Sárospataki Füzetek 16. (2012)
2012 / 3-4. szám - TANULMÁNYOK
P. : .. VAN HÜUWELÍ!' begin with, the development of the canon implies that all of the New Testament writings are of importance for the whole of the Christian Church. The Pauline Epistles, for example, were also read in other churches. In addition, some of these Catholic Epistles really do have specific addressees, as is evident from their prefaces. James is written to the twelve tribes in the diaspora, 1 Peter to Christians in a number of specifically designated regions in Asia Minor, 2 John to a specific but not explicitly identified sister-church, and 3 John to the ‘beloved brother Gaius’, the leader of a specific church. It is worth considering whether the catholicity of the letters does not have more to do with the catholicity of Jerusalem (Acts 9:31, see section 7 of this article). All their authors, after all, had come from the mother church in the holy city. As such, it could be said that these letters document the catholic mission movement that went out from Jerusalem. James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was the Lord’s brother. The same was true of his younger sibling Jude. Peter and John (assuming that John is the elder’ identified as the author of two of the Johannine letters) were close companions, who played an important role in the early days of the church. It is through these ‘catholic’ men, apostles and brothers of the Lord, fully involved in the proclamation of the gospel that proceeded from Jerusalem, that the close connection between the book of Acts and these seven Catholic Epistles can be easily explained as well. The chief characters in Acts developed as authors of the church. However, something else must also be taken into account. In Galatians 2:9, in connection with his earlier visit to Jerusalem, Paul describes James, Cephas (Peter) and John as ‘pillars [crrűAci] of the church’. The priority is important: James comes first. He was not an apostle, but he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. It is perhaps no coincidence that Paul lists their names in exactly the same order in which six of the seven Catholic Epistles are passed on to us in the canon. They came from the three pillars of Jerusalem, the three most prominent members of the mother church, who, for just that reason, were regarded as authority figures throughout the Christian world.35 A seventh document, a short letter from Jude, has been added to the other six. This is presumably because the author introduces himself as the brother of James, and also because he makes use of material from Peter’s second letter.36 Thus, seven Catholic Epistles were sent into the world: written material from the circle of the pillars of Jerusalem; documentation of the ecumenical movement that proceeded from the mother church in Jerusalem. What follows is a brief description of each of the seven letters.37 35 David R. Nienhuis, Not by Paul Alone. The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 88. However, Nienhuis claims that the letter of James is pseudepigraphical, dating from the second century and intended to introduce the collection of Catholic Epistles into the canon. See also Jacques Schlosser, “Le corpus des Epitres catholiques.” In The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, ed. J. Schlosser (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 3-41 [18-20]. However, Schlosser considers the epistolary character of these letters to be fictitious. 36 P.H.R. van Houwelingen, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible Solutions,” European Journal of Theology 19.2 (2010): 119-129 [123]. 37 Summarising the material from Apostelen. Dragers van een spraakmakend evangelie, ed. P.H.R. van Houwelingen (CNT; Kämpen: Kok, 2011), chapter 3. James D.G. Dunn limits — without arguing his case — the legacy of what he calls the first generation Christian leaders to three documents, independently S Sárospataki F
