Dutch radical criticism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Dutch Radical Criticism or Dutch radical critique (also Dutch radical school or radicals Dutch school ; English: Dutch Radical School et al) refers to the thesis of some Dutch academics, none of Paul's letters came from Paul of Tarsus , all were developed only in the 2nd century .

The advocates of this thesis formed a small minority in research on the New Testament (NT) since 1878 . They went beyond the Tübingen school , which had already declared only four of the 13 Pauline letters to be definitely authentic and thus contradicted the conservative consensus of the time. Some Dutch radical critics also denied the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth and advocated the thesis of a Jesus myth . In doing so, they attacked the self-image and the legitimation basis of the Christian churches.

NT research has extensively examined and rejected these theses since Albert Schweitzer's History of Life and Jesus Research (1913). She no longer attaches current importance to them.

Emergence

The Dutch radical criticism was based on the so-called tendency criticism of the Tübingen school. The English deist Edward Evanson is regarded as their early forerunner . As early as 1792, he was the first and for a long time the only author to question the authenticity of some of Paul's letters, including that of the Letter to the Romans, for reasons critical of tendencies . Willem Christiaan van Manen (1891) and Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga (1912) made his forgotten work known as the forerunner of their even more radical position.

Ferdinand Christian Baur , founder of the Tübingen School, considered only four out of 13 Pauline letters to be authentic: Rom, the Corinthians ( 1 Cor , 2 Cor ) and the Letter to the Galatians (Gal). From 1831 he justified this with the assumption suggested by Hegel that early Christianity had developed into a synthesis of early Catholicism through the theological contrast between Jewish Christianity around Simon Peter on the one hand and Gentile Christianity around Paul on the other . That is why he only considered those Pauline letters to be authentic, which for him represented Gentile Christian versus Jewish Christian positions. He considered the information in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts) historically unreliable, because in the 2nd century they almost kept silent and tried to balance the differences between the two directions. Albert Schwegler applied Baur's basic assumption in his main work Das Urchristentum (1846) to all of early Christian literature. He, too, assigned only four of Paul's letters to the apostolic age. He considered all the information in Acts on this to be ahistorical. Those of their passages that portray Paul as friendly to Jews and Peter as friendly to Gentiles were thought to be arbitrarily invented by the author. Bruno Bauer and the radical Dutch school followed up on this judgment .

In his studies on the four canonical Gospels (1839–1842), Bruno Bauer had intensified David Friedrich Strauss's criticism of the historical value of the synoptic as well and denied Jesus' historicity. As a result, he had lost his position as a private lecturer in theology. In 1850 he published a study on the image of Paul in Acts. While Baur had concluded from their contradictions to the Gal that only one of the two representations (that of the Gal) could be correct, Bauer concluded that one must consider that the Pauline letters, which are considered to be authentic, are ahistorical tendencies. The author of Acts had not fictitiously harmonized the conflicts between Jewish and Gentile Christians, but expressed an already relaxed situation. Because Gentile Christians dominated Christianity in the second century, he first had to explain the Jewish heritage to them and to do this he constructed a connection to Judaism. A Jewish Christianity that wanted to force non-Jewish Christians to keep the Torah did not historically exist. In his study on the Gal (also 1850) he added this view: The Gal was just as unauthentic as the other main letters, but only arose after Acts. He was supposed to correct or suppress their picture of the early Christian beginnings and to put together passages from Romans and 1/2 Corps that are hostile to Jews. In the other volumes of his Critique of the Pauline Letters , Bauer continued to argue that all Pauline letters were not written until the 2nd century. Bauer's exegetical studies were part of his religious-philosophical program, with which he initially interpreted Christianity speculatively in the sense of Hegel, but from around 1840 attacked more and more in order to destroy it. For this reason, his historical-critical insights in German-language NT research did not receive greater appreciation until after 1900, for example by William Wrede and Albert Schweitzer.

From around 1880, some Dutch New Testament scholars took up Bauer's exegetical theses on Paul's letters and Acts. German authors later referred to it as the “radical Dutch school” because they represented the hitherto most extreme skepticism against the historical value of the NT at a university and thus made the already extensive historical criticism of the Tübingen school appear moderate. Van Eysinga established the term "Dutch radical criticism" in 1912 with the title of his work about it.

Representative

Allard Pierson (1831-1896)

Allard Pierson was a doctor of the Protestant theologian. In 1865 he resigned his ministerial office, and from 1876 he came out with sharp criticism of Christianity and academic theology in the Netherlands. In 1878 he published a historical-critical study of the Sermon on the Mount , which is considered the beginning of Dutch radical criticism . In it he doubted the authenticity of the letter to Galatians for the first time. The biographical information about Paul in it appeared to him as a "fiction of an ultra-Pauline Christian". Especially missing information from the author of the letter about the historical Jesus seemed inexplicable to Pierson.

Abraham Dirk Loman (1823-1897)

Abraham Dirk Loman , lecturer in the theological faculty at the University of Amsterdam , is considered the nestor of Dutch radical criticism. He received his first suggestions from Pierson, whose study of the mountain range he reviewed critically in 1879. In doing so, he accused his colleague of methodical errors and of caricaturing the letter to the Galatians. A short time later, however, Loman continued Pierson's considerations in his own research. At the end of 1881 he gave a controversial lecture in front of the Vrije Gemeente in the Weteringschans in Amsterdam, in which he defended the thesis that early Christianity was nothing more than a Jewish messianic movement. The Jesus of the Gospels is not a historical person, but the embodiment of ideas and thoughts that can only be historically proven for the 2nd century. Loman also indicated the thesis that all of the Pauline letters were not authentic, which he later scientifically deepened in his internationally acclaimed Quaestiones Paulinae (1882–86) by examining external evidence. In a detailed historical investigation he established that the main Pauline letters could not be substantiated before Marcion and that even the church father Justin in the middle of the 2nd century did not know or want to know nothing about them.

As a result of Loman’s work, the positions of Dutch radical criticism established themselves as minor opinion, which, going beyond the liberal German biblical criticism of the Tübingen school, also considered Paul's main letters to the Romans, Corinthians and Galatians, and thus all thirteen Paul’s letters, to be inauthentic. According to Loman, “the entire Pauline literature of the NT” is “a product of post-apostolic gnosis and can only have arisen after a long incubation process, of which the beginning can hardly be set before 70”.

Based on the results of his scientific research, he advocated a symbolic interpretation of the Gospels. Loman did not regard the renunciation of a historical Jesus as a loss, but rather as a gain and liberation with regard to faith.

Willem Christiaan van Manen (1842–1905)

Van Manen had argued in his dissertation in 1865 for the authenticity of the 1 Thess, but classified the 2 Thess as Deuteropaulin in a publication of the same year. He edited and commented on numerous early Christian works (such as Clement's letters and The Shepherd of Hermas ). His theological work at this time also focused on textual criticism, in which he judged the last words in Acts 10:36 (“This is Lord of all”) to be a later insert. Erwin Nestle included this textual criticism in the 13th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece .

At the end of 1884 Van Manen was appointed professor at the University of Groningen . Inspired by Allard Pierson and Samuel Adrianus Naber , who dated the Pauline letters to the second century, he published three articles in 1887 and examined the four main letters of Paul in more detail. At that time he still shared the Tübingen School's view of the authenticity of four Pauline letters. In further articles, however, he began to list the contradictions of Romans: Some passages would refer to Jewish Christians as addressees, others to Gentile Christians. According to Romans 7:12 the law is holy, but other passages of the text belittle it. That is why the early dating and thus authenticity of these letters by 50 was no longer comprehensible for him. Such different currents within a collection of letters would suggest a longer development.

In September 1888 van Manen reviewed the study of the Swiss theologian Rudolf Steck on the letter to the Galatians, on its relationship to the letter to the Romans and to the heretic Marcion (around 150). Steck's arguments convinced him. He concluded from this that Galatians had been written to ward off the influences of Judaism. Therefore it should be dated after 120.

As a result, van Manen was the first to claim that the shorter (Marcionite) version preceded the longer Catholic version of the text, which was a revision of the original. He took the same view in the letter to the Romans. The difficult to explain contradictions of the so-called Paulinism of the main letters did not appear suddenly, but at the end of a long development. With this he explained the development of Christianity up to 300, with which he had dealt for years. This resulted in his three-volume main work Paulus . In the first volume of Acts he explained that the author had borrowed the content from various works and only wrote it down between 125 and 150. In the second and third volumes he argued in favor of dating the letter to the Romans and the two letters to the Corinthians as from 100: The difference between the addressees in Rom. 11:13 versus Romans 2:17-29; 4.1; as well as the declining importance of the Jewish law suggest a long development of theological changes by the disciples of Jesus. as well as the statements about the persecution of Christians, which would refer to a time after Nero.

The second volume also contains a chapter on the development of early Christianity up to 300. For van Manen, Paulinism presupposed the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and the emergence of a more liberal Jewish movement and had learned to go its own way far away from Judaism. Clinging to Jewish law was seen as old-fashioned, Christians could live "under grace" (Rom. 6:14). For the Pauline Christians, Jesus was not the Messiah of the first disciples, but became a metaphysical being, the Son of God. From then on it was possible as a Christian to receive salvation through God's grace, no longer through obedience to the law. In Van Manen's view, Paulinism was related to Gnosis, whose representatives highly venerated freedom from the law and Paul of the Epistles. A 'historical' Paul had obviously died long before that, was a younger contemporary of Peter and, like Peter, lived within the limits of Judaism. Because of his fame, the later epistles of Paul were given his name. These also contain fragments and revisions of older texts. In the letters of Paul, the opinions of various Christian groups from the time of the development of Christianity would be expressed. Finally, the new group of Catholics appeared, which tried to mediate between Paulinism and Judaism and to overcome the differences of opinion.

GJPJ Bolland (1854-1922)

GJPJ Bolland , an autodidact in philosophy, was appointed to the University of Leiden in 1896 . Bolland dealt with the origins of Christianity from 1891 until his death in 1922, whereby his interest was very much determined by philosophical questions.

Bolland sees the roots of Christianity in the Diaspora Jews of Alexandria with a Hellenistic education and influenced by Gnostics in the 1st century. These may have formed theosophical circles based on the example of the Hermetic Poimandres communities there and were in possession of an original so-called Egyptian Gospel. According to Bolland, this was written between the ages of 70 and 100, but was lost except for a few fragments. The gospel primarily contained the description of an allegorical Chrestos (the 'useful' or 'good') and his act of redemption, which, however, was no longer conceived as a Jewish nationalistic, but as a salvation mystery. Before the destruction of the temple, the Son of the Most High God is said to have appeared as a human being on earth in order to establish a new covenant with the true Israel of the Spirit through his sacrifice before the old covenant was broken. His suffering, death and resurrection guaranteed the souls of the believers. According to Bolland, this could also be seen as a declaration by theosophical, cosmopolitan Jews for the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the year 70: "After the stone temple must come the temple of the spirit" . Bolland identifies this as the basic ideas of Christianity to come.

According to Bolland, the names Jesus and Chrestos clearly show that they are embodiments of ideas, some of which can already be found in Philo of Alexandria : Jesus = Joshua, the successor of Moses . The name expresses the awareness of Gnostically influenced Jews that they are in possession of greater divine wisdom than the rest of Israel - only Joshua is the right leader. While, according to Bolland, Jesus or Chrestos was worshiped as a pure mystery goddess before the year 70, he first took on historical traits after that.

According to Bolland, the last step from the allegorization of a previously docetically thought of Chrestos to the historicization of the idea of ​​the God-Man Jesus took place after the final break with national Judaism from the time of Bar-Kochba onwards from 135. This was done through Catholicism at which is said to have been a response to Gnosis. Catholicism then identified the Father of Jesus Christ with the Jewish Creator God of the Old Testament (OT) , so that the docetic passages of the original Gospel had to be reshaped. According to Bolland, the equation of Chrestos and Christ did not occur until Rome and was also determined by the tendency to reconcile the originally Gnostic teaching with the Jewish, Old Testament tradition. In the end, the impression arose that Christian teaching came from Palestine, but in fact it had its origin in the mystery world of Alexandria.

Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga (1874–1957)

Van Eysinga studied theology at the University of Leiden from 1893. He was u. a. Student of Bolland and Van Manen, with whom he received his doctorate in 1901. Since 1904 he worked as a private lecturer at the Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht . From 1936 to 1944 he took over the chair for NT at the University of Amsterdam, succeeding Daniel Plooy (1877-1935).

In his exegetical writings, van den Bergh van Eysinga criticizes the position of the liberal Jesus researcher , whose method he called the "deduction method". In order to save the historicity of the man Jesus of Nazareth, his traits that could not be explained “naturally” (such as the birth of a virgin , natural wonders , miraculous healings, etc.) would be arbitrarily eliminated. The problem with this method consists in the fact that it presupposes, without reflection, a historical basis for the Gospels and fails to recognize their purely dogmatic character. The Jesus of the Gospels is not a mythical history, but a historicized myth. The "historicity" serves as accessories and is ecclesiastical dogma , but not a historical fact. It was not the carpenter's son Jesus of Nazareth who stood at the beginning of Christian history, but the myth of a savior figure who was sent to earth by the highest God, dying and resurrected. This redemption myth is said to have originated in Alexandria and formed the basis for the content of the oldest gospel, which did not yet contain any historical information. The historicization process did not begin until the middle of the 2nd century in Rome. There the Gnostic Savior was transformed into a Jewish Messiah and given pseudo-historical attributes. The urban Roman Jewish Christianity is said to have been primarily responsible for this, which established the basic lines of its life story from Bethlehem to Golgata, especially by introducing the OT. OT and stoic philosophy would have created that image of the man Jesus, which the church needed to defend itself against the docetic volatilization of the Christ figure through gnosis. At the same time she remained attractive for the mass of believers, who knew more about how to begin with a human savior than with a purely metaphysical being.

Van den Bergh van Eysinga was of the opinion that Christianity was a mystery cult from the beginning, which is shown by numerous mystery elements in the Pauline letters.

"The fact is that Christianity owes its victorious campaign through the world not to the sermon of the rabbi or prophet Jesus, nor to belief in a Messiah Jesus, but to a doctrine of salvation whose center and object is Christ."

With his criticism of the Pauline letters, van den Bergh van Eysinga continued the work of his teacher WC van Manen and that of the Amsterdam theologian AD Loman. Like these two Dutch professors, van den Bergh van Eysinga also points out the lack of external evidence (argumenta externa) for the existence of Paul's letters in the 1st century. In addition, apart from other sources that were also silent, these were not mentioned either in Acts or by the representative of the Roman Church Justin (middle of the 2nd century). Acts biographical information about Paul contradicts those in the letters and is fictitious. The first letter of Clement and the letters of Ignatius are rejected (as in the Tübingen school) as not authentic. The Pauline letters are said to be pseudepigraphic writings from the environment of the heretic Marcion, who was excluded from the church. This is shown above all by the Marcionite text of the letters, which can be reconstructed from the writings of the church fathers. As a rule, it contains older and more original readings than the canonical version or the Textus receptus . For van den Bergh van Eysinga, "Paul" is a symbol of Marcionitism who, with the help of pseudepigraphic scripts, projected his theology and teaching into the apostolic past of the first century in order to assert himself in the theological struggles of the second century. Later, the first Orthodox Church appropriated the literary legacy of Marcionitism and revised it in its spirit.

From 1901 to 1936 van den Bergh van Eysinga was a parish priest in the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk . For him, denying the existence of Jesus did not conflict with his work as a pulpit speaker. In his opinion, the crucial contents of the Christian preaching could be made understandable even without the presupposed assumption of a historical Jesus and made accessible with the help of a purely symbolic method of interpretation.

reception

The Protestant theologian Hermann Detering received his doctorate in 1991 on the subject of Dutch radical criticism and continues to represent their theses in a pointed form. Going beyond van Manen, Detering sees the Marcionite, short version of the collection of Paulus letters as original compared to the Catholic long version. The Pauline letters are a Marcionite forgery that was later revised and expanded by Catholicism with text additions. That is why internal contradictions, especially in Romans, have to be explained not theologically, but literary or text-critical. As a model for the legendary figure of Paul, Detering names Simon Magus, whom the later church referred to as a heretic .

Even Robert M. Price , a major representative of the Jesus Myth theory in the US, does not hold the NT texts, call Paul as an author, to be authentic, and refers to on the Dutch Radical Criticism. The figure of Paul is legendary; other forces and persons would have determined the development of the early Church. The Pauline letters often had a Marcionite background and belonged to the 2nd century AD.

The vast majority of New Testament scholars reject the theses of the Dutch radical critics as speculative, unscientific constructs. Adolf von Harnack , the main German exponent of liberal theology , wrote in 1887: “Anyone who cannot feel the authenticity of such letters as the Pauline Corinthian letters and puts the Pauline letters behind Marcion [...] cannot be helped and, in all seriousness, that he has spent, not take seriously. ”Hermann Detering attributes this view to a dogma of faith and church authority.

In 1913, Albert Schweitzer dealt with the theses of everyone who disputed the historical existence of Jesus in two separate chapters in his History of the Life of Jesus Research . He also rejected the "Dutch radicals".

Works

precursor
  • Edward Evanson: The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists and the Evidence of their respectively Authenticity. D. Walker, Gloucester 1792
  • Bruno Bauer: The Acts of the Apostles: a balance between Paulinism and Judaism within the Christian Church. G. Hempel, 1850
  • Bruno Bauer: Critique of the Pauline letters.
Volume 1: The Origin of the Letter to the Galatians. (1850)
Volume 2: The Origin of the First Letter to the Corinthians. (1851)
Volume 3: 1 Cor .; Rom .; Pastoral book; Thessalonicherbr .; Eph. and Col .; Philip. (1852)
Representative
  • Allard Pierson: De bergrede en other synoptic fragments: een historical-critical onderzoek. Van Kampen & Zoon, Amsterdam 1878
  • Hajo Uden Meyboom: Marcion en Paulus in de Clementijnen. Theologische Tijdschrift 25 (1891), pp. 1-46
  • Abraham Dirk Loman: Quaestiones Paulinae. Theological Tijdschrift 1882–1886
  • Allard Pierson, Samuel Adrianus Naber: Verisimilia - Laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti. Van Kampen, Amsterdam 1886
  • Willem Christiaan van Manen: Paul.
Volume I: De Handelingen of the Apostles. (1890)
Volume II: De Brief to de Romeinen. (1891)
English: The inauthenticity of the letter to the Romans. (G. Strübigs, 1906)
Volume III: De Brieven aan de Korinthiers. (1896)
  • Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga: Radical Views about the New Testament. Watts, London 1912
Contemporary reception
  • Rudolf Steck: The letter to the Galatians examined for its authenticity: along with critical remarks on the main Pauline letters. Bern 1888 (Reprint: Kessinger, 2010, ISBN 1167660404 )
  • Thomas Whittaker: The Origins of Christianity: With an Outline of Van Manen's Analysis of the Pauline Literature. London 1904 (Reprint: Nabu Press, 2013, ISBN 1295292645 )
  • Daniel Volter: Paul and his letters: Critical investigations for a new foundation of the Pauline literature of letters and their theology. Heitz, Strasbourg 1905
  • Albert Schweitzer: History of Pauline Research from the Reformation to the Present. Georg Olms, Tübingen 1911, pp. 92-109 (Reprint: Hildesheim 2004, ISBN 3487127334 )
  • Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga: The Dutch radical criticism of the New Testament: its history and its meaning for the knowledge of the emergence of Christianity. Jena 1912
  • Harry James Hager: The Radical School of Dutch New Testament Criticism. Chicago 1935

literature

  • W. Ward Gasque: Radical Descendents of the Tubingen School. In: A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Wipf and Stock, 2000, ISBN 1579104495 , pp. 73-95
  • Eduard Verhoef: The Dutch radical criticism. In: Reimund Bieringer: The Corinthian correspondence. Peeters, 1996, ISBN 90-6831-774-1 , pp. 427-432
  • Hermann Detering: Paul’s Letters without Paul? The Pauline letters in the Dutch radical criticism. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 1992, ISBN 978-3631447871
  • Andreas Wechsler: Dutch radicals: Abraham D. Loman and WC van Manen. In: Supplements to the journal for the New Testament science and the customer of the older church, edition 62. A. Töpelmann, 1991, ISBN 3110133997 , pp. 113-120
  • Simon J. De Vries: Bible and Theology in The Netherlands (1850-1914). Veenman, Wageningen 1968, pp. 52-55

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Marlene Crüsemann: The pseudepigraphen letters to the congregation in Thessaloniki: studies on their composition and on the Judeo-Christian social history. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 3170211498 , p. 170
  2. ^ E. Earle Ellis: The Making of the New Testament Documents. Brill, Leiden 2002, ISBN 0391041681 , p. 440 and fn. 31
  3. ^ Albert Schweitzer: History of Pauline Research from the Reformation to the Present (1911) Hildesheim 2004, p. 94 f. ; Georg Schwaiger : Historical criticism in theology: contributions to their history. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1980, ISBN 3525874928 , p. 105 and fn. 24
  4. ^ Eckhard Schnabel, Heinz-Werner Neudorfer: The study of the NT. 2nd edition, SCM R. Brockhaus, Wuppertal 2011, ISBN 3417294304 , p. 224 f.
  5. ^ W. Ward Gasque: A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. 2000, pp. 41-43
  6. ^ W. Ward Gasque: A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. 2000, pp. 74-77 and 86 ff.
  7. ↑ Thomas Johann Bauer: Paulus und die Kaiserzeitliche Epistolographie: Contextualization and analysis of the letters to Philemon and to the Galatians (= Scientific Studies on the New Testament 276). Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, ISBN 3161509773 , p. 10, fn. 49
  8. ^ Joachim Mehlhausen : Vestigia Verbi: Essays on the history of Protestant theology. (1999) De Gruyter, Reprint 2010, ISBN 3110150530 , pp. 188-220, especially pp. 188 and 215
  9. ^ Robert E. Van Voorst: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. WB Eerdmans, 2000, ISBN 0802843689 , p. 10
  10. ↑ Harald Specht : The legacy of paganism. Ancient sources of the Christian West. Tectum, Marburg 2015, p. 800, fn. 555; see also Eduard Verhoef: The Dutch radical criticism. In: Reimund Bieringer: The Corinthian correspondence. Peeters, 1996, ISBN 90-6831-774-1 , pp. 427-432, here p. 427
  11. ^ Arie L. Molendijk: "Non-binding Talk": The Fate of Friedrich Schleiermacher's Concept of Historical-Empirical Dogmatics. In: Brent W. Sockness, Wilhelm Gräb (Ed.): Schleiermacher, the Study of Religion, and the Future of Theology: A Transatlantic Dialogue. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2010, ISBN 3110216337 , p. 203
  12. ↑ Hermann Detering: Paul’s Letters without Paul? 1992, p. 304.
  13. ^ AD Loman: Bijdragen enz. De synoptische quaestie en de methode harer treatment naar aanleiding van Dr. A. Piersons written over de Bergrede . In Theologische Tijdschrift , 1879, p. 181.
  14. ^ A b Hermann Detering: The Pauline letters in the Dutch radical criticism contexts. New contributions to historical and systematic theology. Vol. 10, 1992
  15. ↑ AD Loman: Quaestiones Paulinae . In Theologische Tijdschrift , 1882-86
  16. ↑ ibid., 1883, p. 47.
  17. ↑ AJ Allan: Een vergeten hoofdstuk: de Radicalen.
  18. ^ WC van Manen: Conjecturaal-kritiek, toegepast op den tekst van de schriften des Nieuwen Testament . Haarlem 1880, p. 238
  19. ^ Erwin Nestle: Novum Testamentum Graece . Stuttgart 1927
  20. ^ Allard Pierson, Samuel Adrianus Naber: Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt . Amsterdam 1886
  21. ^ WC van Manen: Paulus Episcopus in Bibliotheek van modern theologie en letterkunde 7 . 1887, pp. 605-644; A letter over de Verisimilia . In De Nederlandsche Spectator 1887, pp. 71 f .; Hoe te oordelen over de methode ter verklaring van Paulinische brieven, door de HH. Pierson en Naber aanbevolen in de Verisimilia? . In Bijblad van de Hervorming , 13-7-1887, pp. 49-58.
  22. ↑ WC van Manen: Nieuwtestamentische Letterkunde . In De Tijdspiegel 1888 , vol. III, p. 403 f.
  23. ↑ Rudolf Steck: The Galatian Epistle examines its authenticity, along with critical remarks on the main Pauline letters. Berlin 1888
  24. ^ WC van Manen: De hoofdbrieven van Paulus in De Tijdspiegel . 1889 I, p. 334 f.
  25. ↑ ibid, p. 424
  26. ↑ see catalog raisonné
  27. ↑ WC van Manen: Paul I . Leiden 1890, p. 164
  28. ^ WC van Manen: Paulus II . Leiden 1891, p. 303
  29. ↑ ibid, p. 24 f.
  30. ↑ a b ibid, p. 126
  31. ↑ ibid., P. 170 f.
  32. ↑ ibid, pp. 288-296
  33. ↑ ibid., P. 292 f.
  34. ↑ ibid, p. 136
  35. ↑ ibid, p. 215
  36. ↑ ibid, pp. 228,295
  37. ↑ ibid, p. 295
  38. ↑ a b c G.JPJ Bolland: De Evangelische Jozua - Eeen poging tot aanwijzing van den oorsprong of the Christian cathedral . Leiden 1907
  39. ↑ The section essentially follows the descriptions in the book Does Jesus Live? - or did he just live? - Early Christian Studies . Edited by Hermann Detering and Frans-Joris Fabri, BoD, Norderstedt 2011. ISBN 978-3-8391-6701-4
  40. ^ GA van den Berg van Eysinga: Het Christendom als Mysteriegodsdienst . In Godsdienstwetenschappelijke Studiën VII, 1950, pp. 3-22, translation by Fabri, Frans-Joris, 2006
  41. ↑ GA van den Berg van Eysinga: Marcion als getuige voor een voorkatholiek christendom . In Godsdienstwetenschappelijke Studiën XVIII , Haarlem 1955, pp. 5-39 (part I.), XIV, Haarlem 1956, pp. 3-28 (part II.)
  42. ↑ Hermann Detering: The Fake Paulus - The early Christianity in the twilight. Patmos, Wuppertal 1995, ISBN 3-491-77969-3
  43. ^ Robert M. Price: The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul . Signature Books, 2012, ISBN 1-56085-216-X
  44. ^ Adolf von Harnack: Antiqua mater. A study of Christian Origins in Theologische Literaturzeitung 1887, no.16, column 377f.
  45. ↑ Hermann Detering: False Witnesses - Non-Christian Jesus testimonies to the test . Alibri 2011, ISBN 978-3-86569-070-8 , pp. 188 f.
  46. ↑ Albert Schweitzer: History of the life of Jesus research. (1913) 9th edition, UTB, Göttingen 2009, ISBN 3825213021 , pp. 451-499, here p. 453