Reading with a Forger: Christoph Pfaff and the Reception of Colossians 2:16
The present article explores the reception of Col 2:16, reading it alongside the work of an eighteenth-century forger, Christoph Pfaff, who published four forged "fragments" of Irenaeus in 1715. The work of Pfaff and the later demonstration of his forgery by Adolf Harnack relate to the int...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Scholar's Press
[2019]
|
| In: |
Journal of Biblical literature
Year: 2019, Volume: 138, Issue: 4, Pages: 845-862 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Bible. Kolosserbrief 2,16
/ Pfaff, Christoph Matthaeus 1686-1760
/ Irenaeus, Lugdunensis 140-202
/ Origenes 185-254
/ Harnack, Adolf von 1851-1930
/ Calendar
/ Forgery
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament |
| Further subjects: | B
4 / Origen, 184 / 5-253
B Consensus (Social sciences) B PFAFF, Christopher B Irenaeus, Saint, Bishop of Lyon B Bible. Colossians |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The present article explores the reception of Col 2:16, reading it alongside the work of an eighteenth-century forger, Christoph Pfaff, who published four forged "fragments" of Irenaeus in 1715. The work of Pfaff and the later demonstration of his forgery by Adolf Harnack relate to the interpretation of Col 2:16, the former offering an ecumenically inclusive reading--which allowed variety within Christian calendar observance--and the latter doubting the historical plausibility of such a reading. The majority of contemporary scholars would agree with Harnack's judgment and tend to treat the verse as excluding certain (Jewish) calendrical observance rather than excluding judgment against such practices. When examined carefully, however, both Pfaff's "Irenaean" interpretation of Col 2:16 and the modern consensus--that is to say, both "inclusive" and "exclusive" interpretations--are legible in the Pauline passage. Following a discussion of Pfaff's forgery and Harnack's criticism, this is demonstrated with reference to the early reception of Col 2:16 in Tertullian and Origen and by examining the verse in its broader literary context. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1934-3876 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of Biblical literature
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1353/jbl.2019.0045 |