PastoralEpistles.com

At the Society of Biblical Literature meeting Edgar Battad Ebojo presented a paper titled, “P46 with the Pastoral Epistles: A Misleading Proposal? Reinvestigating the Evidence of the Missing Last Pages of P46” P46 is an early significant document containing Paul’s letters (plus Hebrews) which is missing its last pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46). It has commonly been stated that the document would not have had enough pages to include the Pastoral Epistles, and, therefore, this is evidence that the Pastorals were not considered Pauline at this early date. However, in 1988 Jeremy Duff published an article [“P46 and the Pastorals: A Misleading Consensus?” NTS 44 (1998): 578-590] arguing that the Pastoral Epistles would fit because the scribe was beginning to squeeze more words in per page in the last pages we have.

Ebojo provided meticulous examination of P46, character count, per line, variations, etc. The detail was impressive. He demonstrated subjectivity in the work of much of the preceding discussion and ended with the suggestion that P46 is not the place to look for information on the authorship or canonicity of the Pastoral Epistles.

Ebojo's work was exemplary in its detail and helpful in its modesty in its claims.

The draft of the schedule for the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society has now been posted. I have previously announced the presenters and titles for the new section on the Pastoral Epistles, but now I can post the date, times and location. I am excited about this beginning of our conversation about how the avoidance of the Pastorals has impacted our view of Paul.

I hope to see you there.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

3:00-6:10pm

MARRIOTT—PACIFIC J

PASTORAL EPISTLES

The Place of the Pastoral Epistles in Pauline Theology

Moderator: Ray Van Neste

(Union University)

3:00-3:40pm

Robert W. Yarbrough

(Covenant Theological Seminary)

The Theology of the Pastorals in NT Theologies

3:50-4:30pm

L. Timothy Swinson

(Liberty University)

The Pastoral Epistles and Perspectives Old and New

4:40-5:20pm

Greg A. Couser

(Cedarville University)

‘Life on Life‘: Explorations in Paul‘s Understanding of Eschatological Life

5:30-6:10pm

Frank Thielman

(Beeson Divinity School)

The Pedagogy of Grace: Soteriology, Ethics, and Mission in Titus 2:11-14

I am currently reading Tim Swinson's dissertation “GRAFH in the Letters to Timothy” recently passed at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I was eager to read it after hearing a number of good papers from Tim at ETS meetings along the way. I am only into the second chapter but already find this to be a well done, useful work. Swinson is more conversant with French, German, and Spanish sources than is common in American PhD’s. His writing is clear and forthright. His brief argument for Pauline authorship is well done and gathers a lot of helpful information. I am eager to finish the reading. If you are working on the Pastorals concerning authorship or the references to scripture (1 Tim 5:18; 2 Tim 3:16), you would do well to check with the library at TEDS for this dissertation.

From Matthew Brook O'Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament (Amazon.com), p. 388:

It seems unlikely that by simply counting words it is possible to differentiate between authors. While a particular author may have a core or base vocabulary, as well as an affinity for certain words (or combination/collocation of words), there are many factors, for instance, age, further education, social setting, rhetorical purpose and so on, that restrict or expand this core set of lexical items. In spite of this, New Testament attribution studies and many commentaries (sadly, some rather recent ones at that) have placed considerable weight on counting the number of words found in one letter but not found in a group of letters assumed to be authentic. (O'Donnell, 388)

I can't tell you the times that I've read authorship discussions on the Pastorals in commentaries where the argument boils down to "read P.N. Harrison's Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, he got it right". This pawning the argument off on what is essentially a misdirected attempt at stylometry through hapax-legomena counting. Statistics are not easy to understand, and when someone makes a statistical case that sounds good it is easy to accept, point to, and never think about again. "So-and-so has all sorts of numbers, statistics, math and tables that I don't fully understand, so it must be right."

I'm not saying that all commentaries, monographs and such that dispute Pauline authorship do this. Some do not, and they are well worth reading because they're really wrestling with the stylistic issues. But if your reason for discounting Pauline authorship rests solely on comparative proportions of hapax legomena between two different slices of a corpus ... well, you're not standing on firm ground.

I have just thumbed through the study notes on the Pastorals in the brand new NLT Study Bible (Amazon.com). The notes are written by Jon Laansma who teaches at Wheaton and did his PhD at the University of Aberdeen.

In the interest of full disclosure, two things could be thought to impinge on my judgment here. First, I know Jon and am working on a project with him. Second, I wrote the notes on the Pastorals for the ESV Study Bible (Amazon.com), which could be thought of as a competitor of this study Bible.

I was impressed with these study notes. They were thoughtful, clear and ample. Honestly, as I read, particularly the introductory material, I thought, “Wow! I hope my notes come across as well as these.” In brief compass Jon advocates Pauline authorship and situates the letters after the close of Acts (positions with which I agree). He describes 1 Timothy and Titus as similar to the mandatis principis and does not directly address the genre of 2 Timothy. He does a good job of briefly dispelling the idea that these letters are church manuals and points to their great concern for the gospel shaping life.

On 1 Timothy 2:11-15 there is an extended essay which describes three major positions without embracing any of the three.

These notes are well done. For me the only drawback is the use of the NLT for in depth study. I appreciate the NLT but for in depth study I encourage people to use a more literal translation. Jon's notes, however, are good resource for briefly explaining these letters.

Reggie Kidd, a leading scholar on the Pastorals, has reflected on what the letter to Titus can say to us in an election year. 

You can also find a three part lecture series of his on the topic, “How Pauline are the Pastoral Epistles?” here.

(HT: James Grant)

James W. Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church (Hendrickson, 2008)

 

Although the publication date on this book is January 2008, I have just received my copy.  I have looked over it briefly, and it appears to be a very interesting, thorough book.  One might question whether or not it could be a good book since the bibliography fails to mention Lloyd, Perry or myself. J Nonetheless, this will likely be a significant volume in the study of the Pastorals.

 

Aageson contends that the Pastorals were written after Paul but before Ignatius of Antioch wrote his letters (shortly after AD 100).  The book seeks to trace how certain theological themes are handled in the Pastorals in comparison to Paul and the early church.  I differ from Aageson in many respects, but I think this book will be important and useful.  I look forward to reading it.

In the Fall 2003 the Midwestern Journal of Theology (inaugural issue) and the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology devoted their articles to the Pastoral Epistles.  Sadly the Midwestern Journal’s table of contents is no longer available online.  The issue contained an article by Howard Marshall surveying recent work on the Pastoral Epistles.  The one article from that issue available online is Terry Wilder’s “A Brief Defense of the Pastoral Epistles’ Authenticity.”

 

The full table of contents from the SBJT issue can be viewed online.  Here are the titles devoted to the Pastorals along with links for those available online:

The Pastoral Epistles
Vol. 7, No. 3, Fall 2003

 

Editorial: Stephen J. Wellum
Guard the Gospel of Truth

 

Andreas J. Köstenberger
Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles

 

Ray Van Neste
The Message of Titus: An Overview

 

Benjamin L. Merkle
Hierarchy in the Church? Instruction from the Pastoral Epistles concerning Elders and Overseers

 

Philip H. Towner
The Function of the Public Reading of Scripture in 1 Timothy 4:13 and in the Biblical Tradition

 

 

Perhaps this will be of interest even if for some articles you have to track down hard copies.

Interpreting the Bible: A Handbook of Terms and Methods, Randolph Tate

(Hendrickson, 2007)

 

This is an interesting and useful book from a bit more of a critical perspective.  My reason for commenting on it here is Tate’s evaluation of the Pastoral Epistles in his entry for “Epistolary Literature”.  In this entry Tate refers to the “Undisputed Pauline Letters”, the “Disputed (Deutero-)Pauline Letters” and the “Pseudo-Pauline Letters.”  These are fairly standard categories.  What is unusual is that for Tate the Pastorals are the “Disputed” letters and Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians are the “Pseudo-Pauline”!  Every other source I have ever read which uses these three categories places the Pastorals in the lowest category, the least Pauline.  Ephesians and other letters are typically labeled “Deutero-Pauline.”  The reversal of categories is so complete that I wonder if it was a mistake.  If not, does Tate see the Pastorals as more Pauline than Ephesians?  That would be interesting.  His treatment of the Pastorals does not seem to suggest a higher view of the letters however (indeed he does not seem to be aware of some research that has seriously challenged older criticisms of the Pastorals).

 

Any thoughts form others?

Ancient Letters and the New Testament (Amazon.com), Hans-Josef Klauck (Baylor Press, 2006)

 

Overall this is a valuable contribution to the literature on letters in the ancient world.  Klauck takes six chapters to survey the various types of letters in the ancient world (with student exercises) and then two chapters to survey epistolary issues in the New Testament.  In Chapter 7 he briefly surveys most NT letters and in Chapter 8 he deals with a few letters in more detail.  He treats the Pastoral Epistles briefly in Chapter 7.

 

His treatment of the Pastorals is disappointing.  His assumption of their pseudonymity is not surprising, but what is disappointing is the various points based on overconfidence in literary and epistolary grounds.  He states baldly, “The Pastoral Letters were conceived as a complete collection by their author, who intentionally chose the number three for effect” (324).  He goes on to argue that the author intended them to be read in the order: Titus, 1 Tim, 2 Tim.  This is not a new suggestion, but it does requite argumentation.  Nothing in the manner of letter writing demands or strongly suggests this conclusion.  In fact scholarship of the last decade has increasingly challenged the idea that these three letters should be considered as a distinct corpus.  The lengthy introduction to Titus is significant, but it is a logical leap to assert this proves the author intended Titus to serve as the intro to a three letter collection!  And what “effect” is intended by the choice of the number three as Klauck suggests?  These are just a couple of examples of problems in this section.

 

This section represents some common older assumptions about the pastorals.  It is not very up to date (e.g., none of the works on the structure of Titus are mentioned in the bibliography).  This could be due to the fact that the original German work was published in 1998.  However, Klauck in his introduction states that this book is “not a simple translation, but the text of the German edition has been thoroughly revised, updated, and also enlarged” (viii).

Michael Bird (Euangelion) blogs some references about the thought that Luke was the author of the Pastoral Epistles.

The main book to read (which is on my list but haven't quite got there yet) is S.G. Wilson's Luke and the Pastorals (Amazon.com). Witherington interacts with this one a bit, though Witherington is of the (much more reasonable, IMO) view that Luke is amanuensis, not post-Pauline author.

Check out Mike's short bibliography.

Anybody else notice how, in this recent Jesus Tomb hullabaloo, biblical scholars are all of a sudden willing to enter the arena of statistics and note seemingly obvious problems with statistical studies?

Yet in the area of authorship of the Pastorals, where statistics play a central part in the case for pseudepigraphy, most biblical scholars turn their heads and say, "I'm not a statistician, but the statisticians say ... " as a positive case?

Why are P.N. Harrison's numbers and approach still being used as groundwork for pseudepigraphy when problems with his methodology have been thoroughly documented? (e.g. Donald Guthrie here and here) And why don't more people engage the statistics as they are in this Jesus tomb crud? Why do most just say "yup" and move on?

[an aside: I sometimes wonder if, when mentioning a scholar or work on the PE, we shouldn't immediately tag the author with a short, 3-5 word description of his/her view of authorship]

In his new commentary (NICNT), Philip Towner (authorship: Pauline via a free amanuensis) introduces what is (at least to me) a new argument regarding the context of Titus.  He points to local Cretan mythology regarding Zeus as a deified / ascended Cretan king (thus born on the island, NOT on Olympus), etc., and how Cretan portrayals of Zeus are of a long-haired young man, with all the impulsiveness and lusts of youth.

These myths, Towner argues, provide the backdrop for reading Titus.  And the first interpretive key to the letter is 1.2b, hO APSEDHS QEOS.  From there, Towner reads the letter as polemically engaging the Cretan views of Zeus AND empire and emperor ("appearing," descriptions of God's character, etc.)

Has anyone other than Towner read Titus on this basis?  Has anyone critiqued this reading, beyond a brusque and reactionary "the PE are pseudonymous, Towner thinks they're Pauline"?

PLStepp

I have deliberately kept out of the discussion on authorship to date but I'll add my thoughts here seeing as all our other contributors have commented.  I agree totally that too much in the past has been made of differences in style, ecclesiology, theology, etc. and I am pleased that recent scholarship has questioned the basis on which the old scholarly consensus was formed.  Perry also rightly raises the question of these letters initial reception.  Richard Bauckham addresses this question in "Pseudo-Apostolic Letters", JBL 107 (1988), 469-94.  He writes: "For any pseudepigraphical letter which has the didactic aims of NT letters must find some such way of bridging the gap between the supposed addressee(s) and the real readers, which the pseudepigraphical letter as a genre seems necesarily to create" (p. 476).   Bauckham argues that material in the PE concerning false teaching fulfils this function (p. 493).  Furthermore, he argues, if the situation "Paul" foresees after his death is the situation of the real readers, then Timothy and Titus are part of this situation.  Consequently, if the PE are pseudepigraphical, then they have to be written, on Bauckham's analysis, within the lifetime of Timothy and Titus (and with their full collusion).

I reach similar conclusions by an entirely different route.  I have argued that the PE function sociologically as a literary form of a status degradation ceremony.  For this to work sociologically this means that at least Timothy and Titus, if not Paul (as the prime actors), have to be real actors in the ceremony.  This means either they are authentic (all 3 actors are real) or they are written within the lifetime of Timothy and Titus (i.e. within one generation of Paul's death).

Neither Bauckham's analysis or mine, of course, proves the inauthenticity of the PE but Bauckham persuasively, both in the above article and in his Word commentary on 2 Peter, argues for the inauthenticity of the latter.  He roots the procedure of 2 Peter in the conventions of Jewish testamentary genre: "The pseudepigraphal device is therefore not a fraudulent means of claiming apostolic authority, but embodies a claim to be a faithful mediator of the apostolic message. Recognizing the canonicity of 2 Peter means recognizing the validity of that claim, and it is not clear that this is so alien to the early church’s criteria of canonicity as is sometimes alleged" Richard J. Bauckham, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary: 2 Peter, Jude (Dallas: Word, 2002), 161.  Do others here accept the pseudepigraphical nature of 2 Peter?
If there is at least one pseudepigraphical letter in the NT canon we cannot therefore argue on theological/ideological grounds alone for the authenticity of the PE.  I personally find, despite the reservations of my colleagues here, Howard Marshall's allonymity arguments persuasive.

To quote the great theologian Dr. Seuss:

Thing 1: have we adequately thought through the fact that, even under the current consensus (deceptive pseudonymity a generation or more after Paul's death), the PE were received by the original audience as genuinely Pauline? 

Whatever the case with authorship--and I don't buy the standard arguments--when we posit some kind of deceptive pseudonymity, we are a. acting as resistant readers, and b. marginalizing or ignoring the way the letters were heard by the original audience(s).

Thing 2: when the PE mention houses or families (e.g., OIKOS in Titus 1.11, "misleading whole families", what is the possibility that this is a reference to HOUSE CHURCHES (a home-based congregation within the network of house churches) rather than a nuclear or extended family, whatever constituted such in that day and culture?

Christianity Today's website has an article titled "Shedding Light on The Dark Tower: A C.S. Lewis Mystery Solved". (h/t Targuman. Thanks, Chris!)

The backstory: There is a somewhat questionable work attributed to C.S. Lewis titled The Dark Tower. Katherine Lindskoog has disputed Lewis' authorship of this work (and some other writings attributed to Lewis after his death). She published a book with her case.

In 1994, with the release of the Lewis bio-pic Shadowlands, an updated and revised version of her book was released. And the re-release included stylometric analysis to "prove" Lewis wasn't the author. Here's the paragraph from the CT story:

With the 1994 release of the movie Shadowlands, Lindskoog reissued her book as Light in the Shadowlands, adding two new chapters. In this edition, she reported on a new study by the Rev. A. Q. Morton, which employed cusum (cumulative sum) statistical analysis of the first 23 sentences of chapter one of The Dark Tower, the first 24 sentences of chapter four, and the first 25 sentences of chapter seven, comparing them with similar passages from Out of the Silent Planet and That Hideous Strength. This type of style analysis has been used to prove that Shakespeare did not write his plays, that Paul did not write some epistles attributed to him, and that Jesus did not speak some sayings attributed to him. It assumes that a person's use of language remains constant over one's lifetime and in all situations. Morton concluded that Lewis could not have written chapters one and four, but that he did write chapter seven. Therefore, The Dark Tower was "a composite work."

The Point: A.Q. Morton's work has been cited numerous times to support the argument that lexically, linguistically and stylistically, Paul couldn't have written any of the Pastoral Epistles. Any discussion of authorhship of Pauline material usually cites a number of articles and a few books by Morton. He did, I would guess, use the same style of analysis here in examining Lewis' work.

Note also that Morton's analysis sounds sort of like P.N. Harrison's "fragmentary" hypothesis of the Paulines. Could The Dark Tower be Walter Hooper's pseudeipigraphic paean to Lewis? Tha's what the stylometrist would have us believe.

Most of Lindskoog's case (from what I can tell by the CT article) rests on her internalized read of what Lewis' authorial tone should sound like; and The Dark Tower doesn't sound like Lewis to her. That, plus she contends that there was no one living to confirm Hooper's attribution of the work to Lewis -- the only name he could muster has long since passed away. Because it couldn't be proven directly, it was suspect. And the stylometric analysis proved it, at least from her perspective.

However, in this case we have a smoking gun. Lindskoog and Morton are wrong. The CT article continues (which I quote at length):

In 2003, Fowler wrote an essay for the Yale Review about Lewis as a doctoral supervisor. (I included his article in C. S. Lewis Remembered, a collection of essays by former students of Lewis.) Fowler began studies with Lewis in 1952. In describing how Lewis lectured, read, and supervised, Fowler also discussed how Lewis wrote.

In the Yale Review article, he mentioned that their relationship went to a different level when Lewis discovered that Fowler had writer's block with a piece of fantasy he was attempting. Lewis helped Fowler through his block and continued to ask how Fowler's fiction was coming. Fowler then added this about Lewis's writing habits:

Not that he always wrote without difficulty; sometimes he had to set a project aside for a long period. He showed me several unfinished or abandoned pieces (his notion of supervision included exchanging work in progress); these included "After Ten Years," The Dark Tower, and Till We Have Faces. Another fragment, a time-travel story, had been aborted after only a few pages.

Lewis told Fowler that getting to another world was a particular problem that had forced him to give up on several stories.

"Lewis certainly talked about TDT [The Dark Tower]," Fowler wrote to me. "He said he had been unable to carry it further. He didn't say when he had written the fragment. I got the impression that tdt had been meant as a sequel, but I have no idea at what stage in the development of the published trilogy."

"Like many fantasy writers," Fowler wrote, "Lewis wasn't much interested in the question of the literary quality of his writing."

And there you have it. Stylometric analysis can be wrong. In this case, very likely using the same techniques, carried out by the same man (A.Q. Morton) responsible for the primary cited sources that conclude Paul couldn't have written some of the epistles attributed to him, made the wrong conclusion.

Realize that even if one limits Lewis' writing to his fantasy writings (even just to one volume of his Space Trilogy), that's more material by far than we have for Paul. In other words, stylometry would be much more likely to get the C.S. Lewis case correct! But it didn't work. Stylometrists have even less material upon which to base their conclusions regarding Paul and the NT. So in what esteem should we hold their conclusions? (Note I say conclusions, not the underlying work -- stylometry need not only be marshalled in the argument about authorship!)

The lesson: Stylometry can be interesting, but it can tell us nothing definite regarding authorship of the letters within the Pauline corpus.

Thanks, Christianity Today!

One of the books I purchased at the 2006 SBL national meeting in DC was Ben Witherington's new socio-rhetorical commentary on the Pastorals (and 1-3 John), Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians.

I've been slowly working my way through the introduction to the whole book. I've also read his intros to Titus and First Timothy.

Some notables, in no particular order:

• Witherington posits Pauline authorship with Luke as his amanuensis. He sees a lot of similarities with Lucan tendencies in Acts (vocabulary, LXX influence, style, etc.) but also recognizes the key ideas are Pauline. He says that Luke had a freer hand in the composition of Titus and First Timothy, but Second Timothy has more direct influence from Paul. This summary doesn't do Witherington justice, you should really read it.
• Witherington thinks the order of composition is Titus, then First Timothy, then Second Timothy. I believe PastoralEpistles.com's own Perry Stepp orders them in this way too, though, as I've gathered from papers of his I've heard at SBL, he sees the composition history a bit differently.
• Witherington (as does Towner) also strongly recommends considering each epistle on its own merits, and only thinking about material overlapping in subject matter after this. For example, the tendency to describe the opponents mentioned in both Titus and Timothy is often conflated. Witherington advocates keeping the opponents in Ephesus separate from the opponents in Crete and not discussing opposition generally by picking and choosing references from all over the Pastorals.
• I'm always vascillating on what I think regarding the intended audiences of these letters. I've thought that while addressed to Timothy & Titus, the believers in Ephesus and Crete would've heard the content as well. Witherington, however, sees these as private exhortatory letters. His argument is strong and is causing me to rethink my own perspective on intended scope of readership.

The introductory matter is very readable and well composed. He also has more than a standard bibliography, he actually recommends specific commentaries and monographs and explains why he does so. Very helpful, and it's made me think more seriously about getting the Anchor Bible volumes on Titus (Quinn) and 1&2 Timothy (Luke Timothy Johnson).

That's it for now. I'll likely have more later on this one.

How would an actively-editing amanuensis be different from a pseudepigraphist?

Say, for instance, the notion of Paul discussing and working through the epistle with an amanuensis and then trusting the amanuensis to write down the result (based, of course, on notes and discussion). Paul retains veto/final edit power.

How is that different from the claims of benign pseudepigraphy or even allonymity by a Pauline disciple (apart from the specific and active involvement by Paul in the amanuensis scenario)?

I guess I'm asking: are the two really that far apart? I know what I think (er ... conceptually yes, they're different) but I'm asking not about the terminology but about the mechanism.

In the realm of mechanics of composition, would a pseudepigraphist working within "Pauline tradition" really be that much different than an epistle composed with the active help, intervention and feedback from an amanuensis?

(Really, I'll post about non-authorship stuff in the future. Really I will!)

Update (2007-01-23): Why did I write this post? It's because I've been reading Paul and First Century Letter Writing by E. Randolph Richards. And, based on some of the information presented in that book, I'm wondering how the use of an active amanuensis would differ from the "devoted Paulinist" as author of the PE apart from the direct, active and approving role of Paul in the first scenario.

Check out the very last footnote in Richards' book:

For example, the ideas in this book contribute one more straw on the back of an apparently collapsing camel carrying the theories that some of Paul's letters were written by disciples after Paul's death. We have seen that many of the arguments used to support htis iew (pseudonymous authorship) can be explained by common procedures in first-century letter writing. Any discussion must seriously consider the role of coauthors and secretaries, as well as the heavy use of preformed traditional material in the Pastorals. ... I further question the usual assertions that pseudonymous letters were (a) common, (b) written as a compliment to the author and (c) usually composed by his friends/followers. I see no evidence to support this. These assumptions about psuedonymity have led to a myth of innocent apostolic Psuedepigrapha; see E.E. Ellis, "Traditions", pp. 237-53. A letter should be termed "Pauline" or "Psuedo-Pauline". The euphesimistic or conciliatory "Deutero-Pauline" label seems unsubstantiated. In fact, the term "pseudonymity" needs more clarification as demonstrated by Kent Clarke, "The Problem of Psuedonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Implications for Canon Formation," The Canon Debate, pp. 440-68 and Terry Wilder, Psuedonymity. (Richards, 232, note 1)

Richards also deals with interpolations and makes the helpful note that one must consider if such proposed textual interruptions are post-Pauline. That is, such textual interruptions could have arisen in the editing process before the letter was dispatched. He concludes "Without external evidence (manuscript attestation), material injected by a coauthor into a letter would be indistinguishable from a post-Pauline interpolation." (Richards 231). Earlier, Richards suggested that perhaps Sosthenes (the cosender of 1 Corinthians) was responsible for 1Co 14.33b-35, a passage so many scholars have trouble with (Richards 111-115).

Anyway, Richards' book helped focus my mind on some questions I'd been mulling over regarding the Pastorals. I'd long wondered about how letters were composed in the first century, and how that composition process (role of amanuensis, solo vs. group writing, role of coauthors, editing/revision process) might reflect the sorts of things that stylometrists and other scholars tend to focus on as non-Pauline characteristics. If you have some questions along those lines, I'd recommend Paul and First Century Letter Writing.

Amanuensis.  Paratheke.

I really need to stop trying to type while I'm asleep.

Of the papers from Washington, Wayne Brindle's and Jens Herzer's have given me the most food for thought. 

FIRST, Herzer's work (along with Trobisch's) has pushed me further along toward abandoning the term "pseudonymity" in regard to the PE.  If the letters were deceptively written in Paul's name, then call the darn things FORGERIES.  No other term fits the bill.  Ultimately, "pseudonymity" is a euphemism, a "weasel-word."

SECOND, Brindle (page 6), when summarizing Marshall's work on authorship, briefly describes three mediating positions between direct Pauline authorship and out and out forgery.  They are:

1. a free amenuensis;
   
2. "someone may have edited and published several of Paul's writings after his death" (emphasis added)
3. Marshall's allonymity, where "someone close to [Paul] may have continued to write as he would have done, perhaps completing some works that Paul had begun."

Brindle's paper is an argument against #3 in favor of #1. 

My own position is a modified version of #2.  The PE are the published editions of Paul's teachings (tradition, i.e., both oral and written material), posthumously published.  The member of Paul's circle most likely to edit and publish these materials in this way is Timothy himself.  He is acting as Paul's tradent, the keeper of Paul's diatheke, in much the same way as Plato served as Socrates's tradent.

Rob Bradshaw, of the ever-helpful BiblicalStudies.org.uk, has recently posted the following article:

Donald Guthrie, "The Development of the Idea of Canonical Pseudopigraphy in New Testament Criticism," Vox Evangelica 1 (1962): 43-59.

With the necessity to consider the view that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudepigraphal (or perhaps "allonymical"?), the article — which I have not read — sounds like one to read.

Note that Guthrie is the author of the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.

Update (2006-12-12): I've read the article now and can recommend it. Guthrie unsurprisingly concludes that those who support a theory of canonical pseudepigrapha have built upon a shoddy foundation. Well worth the reading.

While at the recent AAR/SBL meetings, I took in a paper by Wayne Brindle in the Disputed Paulines group. The paper was "Pseudonymity and the Pastoral Epistles: An Evangelical Response to I. Howard Marshall's 'Allonymity' Proposal".

Michael Bird of the Euangelion blog took in the paper as well, and asked a question at the end. Here's Mike's reporting of the encounter:

Wayne Brindle gave an interesting paper that was a response to I. Howard Marshall's proposal of "Allonymity" in the Pastorals. Much as I favour Pauline authorship (but it is not quite clear cut either!) I think Brindle was unable to show that authority is dependent on authenticity. When I asked about Hebrews (i.e. the Church accepted Hebrews because they thought it was Pauline, despite the fact that it's clearly not Pauline) he responded by saying that anonymous authorship makes Pauline authorship possible.

I don't think that Brindle's point was that authority is dependent on authenticity. My understanding of Brindle's position was that when a the author of a document (and therefore sender, situation, etc.) is purposefully misrepresented (whatever the intentions of that misrepresentation might be) then the document itself is predicated on a falsehood and should be realised as such. In the epistles we have in the NT, this is much more the case because their interpretation and exegesis is so dependent on the stated setting and circumstances being authentic or at least reliable. Therefore, if the documents are seen as not authored by Paul then there are serious issues that affect one's reading of the documents.

Hebrews is different than epistles that adhere to more of a letter form because, at least in the editions that have been transmitted down to us today, no author is specified. Early tradition, of course, specified Paul as the author. We don't cotton to that today that much, with most folks taking the classic line that "only God knows who wrote Hebrews". Since no author is explicitly claimed within the body of the epistle, falsely claimed authorship is not a problem as regards establishing authenticity of the epistle (though I'd rather call it a homily than an epistle, but that's an altogether different question). In other words, the very difference between anonymity and pseudonymity means that anonymity doesn't necessarily lead to the credibility problem that pseudononymity portends.

One of the books I purchased at SBL is Ben Witherington III's Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume I which deals with the Pastoral Epistles. Witherington (who blogs as well) has a great analysis of the problem of psuedonymity that largely aligns with Brindle's view, though Witherington's conclusions are a bit less dogmatic that Brindle's. I also purchased Towner's NICNT edition on the Pastorals, and he draws a line similar to Witherington, taking some issue with the allonymity proposal put forth in I. Howard Marshall's ICC volume.

My bottom line: If we're using authorship as an indicator of authenticity, then while both Hebrews and the Pastorals have some authorship questions that affect the question of authenticity, they both have different questions due to the statements of authorship each document makes. The recent work of Witherington, Towner and Brindle go a long way to show that pseudonymous documents weren't necessarily benign as many have stated, and that simply calling pseudonymity by another name (i.e. 'allonymity') doesn't do much to solve the problem.

Update (2006-12-28): Michael Bird provides some clarification in the comments. Here's the salient bit:

My point would be to say that even if the Pastoral are pseudonymous that they are not necessarily any less 'canonical' since they still contain the apostolic message (Ehrman grants as much!). I recognize that there is a difference between Hebrews and the Pastorals concerning the explicit naming of the author, but if the early church got the authorship of certain writings wrong (i.e. wrongly attributed Hebrews to Paul or did perceive a well-intentioned pseudonymity in the Pastorals) the canon is no the worse off for it. All in all, I favour Pauline authorship (esp. of 2 Timothy), but we have to face up to the "but what if" question as to how it impacts canonical authority. What I want to avoid is a kind of retreat from the hard questions of authorship based on an underlying assumption that "I do not think it would have been right for God to give us the Bible this way, i.e. through pseudonymity". I want to make sure that our theology of biblical inspiration is based on the textual and historical phenomenon of the NT itself, rather than re-writing the textual and historical phenomenon to suit a certain model of inspiration.

I agree. When I heard Michael's question at the session, my immediate thought was "but allonymity (or pseudonymy) isn't anonymity, so I don't follow his point". I agree that if one espouses Pauline authorship that it's a bit disingenuous to respond to authorship challenges by saying "But it says Paul wrote it ... ". I just think the arguments for allonymity or "well-intentioned psuedonymity" are wanting because actual examples of well-intentioned pseudonymity in the early church were not exactly welcomed. Witherington and Brindle both provide examples of this.

And all of this reminds me of a Fred Danker quote I read at a chapter head in John Lee's book on New Testament Lexicography: "Change spells pain, but ... scholar's tasks are 'not for sissies'. " Those of us (and I am one) who hold to Pauline authorship need to make sure we don't take the "sissy way" out of the argument. But the same holds true for those on the other end of the authorship spectrum as well.