StartAktuellesBuecherKlassikerBiographienLinksGaestebuch

 

 

 

VAN MANEN AND THE DUTCH RADICALS

© Dr. Eduard Verhoef, Martensdijk

 

Bildnachweis: 


Die Bilder: 1. Van Manen in seinem Studierzimmer (Hogewoerd 141)
 2. Porträt van Manens (rechts) 
stammen aus dem Besitz von Eduard Verhoef, Martensdijk, und wurden uns für diese Veröffentlichung freundlicherweise zur Verfügung gestellt.
 

 

 

Introduction

The name ‘Hollandse Radicalen’, Dutch Radicals, has been given to a group of Dutch New Testament scholars at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. In spite of their many different opinions, for example about the historicity of Jesus, the Dutch Radicals agreed that none of the so-called Pauline epistles were authentic. They argued that these epistles were written in the second century.[1] Even the famous ‘Tübingen school’ did not include the four main epistles in their critical interpretation of the letters of Paul: Romans, 1-2 Corinthians and Galatians. In this regard the ideas of the Dutch Radicals were rather extreme. The most well-known Radicals[2] are A.D. Loman[3], W.C. van Manen[4] and G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga.[5] Van Manen is the most influential representative of the Dutch Radicals.[6]

It was Loman in particular who initiated the research of the four main epistles in the Netherlands. He was blind since 1874, but nevertheless he managed to publish scholarly articles, though he did not succeed in completing his research of the Pauline epistles. He suggested himself that his blindness gave him insight into the dark history of the church in the first two centuries.[7] In 1882 and the following years Loman argued that the four main epistles of Paul’s are not authentic. He held against the Tübingen scholars that they took the authentiticity of the four main epistles for granted without any proof of their authenticity.[8] According to Loman the Pauline epistles witness a later time. He argued that the Pauline epistles gave evidence of a time in which Christianity can be considered an independent religion.

 

The name ‘Dutch Radicals’ originated in an article by Loman himself. In 1887 he wrote a review of a book by E. Johnson, Antiqua Mater: a Study of Christian Origins[9]. In this review Loman says that the author is a radical like we seldom meet among theologians and hardly ever among English theologians.[10] In this article he uses the word ‘radical’ in a positive sense. In his opinion we should be ‘radical’ in our study of the New Testament epistles. Others argued that these scholars were too ‘radical’ in their studies. Loman and his followers considered the word ‘radical’ a name of honour. Van Manen later spoke of the ‘radical’ or the ‘Dutch’ school.[11] The ‘radical’ scholars did not want to be impeded by church canons and wanted to be free in their research of the New Testament and of the history of early Christianity. This research led them to the conclusion that we do not have any authentic Pauline epistles.

Most Dutch Radicals belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church, the largest Protestant Church in the Netherlands. Especially in this Church the Radicals attracted much attention. For a better understanding it is necessary to take a brief look at the circumstances of the Dutch Reformed Church in the nineteenth century, after which we will discuss Van Manen who exemplified the Dutch Radicals.

 

Historical Context

In November 1813 Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, was defeated at the battle of Leipzig. A few days later William, Prince of Orange, became the first Dutch King. In 1816 King William I promulgated the so-called Algemeen Reglement, general regulations, with regard to the church which resulted in the church being subordinate to civil government.[12] The most important issue in this law was church administration: the King himself was in supreme command of the church and his approbation was required for decisions of some importance.

In the King’s enlightened views of religion everybody should be free in their beliefs. As a consequence doctrinal freedom was obvious and doctrinal controversies should be avoided. But a form, to be signed by the intended ministers, contained a phrase which turned out to be ambiguous. This phrase related to ‘the doctrine which was contained in the creed corresponding to the Scripture.’[13]

 What did the words ‘corresponding to the Scripture’ mean? Did it mean ‘because it corresponded to the Scripture’ or ‘as far as it corresponded to the Scripture’? In the first case the minister should concur with every article of faith in the creed. In the second case the minister was free to assess himself whether or not a certain article of faith corresponded to the Scripture. This so-called ‘quia-quatenus’ struggle would occupy the minds in the Dutch Reformed Church for many years.[14]

The problem was that the King was in supreme command, leaving the church authorities without any competence to decide in matters concerning doctrine or belief. This lack of leadership resulted in the strange situation that each minister should decide for himself if the articles of faith corresponded to the Scripture. In this way the Dutch Reformed Church had got a new canon which restricted its authority and to which it had not substantially contributed. We may say that these restrictions, imposed on the church in this law, at least partially caused the problems that arose later in the nineteenth century. The possibility to take decisions about issues of belief was restricted as people should give each other the freedom to have their own beliefs. The synod could not impose any belief and was not allowed to exclude more liberal opinions and the people should be quiet and obedient to the highest authorities. But since the Enlightenment church members had been dissatisfied with the rational preaching by many ministers. Often these dissatisfied church members came together in rather small meetings in order to meet their religious needs. These people argued there was too much doctrinal freedom in the church. But the king had not agreed with these meetings and the synod did not really listen to the complaints of the concerned members. The result was that in 1834 a first exodus of orthodox people took place.[15] Many orthodox people did not leave.

In the 1840s King William II endorsed the plans to adapt the laws regarding the church.[16] The amendments concerned the church’s own responsibility, the influence for the local church and  appointing professors in theology. These amendments were quite an improvement, but the tensions in the church were already too much for the church authorities to control. The orthodox people and the liberals could not agree: orthodox people argued that the synod should strictly uphold the canon rules and the creed.

But in this time some professors, especially those who were teaching in Leiden, proclaimed with a certain approval the modern ideas of David Friedrich Strauss and of Ferdinand Christian Baur. Slowly but surely a modern party arose within the church. Jan Hendrik Scholten (1811-1885) deserves mention here. He taught New Testament studies at the University of Leiden and he wanted to study the New Testament books according to historical critical methods.[17] His teaching caused much opposition. The synod did not know how to act, finding two parties within the church fighting each other: a modern party which wanted to incorporate the newest scholarly developments and a conservative party which demanded strict obedience to the canon law and the creed. Later a third party arose: a large centre party which wanted the discussions to quiet down.

In the 1870s and the 1880s the synod of the Dutch Reformed Church felt compelled to tighten the reins and to restrict freedom in the church. The modern people, Van Manen among them, protested severely, but the tide was turning.[18] Yet the orthodox people still disapproved of the freedom for modern opinions, so in 1886 again many people left the Dutch Reformed Church to found a new church.[19]

In the meantime in Leiden and in Amsterdam more ‘modern’ professors were appointed, whereas in Utrecht the orthodox party had much influence and succeeded in appointing more orthodox professors. The more conservative scholars wrote their articles in Stemmen voor waarheid en vrede (Voices for Truth and Peace) since 1864, whereas the ‘modern’ people published their opinions since 1867 in Theologisch Tijdschrift, Theological Journal. It is the ‘modern’ climate in Amsterdam and in Leiden that gave rise to such radical points of view as argued by Loman and later by Van Manen.

 

Emergence of the Radicals

The ‘Dutch Radical school’ has its own place in the history of New Testament exegesis; it particularly concerned church history of the first two centuries and related to topics like the authenticity of the Pauline epistles. In the first half of the nineteenth century the German ‘Tübingen school’, led by famous F.C. Baur, had argued that only the four main Pauline epistles were authentic, the other epistles having been written in the second century. He published in 1845 Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi.[20] In the Netherlands these modern ideas turned out to be very attractive for many scholars and a modern party arose within the Dutch Reformed Church. In line with the results of modern scholarly research these modernists wanted to be free to discuss the authenticity of the New Testament documents, but also other theological matters such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In the middle of the nineteenth century this modernism became rather important next to the orthodox party. This resulted in growing tensions. Later on even more radical opinions would be defended. In the following decades some scholars, particularly in Germany (Bruno Bauer) and in Switzerland (Rudolf Steck), argued that even the main epistles could not be maintained as authentic Pauline epistles. The publications by Bruno Bauer and Rudolf Steck did not remain unnoticed in the Netherlands. Besides Loman it was especially Van Manen who studied and reviewed them. But it took some time before he eventually agreed with their conclusions. I shall discuss Van Manen more in detail later on because he is the most eye-catching Dutch Radical and because in his publications the Dutch Radical points of view are expressed very well.

After Van Manen’s death the ‘radical’ opinions were not defended anymore at the University of Leiden. Van Manen was succeeded by Kirsopp Lake, a ‘meek’ Englishman according to G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, a pupil of Van Manen’s.[21] Later on Van den Bergh van Eysinga himself was appointed professor at the University of Amsterdam. After his retirement the Dutch Radical school had no longer a representative at any university in the Netherlands. Nevertheless the Dutch Radical school remained fascinating for New Testament scholars, as it gave a very interesting outline of the history of the church in the first two centuries A.D. And even without a representative at a Dutch university their points of view were studied and their statements are defended to this very day.[22]

 

About Van Manen’s Life

Willem Christiaan van Manen was born in 1842 in Noordeloos, a village near Utrecht. His father, Hugo van Manen, was a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church there. His grandfather, also called Willem Christiaan van Manen, was a minister as well. He worked in Dordrecht and in Amsterdam.

We know from letters addressed to him that this Willem Christiaan van Manen, the grandfather of the Van Manen we are talking about, felt attracted to the new developments in the theology at that time. A woman of his congregation in Amsterdam had written to him in 1827 that she preferred to go to another church, where at least she heard preach the main issues of the Christian doctrine, the miserable situation of the people and the only way to be saved in Christ Jesus. Such letters show the opposition against the modern sermons of Van Manen’s grandfather.[23]

So we can be certain that his grandson, the most famous representative of the Dutch Radicals, had become familiar with new developments in theology and biblical scholarship.

Presumably because of the vicinity of his home he became a student at the University of Utrecht to study theology. But especially in Utrecht the climate was rather conservative and most professors did not have any sympathy for the modern developments in theology. So it was easy to foresee that Van Manen would have problems with the points of view taught in Utrecht. This did not need to raise problems, but Van Manen’s character incited him to protest against things that did not please him. In 1864, at the age of 22, Van Manen published a brochure about the situation at the theological faculty of the University of Utrecht. In this brochure he especially attacked orthodox professor Van Oosterzee.[24] A little earlier Van Manen had been involved in the report of the preceding year. In that report it is said that professor Van Oosterzee lectured as if his outward display of power should prove the truth of his statements.[25] This report caused quite a stir. In the tensions that arose because of these publications Van Manen even wrote an article in a newspaper about the theological faculty in Utrecht.[26] He was certainly not afraid to stand up for his opinion! And he must have felt supported by his father.

In 1865 he concluded his study with a doctoral thesis about the authenticity of the first letter to the Thessalonians.[27] The young scholar argued that this letter had been written by Paul himself. In the same year he published a book about the second epistle to the Thessalonians.[28] In his view this second letter was pseudepigraphic. Van Manen apparently did not feel himself bound to repeat the so-called orthodox opinions, according to which the name of the sender or senders in the letter-opening was decisive.[29]

At the end of 1865 Van Manen became a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church in Abbenbroek, a village near Rotterdam. Right at the beginning of his activities there we can see again that Van Manen was not afraid to stand up for his opinion. After only a few months he made an agreement with two colleagues, A.C. Duker and J. van Loenen Martinet, that they would tell their parishioners on Easter Sunday that they did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Moreover, they decided to preach the next day in the church of one of these colleagues, so the parish would hear this opinion twice from different men!

The parish in Abbenbroek was rather small, so Van Manen had time to study and to publish. Besides his work as a minister he published several articles on ecclesiastical topics and he wrote again about the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians.

In the next five years, 1870-1875, Van Manen worked in another parish, in Winkel, in the north of the Netherlands. After that period he became a minister in Zierikzee, in the southwest. He worked here from 1875-1885.

We can see that during his ministry his publications became more and more important. His contribution to a Dutch translation of the apostolic fathers, published in 1871, deserves mention here.[30] Van Manen edited the epistles of Clement and the shepherd of Hermas. Another example of his scholarly work at that time is his work on textual criticism. In a study about this topic Van Manen stated that the last words of Acts 10:36, "who is the Lord of all people", had been added to the text by a later scribe.[31] Erwin Nestle included this conjectural reading in the thirteenth edition of the famous Novum Testamentum Graece.[32] And up till now we read this conjecture in all the new editions of the book that is most often called ‘Nestle-Aland’.

I omit his publications about church history themes, about canonical matters, about his journeys in Switzerland, in the United Kingdom and in Germany.[33]

   

Van Manen as a Modernist

At the end of 1884 Van Manen was appointed professor at Groningen University. Mid-December 1884 he started his classes there, combining this new task with his work as a minister till February 1885. Only a few months later, in May 1885, he was appointed professor at Leiden University. The atmosphere in Leiden must have been a relief. J.H. Scholten and the Old Testament scholar A. Kuenen had created an atmosphere of liberalism and freedom, which was exactly what Van Manen needed.

Van Manen was a ‘modernist’. At that time modernism had many adherents in the Netherlands. Time and again he wrote articles to defend the modern believers from the attacks of ‘orthodox’ people and from the synod, which in his view restricted freedom for the modernists. In his inaugural lecture in Leiden he spoke about the chair of early Christian literature, since in his view modern scholars should give the New Testament the same status as other early Christian literature.[34]

Dutch modernism can be seen as part of the much broader movement in the second half of the nineteenth century in Europe.[35] A Dutch Radical school did not exist. In 1885 Van Manen still shared the opinion of the Tübingen school on the Pauline epistles, thinking the main epistles, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians and Galatians, were authentic. Nevertheless he sometimes deplored that nobody felt compelled to prove the authenticity of these letters.

From 1885 he published more and more about his field of expertise: the Pauline epistles. His biggest problem was how to understand the development of Christianity in the first century, as in his view very different movements were discernable in the Pauline epistles. In these publications Van Manen still opposed opinions such as those of A.D. Loman and others, who argued that we do not have any authentic Pauline epistles. But by 1889, Van Manen wrote that we do not have any authentic letters of Paul’s. This change of opinion is sometimes called Van Manen’s ‘conversion’.[36] It was the result of a lengthy process, which can be reconstructed from his articles. Let us have a more detailed look at some articles he wrote in the years 1886-1889. From these articles we can deduce the main issues of the Dutch Radicals.  

 

Van Manen’s Conversion

A.D. Loman was the first person to make Van Manen hesitate about the authenticity of the Pauline epistles. Loman could not understand that Paul had not gone to Jerusalem after his conversion in order to receive more information about the life and doctrine of Jesus.[37] Loman thought this was one of the arguments for distinguishing between a so-called ‘Paulus historicus’ and a ‘Paulus canonicus’.[38] Paulus historicus would have been very popular. Therefore his name would have been used for epistles written in the second century, with the intention to promote a later doctrine.[39] In a review in 1886 of earlier articles by Loman, Van Manen said with regard to Loman’s hypothesis: “we were waiting for proof.”[40]

These last words show Van Manen’s uncertainty. In his Ph.D. thesis (1865) he had defended the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians. It is clear from his reviews of Loman’s articles that he did not yet agree with Loman’s reasoning, but he was less decided than before.

In February 1887 Van Manen reviewed a book by C. Holsten: Die synoptischen Evangelien nach der Form ihres Inhaltes.[41] Holsten had argued that Matthew proclaimed the gospel of Peter. This ‘Petrinism’ would be the oldest form of Christianity in the very beginning after Jesus’ death. At that time people did not yet realize that in Jesus a new relation to God had been given. Mark would have used and partially rewritten Matthew’s gospel to bring it in line with the message of Paul.[42] In Holsten’s view it was Paul who realized that by Jesus’ death on the cross righteousness was not tied in any more with the fulfilment of the commandments.[43] There would have been bound to be reactions: Judaism arose. The position and the great value of the law should be defended according to the Judaists. Luke eventually would have tried to combine these different gospels. In this way Luke was a representative of the later Catholicism. Van Manen appreciated this book very much. Petrinism, Paulinism, Judaism and Catholicism. To him the sequence appeared perfect.[44] But this development could not have taken place within a few decades. Van Manen concluded that either Holsten was wrong in his outline of early church history or much more time was needed for such a development. It would be very different if Paul could be dissociated from the main epistles. But nobody had proved yet that Paul was not the person he was thought to be.[45] We can hear between the lines that Holsten’s reasoning was very attractive for Van Manen, but he did not dare to challenge the authenticity of the four main Pauline epistles. Nonetheless it is obvious that for Van Manen such a development would solve the puzzle of the history of early Christianity.

In 1886 another book was published with the conclusion that the Pauline epistles should be dated in the second century: A. Pierson, S.A. Naber, Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt.[46] In 1887 Van Manen published three articles about this study.[47] He did not agree with the book, but research into the main epistles kept occupying his mind. In one review of this book he argued that many scholars apply double standards to the Pauline epistles: nobody thinks to prove the authenticity of the four main epistles whereas the smaller epistles are put to a severe test.[48] Cf. the remark in Van Manen’s review of Nieuwtestamentische Letterkunde by M.A.N. Rovers: ‘Rovers should not have failed to motivate the authenticity of the main epistles if it can be motivated.’[49] In this last article Van Manen lists the inconsistencies he found in the epistle to the Romans. Some verses point to Christians from Jewish origin as the addressees, other texts point to Christians from gentile origin. In Rom. 7:12 the law is said to be holy and spiritual whereas in other texts we find an anti-law attitude.[50] We already hear in these words that Van Manen was not certain anymore of the authenticity of the four main epistles. He could not understand the supposed inconsistencies in some epistles. And he could not understand the history of the oldest form of Christianity if the authenticity of the main epistles had to be maintained, since such different streams suggested a longer period for the development of Christianity.

We can see a shift in his opinion in two articles about Marcion’s text of the epistle to the Galatians.[51] In the second article Van Manen argued that we must distinguish between the epistle to the Galatians as Marcion read it and the epistle to the Galatians which had been changed by the ‘Catholics’. This last epistle has been incorporated in the canon, meaning that the epistle to the Galatians in the canon was not entirely written by Paul.

In the same year, in 1887, Van Manen wrote a review of a study written by W. Seufert, Der Ursprung und die Bedeutung des Apostolates in der Christlichen Kirche der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte.[52] This review was not published until 1889.[53] Seufert had argued that we have many controversies and obscurities in the New Testament regarding the appointment of the twelve apostles. It seems improbable that Jesus gave this function to just twelve disciples. The role of Jude would be very problematic. The names of the apostles do not agree in the New Testament writings, and the position of Paul as an apostle also seems to be disputed.[54] Seufert thought he had found the right answer: the restriction of the apostleship to twelve disciples of Jesus was a product of the struggle against Paul in the period 53-63.[55]

Seufert was right, according to Van Manen, arguing that the origin of the twelve is the consequence of the struggle against Paul. But he argued we should see this against the background of the outline of the beginnings of Christianity given earlier by Holsten, provided that we could allow much more time for this development than Holsten did. Van Manen proposed to date the struggle between Paulinism and Judaism in the first half of the second century.[56] It is significant that Van Manen used eleven pages to explain the development from Petrinism and Paulinism to Judaism and Catholicism and to argue that Seufert’s conclusions fit in with this development.[57] Surprisingly we read at the end of this review, after his description of the church in the first and second centuries: ‘but why shall I speak of such opinions, if they are inadmissible as long as the four main epistles must be dated in the period 52-63. [...] We have to study the four main epistles more thoroughly. If we could conclude that Paul of Tarsus did not write these epistles, then we know the history of the origin, the development and the fall of the apostleship.’[58] From these words we may deduce that Van Manen at that time did not believe anymore that there are authentic Pauline epistles in the New Testament. But he did not yet state explicitly that he had changed his opinion.

In September 1888 Van Manen wrote an article in two parts about a book published by Rudolf Steck, Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen.[59] Steck researched the relation between the epistle to the Galatians, the epistle to the Romans and Marcion. He argued that the way the law is discussed demonstrates that the epistle to the Galatians was written after the epistle to the Romans. In Romans it is said: the law used to be God’s will, but it is not any more. Marcion said that the law was never God’s will. The position of Galatians is somewhere in between: the law came through Moses, who did not receive it from God but from angels.[60] The christology taught in the main epistles is very close to the christology preached in the gospel of John.[61] According to Steck it is impossible that a contemporary of Jesus would have spoken in this way.[62] Other points discussed by Steck are a remark in Galatians that Paul did not go to Jerusalem,[63] and the relation between Gal. 2 and Acts 15. He concluded that the book of Acts had been written by a conciliatory ‘Paulinist’ whereas the epistle to the Galatians had been written by a radical ‘Paulinist’ who wanted to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the picture given in Acts.[64] ‘The epistle to the Galatians would have been written to stop the increase of Judaism, and should be dated after the year 120.’[65] ‘The Paulinism we know from the main epistles is no longer a sudden phenomenon, but it is the end of a long development.’[66]

Van Manen concluded that the arguments used by Steck were convincing. He wrote: the authenticity of the main epistles cannot be upheld.[67] Perhaps more importantly, Steck’s book gave Van Manen the solution to another big problem: the development of Christianity in the first and second centuries. For several years Van Manen had been obsessed with the question of the so-called Paulinism, which had seemed a sudden phenomenon. Now it was clear to him that instead Paulinism was ‘the result of a long development.’[68] From now on, he stated, people will try to place the epistles in their historical context.[69] In his article Van Manen showed his gratitude to Steck and also to Loman. Loman had given the impulse to new research into the Pauline epistles.[70]

 

Van Manen as a ‘Radical’

So Van Manen’s ‘conversion’ was a fact.[71] It seems to me that only now Van Manen found the peace and quiet for thorough research. In the previous years he had been obsessed by many theological questions. The unproven authenticity of the main epistles and the history of the beginnings of Christianity had been unsolved problems for him. Of course he had studied very much in the decades before, but now he had found satisfactory answers for several problems which kept him busy: the supposed inconsistencies in the main epistles[72], the christology of the Pauline epistles which in his view suggested that they originated in the second century,[73] and the history of the oldest Christianity.[74] Now he was ready to start to write Paulus, his ‘magnum opus’.[75]

This trilogy consisted of more than 800 pages. In the first volume Van Manen wrote about the book of Acts. He argued that the author of Acts had borrowed from several other works, for example the books written by Flavius Josephus. He concluded that the book of Acts as we know it was written between 125 and 150 A.D.[76] The so-called Paulinism which is discernable in Acts is a movement which arose after Paul’s death. Van Manen ended this first volume with the observation: ‘perhaps we are making a mistake. For this date for the movement named after Paul is only possible if the epistles by Paul can be dated in the second century. An investigation into the authenticity of the epistles might provide the answer.’[77]

In the second part of his trilogy Van Manen discussed the epistle to the Romans.[78] This second part is the most important volume. In this volume Van Manen presented his outline of the history of earliest Christianity and he argued that the epistle to the Romans is inauthentic. It is not by accident that just this second part of Van Manen’s trilogy has been translated in German.[79] He tried to prove that the epistle to the Romans must originate from the beginning of the second century.[80] The Christians addressed are sometimes former gentiles (Rom. 1:5-6; 11:13), sometimes former Jews (Rom. 2:17-29; 4:1).[81] The theology shows a long development since Jesus’ first disciples. Christianity has learned to break with Judaism. The position of the law has been defeated.[82] The persecutions spoken of in this epistle suggest a time after Nero.[83] According to Van Manen all these points indicate that this epistle must be dated in a later time and can therefore not have been written by Paul, who lived in the middle of the first century A.D.

In this second book on Paul Van Manen wrote a chapter on the development of Christianity in the first and second centuries.[84] This chapter is very instructive. It is crystal clear that he thought he had now found the solution to the problems he was confronted with. In agreement with Holsten, Van Manen speaks of a succession of Petrinism, Paulinism, Judaism and Catholicism.[85] Petrinism is a Jewish movement. The Petrinists were obedient to the law, true to the ethics and the institutions of their forefathers.[86] The difference between them and the Jews concerns ta peri tou Ihsou, the facts about Jesus (Acts 18:25) and to khrugma Ihsou Cristou the preaching about Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25). The gospel they preach is corresponding to the law; cf. the pseudepigraphic epistle of Peter to James 2:3 where Peter speaks about the gospel corresponding to the law preached by me.[87] It is logical in Van Manen’s view that the Christians in that period were never in trouble: the difference between Christians and Jews was too small.

Only after the destruction of Jerusalem did a more liberal movement arise. And it was this liberalism which gave birth to Paulinism.[88] Paulinism had learned to go its own way, far removed from Judaism. Defending the value of the law was regarded old-fashioned.[89] The Christians could live under grace (Rom. 6:14). Jesus was not the Messiah of the first disciples, but he had become a supernatural being, the Son of God.[90] From now on it was possible to obtain by God’s grace in Christ what could not possibly be obtained by obedience to the law: salvation.[91] In Van Manen’s opinion this Paulinism was connected with gnosis.[92] The gnostics understood what it meant to be liberated from the law. They held the Paul of the epistles in high esteem.[93] Obviously the ‘historical Paul’ had died long before. He was a younger contemporary of Peter and like Peter he lived within the boundaries of Judaism.[94] Later his popularity caused his name to be attached to the epistles we know now as Paul’s epistles.

It is obvious that Paulinism would have triggered a sharp reaction from the side of the Jews. The value of the law was denied. A new party, Judaism, vehemently defended that everyone should be obedient to the law. Paul was contended because his name was connected with the message of a new life without the law. It was argued that he did not have the right to call himself an apostle because he had not met Jesus.[95]

According to Van Manen the ‘Pauline’ writings can be understood as later products of Paulinism.[96] We find in them fragments and revisions of older texts. In these writings we can see the opinions of different groups which took part in the development of Christianity.[97]

Then a new group arose, Catholicism. Representatives of this new movement tried to mediate in the discussions between ‘Paulinists’ and ‘Judaists’. They wanted to overcome the difference in opinions. ‘This new religion is not to be identified with Hellenism or with Judaism, but it was a really new religion.’[98]

 

Van Manen’s View on Early Church History

We have seen that the puzzling early church history played an important part in Van Manen’s research of early Christian literature. Several times he reviewed studies like those by Holsten, Steck and others. In these reviews we read sentences like: such an outline of early history would be very attractive, but it cannot be defended because of the authenticity of the Pauline epistles and consequently because of a lack of time for such a time-consuming development.[99]

 In Van Manen’s review of Seufert’s book it becomes clear that the outline of early church history as given by Holsten and by Seufert is convincing to him and that therefore the main epistles must be studied anew. Actually Van Manen’s view becomes clear in his review of Seufert’s book when he very enthusiastically and very amply describes this early church history and then regretfully says in a few sentences that such a development is impossible because of the date of the four main Pauline epistles.[100] He thought ‘Paulinism’ to be inexplicable in the apostolic time and he did not know how to interpret the conflicts in the Pauline epistles, conflicts he thought to have taken place in the second century.[101] At the moment he dared to drop the authenticity of the ‘Paulines’ he thought he had a clear picture of early church history. Consequently the ‘Paulines’ must be dated in the second century.[102]

                                                                                                                                           

Freedom of Thought

In the preceding part much attention has been paid to Van Manen’s outline of the oldest history of Christianity and to his opinion on the authenticity of the ‘Pauline’ epistles. Occasionally I made some remarks on his unremitting fight for freedom of thought within the church. Within the scope of this paper more must be said about his efforts for freedom of thought. This fight for freedom comes across as very sympathetic. We already saw that Van Manen himself needed much freedom. He had his own opinions and he wished to have the possibility to voice them. It is great to see that Van Manen was true to his conviction as he was prepared to give space to ministers with other opinions than those he advocated. In the time of his ministry in Zierikzee he defended the appointment of an orthodox minister in order to promote the interests of the orthodox part of the community in that town.[103] In 1877 he supported the decision of the classis Zierikzee, the official assembly of the churches in that area, to petition the synod to create possibilities for minorities to appoint ministers of their own persuasion.[104] We can find the same points of view regarding freedom of thought in lengthy articles he wrote about Pontiaan van Hattem.[105] Van Hattem was a minister in the seventeenth century who was dismissed for supposed heresies. Van Manen did not agree with several of Van Hattem’s opinions, but nevertheless he thought Van Hattem should have had the right to vent his opinions and he should have got an honoured place in Dutch church history.

Freedom of opinion is a problem in many churches, even today. It seems to be extremely difficult to find a solution for this problem. The difficulty is that fundamentalists cannot accept freedom of thought because of their principles. We have known the struggle between the moderates and the strictly orthodox for centuries. In 1890 Van Manen wrote a brochure in support of the moderates in Vlaardingen, a city near Rotterdam.[106] The church council of Vlaardingen had refused approval of the appointment of a moderate minister. Van Manen reacted vehemently against the church council in this brochure. But at the same time he said that the church council could not act in another way because of their principles.[107] He added that we cannot expect any reform as long as the church council holds to the principle of their unassailable belief.[108] Van Manen made a comparison with the well-known words non possumus, derived from Acts 4:20, ou dunameqa, we cannot. ‘The church council assures with tears in their eyes that they cannot act in another way. And from that point of view it is impossible that different parties shake hands with one another.’[109] This remark is still very relevant to our times. As long as a group of believers within a church, or a whole church, argues that they are in sole possession of the truth or that they have the true faith, they will feel obliged to constrain the freedom of people with other opinions and to characterize more liberal people as heretics. Like Van Manen, I think it is very important to have freedom of thought in the church, for liberal and radical opinions as well. Any opposition to certain opinions should be based on rational arguments, not charged with emotion.

The German minister Hermann Detering who adopted many ‘radical’ opinions was rebuffed several times. There is, for example, the unfortunate review Rainer Riesner wrote of one of Detering’s books. Riesner suggests a relation between Detering’s opinions and declining church attendance in the community in Berlin Brandenburg, where Detering has worked for several years. He also says regarding Detering’s book that publishers are not afraid to print theological trash.[110] I think as scholars we should be honest in our research, and we should use rational arguments in our opposition to opinions we do not share. And, in agreement with Van Manen, I think it of the utmost importance that we are allowed to have our own opinions in the church. It is this freedom of thought that allows me to discuss Van Manen with much esteem for this colourful scholar.

Conclusion

We have seen that the emergence of the Radical movement took place against the specific background of Dutch church history. Apart from the theological problems, the freedom of thought was discussed time and again. Van Manen argued that the church should give space for both moderates and the strictly orthodox. However, in the Dutch Reformed Church such a freedom had to be gained.

Regarding Van Manen’s outline of the oldest church history we must conclude that most scholars do not accept anymore the arguments he used in the books and the articles he wrote after his ‘conversion’.[111] The succession of Petrinism, Paulinism, Judaism and Catholicism cannot be upheld. On the contrary, we think we know now that at the very beginning of Christianity a surprising diversity could be found in the Christian communities.[112] These different movements, whatever they may be called, existed next to one another, not necessarily after one another. The way Van Manen described the history of oldest Christianity made the conclusion inevitable that the ‘Pauline’ epistles were inauthentic. This outline of the history of the early church and consequently the inauthenticity of the Pauline epistles are the identifying marks of the Dutch Radicals.

[1] G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, Die holländische radikale Kritik des Neuen Testaments, Jena 1912, 171; G. Hartdorff, Historie of historisering?, Amsterdam 1950, 28-29.

[2] See E. Verhoef, Die holländische Radikale Kritik, in: R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence, Leuven 1996, 417-425.

[3] Loman lectured 1856-1893 at the Lutheran Seminary in Amsterdam, later also at the University of Amsterdam. See H.U. Meyboom, Levensbericht Abraham Dirk Loman, Handelingen van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde, Leiden 1897-1898, bijlage 26-72; D.E.J. Völter, Abraham Dirk Loman, Jaarboek Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie der Wetenschappen, Amsterdam 1899, 3-42.

[4] Van Manen was a professor in Leiden from 1885-1903. He taught early Christian literature and exegesis of the New Testament. See E. Verhoef, W.C. van Manen. Een Hollandse Radicale theoloog, Kampen 1994. In this book you will find an exhaustive bibliography of Van Manen’s more than three hundred publications.

[5] Van den Bergh van Eysinga, a pupil of Van Manen’s, was a professor at the University of Amsterdam in New Testament and early Christian literature from 1935-1944. He published many articles and books, but not as much about the radical views as Van Manen did. See C.W. Mönnich, In memoriam G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift XII (1957-1958), 313-316 and G. Hartdorff, Historie of historisering?, Amsterdam 1950, 231-253 for an extensive biliography.

[6] Cf. D. Doughty, Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity, The Journal of Higher Criticism 1 (1994), 119.

[7] A.D. Loman, Quaestiones Paulinae, Theologisch Tijdschrift 16 (1882), 177.

[8] A.D. Loman, Quaestiones Paulinae, Theologisch Tijdschrift 16 (1882), 141-185; 302-328; 452-487; 17 (1883), 14-57; 20 (1886), 42-113; cf. W.C. van Manen, Het Nieuwe Testament sedert 1859, Groningen 1886, 89-93.

[9] Een Engelsche anonymus over den oorsprong des christendoms, Theologisch Tijdschrift 21 (1887), 597-653. W.C. van Manen wrote a rather negative review of the same book in De Nederlandsche Spectator 1887, 317-320.

[10] Page 597. Later, on page 603, Loman speaks about himself and his friends ironically saying ‘us, poor radicals’.

[11] W.C. van Manen, Paul, in: T.K. Cheyne, J. Sutherland Black (eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica III, London 1902, 3621.

[12] A.J. Rasker, De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795, Kampen 1986, 26-29.

[13] A.J. Rasker, De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795, Kampen 1986, 41: “de leer, welke overeenkomstig Gods Heilig Woord, in de [...] formulieren [...] is vervat.”

[14] A.J. Rasker, De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795, Kampen 1986, 41-42.

[15] K. Heussi, Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, Tübingen 121960, 488: “Da sich indessen die reformierte Kirche der neuen Rechtgläubigkeit nicht unterwarf, führte das Wiederaufleben [...] zu einer Separation.” Cf. A.J. Rasker, De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795, Kampen 1986, 63-66.

[16] A.J. Rasker, De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795, Kampen 1986, 156-158.

[17] A.J. Rasker, De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795, Kampen 1986, 115-120; S. van der Linde, Scholten, Joannes Henricus, in: D. Nauta (cum aliis), Biografisch lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse protestantisme 1, Kampen 21983, 320-322.

[18] E. Verhoef, W.C. van Manen. Een Hollandse Radicale theoloog, Kampen 1994, 31-34.

[19] A.J. Rasker, De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795, Kampen 1986, 182-187; W. Bakker (cum aliis), De Doleantie van 1886 en haar geschiedenis, Kampen 1986.

[20] E. Zeller edited the second edition, in 1866-1867 (reprint Osnabrück 1968).

[21] G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, De Nieuwe Amsterdammer 20-5-1915, 6: “een tammen Engelschman”.

[22] Nowadays H. Detering is probably the best known scholar who agrees with the Dutch Radical opinions. See H. Detering, Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus? Die Paulusbriefe in der holländischen Radikalkritik, Frankfurt am Main 1992; idem, Der gefälschte Paulus, Düsseldorf 1995; idem, The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles, The Journal of Higher Criticism 3 (1996), 163-193. Cf. also D. Doughty, Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity, The Journal of Higher Criticism 1 (1994), 95-128.

[23] See E. Verhoef, W.C. van Manen. Een Hollandse Radicale theoloog, Kampen 1994, 9.

[24] W.C. van Manen, Een woord over Utrechtse Theologie, Utrecht 1864, 17.

[25] E. Verhoef, W.C. van Manen. Een Hollandse Radicale theoloog, Kampen 1994, 13: “als moest het uiterlijk gezag de waarheid der beweringen staven.”

[26] Utrechtsch Provinciaal en Stedelijk Dagblad; see E. Verhoef, W.C. van Manen. Een Hollandse Radicale theoloog, Kampen 1994, 13.

[27] W.C. van Manen, Onderzoek naar de echtheid van Paulus’ eersten brief aan de Thessalonicensen, Weesp 1865.

[28] W.C. van Manen, Onderzoek naar de echtheid van Paulus’ tweeden brief aan de Thessalonicensen, Utrecht 1865.

[29] See for example the doctoral thesis of T.F. Westrik on 2 Thessalonians nearly fifteen years later, De echtheid van den tweeden brief aan de Thessalonicensen op nieuw onderzocht, Utrecht 1879.

[30] W.C. van Manen, A.C. Duker, De geschriften der apostolische vaders I-II, Amsterdam 1871.

[31] Conjecturaal-kritiek, toegepast op den tekst van de schriften des Nieuwen Testaments, Haarlem 1880, 238.

[32] Erwin Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart 131927. This is the first edition Erwin Nestle edited. The preceding editions had been edited by his father Eberhard Nestle.

[33] See E. Verhoef, W.C. van Manen. Een Hollandse Radicale theoloog, Kampen 1994, 35-36. 57-58.

[34] De leerstoel der Oud-christelijke letterkunde, Groningen 1885.

[35] Cf. K. Heussi, Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, Tübingen 121960, 486.

[36] G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga , Die holländische radikale Kritik des Neuen Testaments, Jena 1912, 81; cf. H.U. Meyboom in an article entitled ‘W.C. van Manen’ in: Theologisch Tijdschrift 40 (1906), 232

[37] W.C. van Manen, Bezwaren tegen de echtheid van Paulus’ brief aan de Galatiërs, Theologisch Tijdschrift 20 (1886), 323. The article by Loman was published in Theologisch Tijdschrift 20 (1886), 42-113.

[38] Later on Van Manen himself dinstinguished between the historical Paul and the Paul of later Paulinism; see W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1991, 225-226.

[39] W.C. van Manen, Bezwaren tegen de echtheid van Paulus’ brief aan de Galatiërs, Theologisch Tijdschrift 20 (1886), 346.

[40] W.C. van Manen, Het Nieuwe Testament sedert 1859, Groningen 1886, 115: wij “namen een afwachtende houding aan en volgden de debatten met groote belangstelling, zonder onopgemerkt te laten, dat het eerste stellige bewijs vóór de hypothese-Loman nog moest worden geleverd.” This book is a revision of several articles, published earlier in German, in: Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie 9 (1883), 593-618; 10 (1884), 269-315; 551-626; 11 (1885), 86-122; 454-496; 12 (1886), 418-455.

[41] Heidelberg 1886. The review of this book was published in: Theologisch Tijdschrift 21 (1887), 326-343.

[42] W.C. van Manen, Theologisch Tijdschrift 21 (1887), 337.

[43] W.C. van Manen, Theologisch Tijdschrift 21 (1887), 340.

[44] W.C. van Manen, Theologisch Tijdschrift 21 (1887), 342: “De volgorde schijnt onberispelijk”.

[45] W.C. van Manen, Theologisch Tijdschrift 21 (1887), 343: “Maar dat Paulus niet de man zou zijn geweest, voor wien tot heden schier allen hem hebben gehouden, is immers nog door niemand bewezen?!”

[46] Amsterdam 1886.

[47] Paulus Episcopus, Bibliotheek van moderne theologie en letterkunde 7 (1887), 605-644; Een brief over de Verisimilia, De Nederlandsche Spectator 1887, 71-72; Hoe te oordelen over de methode, ter verklaring van Paulinische brieven, door de HH. Pierson en Naber aanbevolen in de Verisimilia?, Bijblad van de Hervorming 13-7-1887, 49-58.

[48] Hoe te oordeelen over de methode, ter verklaring van Paulinische brieven, door de HH. Pierson en Naber aanbevolen in de Verisimilia?, Bijblad van de Hervorming 13-7-1887, 55: “Niemand die er aan denkt hun echtheid te bewijzen [...]”

[49] Nieuwtestamentische Letterkunde, De Tijdspiegel 1888 vol. III, 402-403: “Rovers had zich niet mogen onttrekken aan de poging om althans eenige van de ingebrachte bezwaren af te wijzen en enkele gronden voor de echtheid der hoofdbrieven, indien zij er zijn, aan te voeren.” Italics by me. Cf. W.C. van Manen, Nieuwtestamentische letterkunde, De Nederlandsche Spectator 1888, 256: Rovers heeft “zich ontslagen geacht van de moeite om ernstig om te zien naar bewijzen voor de echtheid der Paulinische hoofdbrieven.”

[50] Nieuwtestamentische Letterkunde, De Tijdspiegel 1888 vol. III, 403-404.

[51] Marcion’s brief van Paulus aan de Galatiërs I, Theologisch Tijdschrift 21 (1887), 382-404; Marcion’s brief van Paulus aan de Galatiërs II, Theologisch Tijdschrift 21 (1887), 451-533.

[52] Leiden 1887.

[53] W.C. van Manen, Twaalf apostelen, Bibliotheek van moderne theologie en letterkunde 9 (1889), 205-274.

[54] W.C. van Manen, Twaalf apostelen, Bibliotheek van moderne theologie en letterkunde 9 (1889), 216-219.

[55] W.C. van Manen, Twaalf apostelen, Bibliotheek van moderne theologie en letterkunde 9 (1889), 252.261.

[56] W.C. van Manen, Twaalf apostelen, Bibliotheek van moderne theologie en letterkunde 9 (1889), 263.

[57] W.C. van Manen, Twaalf apostelen, Bibliotheek van moderne theologie en letterkunde 9 (1889), 263-273.

[58] W.C. van Manen, Twaalf apostelen, Bibliotheek van moderne theologie en letterkunde 9 (1889), 273-274: “Maar wat waag ik mij aan opvattingen en voorstellingen, die immers niet kunnen worden toegelaten, tenzij vooraf het bewijs mocht zijn geleverd, dat de Paulinische hoofdbrieven niet dagteekenen uit de jaren 52 (55)-63, maar minstens 50 à 60 jaar later zijn geschreven. [...] Mocht dat onderzoek leiden tot het ontzeggen dier brieven aan Paulus [...] dan kennen wij tevens [...] de geschiedenis van het ontstaan, de ontwikkeling en den ondergang van het apostelschap [...]”

[59] Berlin 1888. See W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 I, 322-339; 419-438.

[60] R. Steck, Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen, Berlin 1888, 75: “Die Lehre vom Gesetz lautet im Römerbrief in Summa: das Gesetz war einst, ist nun aber nicht mehr der Wille Gottes. Marcion lehrte bekanntlich, das Gesetz ist gar nie der Wille Gottes gewesen [...] Die Anschauung des Galaterbriefes steht in der Mitte, das Gesetz kommt zwar noch von Gott, aber doch nicht mehr unmittelbar, nicht nur hat Mose als menschlicher Mittler es empfangen, sondern zwischen ihn und Gott schiebt sich noch ein weiteres Mittelglied ein, die Engel.” Cf. W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 I, 329.

[61] R. Steck, Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen, Berlin 1888, 277.

[62] R. Steck, Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen, Berlin 1888, 284; W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 I, 338-339.

[63] W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 I, 329-330; cf. above for Loman’s reasoning about the same point.

[64] W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 I, 332; cf. 423: ‘the book of Acts was  written as a revision of historical memories; the epistle to the Galatians resists the view defended in Acts.’

[65] W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 I, 334-335.

[66] W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 I, 424

[67] W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 I, 428.

[68] See Van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 I, 424: “Nu doet zich het Paulinisme niet meer aan ons voor als een uit den hemel gevallen verschijnsel [...] maar als de slotsom eener lange ontwikkeling.”

[69] Van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, 424: “men tracht ze [...] in de geschiedenis van het oorspronkelijk Christendom daar te plaatsen, waar zij behoren.”

[70] W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 II, 429: “Intusschen had hij de stoot gegeven, waarvoor ik hem nu dankbaar ben [...]”

[71] H.U. Meyboom: Now Van Manen appeared to be a convert. See his article W.C. van Manen, Theologisch Tijdschrift 40 (1906), 232.

[72] In Nieuwtestamentische Letterkunde, De Tijdspiegel 1888 vol. III, 403-404 Van Manen listed supposed inconsistencies in the Pauline epistles.

[73] Cf. W.C. van Manen on W. Brückner’s Die chronologische Reihenfolge, in welcher die Briefe des N.Ts. verfasst sind, in: Boekbeoordelingen, Theologisch Tijdschrift 25 (1891), 223: “De Paulinische Christologie laat zich niet verklaren op zoo korten afstand van Jezus, als bij de onderstelde echtheid der hoofdbrieven moet worden aangenomen.”

[74] Cf. W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 296: “De oudste geschiedenis der ontwikkeling van het Christendom is niet langer een raadsel.”

[75] Paulus, Leiden I 1890; II 1891; III 1896.

[76] W.C. van Manen, Paulus I, Leiden 1890, 164.

[77] W.C. van Manen, Paulus I, Leiden 1890, 204.

[78] Part III about the epistles to the Corinthians does not give any new information.

[79]  W.C. van Manen, Die Unechtheit des Römerbriefes, übersetzt von G. Schläger, Leipzig 1906.

[80] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 303.

[81] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 24-25; see above about Van Manen’s review of the book by Rovers. In that article he already wrote about the supposed inconsistencies in the epistle to the Romans.

[82] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 126.

[83] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 170-171.

[84] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 288-296.

[85] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 289.

[86] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 290: “Zij zijn getrouw aan de zeden en instellingen der vaderen [...]”

[87] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 291. For the so-called Epistula Petri see G. Strecker, Brief des Petrus an Jakobus, in: W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen II, Tübingen 51989, 447.

[88] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 292-293.

[89] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 126: “Het heeft geleerd, te breken met het Jodendom en het standpunt der wet te beschouwen als een overwonnen standpunt [...]”

[90] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 136.

[91] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 215.

[92] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 228.295.

[93] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 295: “hem hoogvereerende Gnostieken.”

[94] W.C. van Manen, Paul, in: T.K. Cheyne, J. Sutherland Black (eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica III, London 1902, 3631-3632.

[95] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 293.

[96] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 210.

[97] Later on he wrote about the Pauline epistles in W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 II, 424: we try “ze in de geschiedenis van het oorspronkelijk Christendom dáár te plaatsen, waar zij behooren.”

[98] W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 294.

[99] Cf. W.C. van Manen, in an review of a book by Holsten, Theologisch Tijdschrift 21 (1887), 343: “wij hebben dringend behoefte aan meer tijd, om ons [...] een zoo grootsch en breed zich ontplooiende ontwikkeling van het zaad, door Jezus uitgestrooid, te kunnen voorstellen.”

[100] See above footnote 58.

[101] See W.C. van Manen, De hoofdbrieven van Paulus, De Tijdspiegel 1889 I, 424.

[102] See especially the outline of the beginnings of Christianity in: W.C. van Manen, Paulus II, Leiden 1891, 288-296.

[103] See E. Verhoef, W.C. van Manen. Een Hollandse Radicale theoloog, Kampen 1994, 31.33.

[104] This letter can be found in the minutes of the classis Zierikzee of June 27th 1877.

[105] Pontiaan van Hattem, De Gids 1885 III, 357-429; IV, 84-115; De procedure tegen Pontiaan van Hattem, Archief voor Nederlandse kerkgeschiedenis 1 (1885), 273-348. Cf. E. Verhoef, W.C. van Manen. Een Hollandse Radicale theoloog, Kampen 1994, 38-39.

[106] W.C. van Manen, Afgewezen, Vlaardingen 1890.

[107] W.C. van Manen, Afgewezen, Vlaardingen 1890, 2: “Uw kerkeraad kon op het door hem ingenomen standpunt geen ander besluit nemen.”

[108] W.C. van Manen, Afgewezen, Vlaardingen 1890, 3: “zoolang zij zich uitsluitend plaatsen op het [...] standpunt der geloofsverzekerdheid.”

[109] W.C. van Manen, Afgewezen, Vlaardingen 1890, 5: “Uw kerkeraad [...] blijft eenvoudig staan op een standpunt, vanwaar partijen elkaar nooit de hand kunnen reiken en verzekert, met een traan in het oog, dat hij niet anders kan. Juist zoo als de Paus van Rome, wanneer hij zijn non possumus doet hooren [...]”

[110] See the review of H. Detering, Der gefälschte Paulus, Düsseldorf 1995, by R. Riesner in: Idea Spektrum 7 (1995), 24-25: from this book we can see “wie längst nicht bloß namhafte evangelische Verlage sich zunehmend auf theologischen Schund verlegen.”

[111] See E. Verhoef, Die holländische Radikale Kritik, in: R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence, Leuven 1996, 430-432.

[112] See W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, Tübingen 21964, 4. More recently in  Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London 21990, 373 J.D.G. Dunn concluded: “there was no single normative form of Christianity in the first century.”