-writing ministry (Pol. Phil. 11.3) could shed light backwards onto New Testament studies, and in particular, the dating of Revelation. Both Jefford (ch. 3), Foster (ch. 4), and Paget (ch. 5) challenge the idea that an Apostolic Father’s lack of reference to Paul reveals either ignorance of, or hostility towards, the apostle. Epistolary lacunae, or rhetorical purposes that did not require interaction with Paul, may better explain an author’s silence. Foster’s article shows that even a meticulous examination of the evidence may not be sufficient to conclusively prove that an author made use of, or was even aware of Paul. Paget’s article cautiously suggests that reception studies can benefit from examining ‘shadows’ (allusions) to Paul that may reveal an appropriation of Pauline material. Additionally, even though Cobb’s article (ch. 10) was informative and well-written, the Pauline reception of the most-likely fourth-century ce, pseudo-Ignatian author falls outside the scope of the book and probably should have been assigned to a subsequent volume.
The fact that the authors wrote their articles without a unified set of criterion for what constitutes a valid citation produced vastly different results and conclusions. Is it valid to proclaim an Apostolic Father’s ‘reception’ of Paul based on only a few shared vocabulary terms or phrases? The book demonstrates the varied challenges that comes with a study of Pauline reception. If the reader is looking for an exhaustive treatment of a particular Apostolic Father’s literary dependency upon Paul, the book will be a disappointment since that is not the primary aim. If, on the other hand, the reader is interested in exploring how multiple early Christian scholars approach the concept of ‘reception’ from different angles, and with differing levels of scrutiny, the book will be an asset. The book will be valuable to any student of early Christianity who seeks to refine, and possibly broaden, their definition of what constitutes ‘reception’ of an early Christian writer.