PastoralEpistles.com

We've been on Winter Break (Thursday and Friday off, no school), so I've been able to do some writing. 

When I started on the project in January, I tried to work my way through Philemon.  I thought I could get that letter finished and then move on to the PE.  I rewrote / restructured / supplemented all the materials on slavery in the NT world, but got really bogged down when I reached the materials dealing with classical rhetoric--NOT my area.

So I've set Philemon aside, and now I'm writing the introduction to the PE.  Yesterday, I outlined about 35 pages (double-spaced) of material.  About 40% of that material needs to be written from scratch.  Well, I got TEN PAGES of the "from scratch" part written today.  I'm feeling pretty good about the project right now.

Of course, there are midterms and pregistration and prof reviews and taxes to do and a fuel filter to change and . . .

Posted by Perry L. Stepp

After some time away, I'm working in the Pastorals again.  Here's a rather disjointed series of thoughts on what I'm doing.

The time away: last spring, I was named the Dean of the Sack School of Bible and Ministry at Kentucky Christian University, the school where I've taught for five years.  Administration has left me with almost no time to write, especially since our Youth and Family Ministries professor left without warning in June.

Writing again: my doktorvater, Charles Talbert, has invited me to finish the commentary on the Pastorals and Philemon in the Smyth and Helwys Reading the New Testament series.  This particular volume, which will be published under the title Reading Paul's Letters to Individuals, has a checkered past.  Several NT scholars have had the contract at one time or another.  I'll be completing work that Hulit Gloer was not able to finish due to health reasons.

My deadline: 4 July, which is growing nearer every day.

How it's going: I made the mistake, when I first started writing, of trying to tackle Philemon first.  But I don't know Philemon as well as I know the PE, so I've gotten a bit bogged down.  So I've started writing on the PE again.

Little projects that make up the big project:

• In April, I'll be presenting a paper at the Stone Campbell Journal conference, at Cincinnati Christian University.  The paper will deal with 1 Timothy 2.
• The commentary will build on the reading of the PE from my monograph, Leadership Succession, and on the papers that I've read at SBL in Philadelphia (a narrative reading of the PE, using Aristotle's Poetics as my primary lens) and Washington.
• In the commentary, I will treat the letters in the order Titus - 1 Timothy - 2 Timothy - Philemon.
  

Posted by Perry L. Stepp

On my way back from Nepal I finally read Ben Merkle’s book, The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church (Amazon.com) (Peter Lang, 2003). It is a revision of his doctoral dissertation. Merkle provides a good overview of the scholarly discussion and of the relevant background material. He makes a good case for the use of the term ‘elder’ referring to an office and not simply to age. I agree with his thesis—that elder and overseer refer to the same office—and thought he did a good job defending it. He also deals with the idea that Paul’s churches had no structure/authority but were loosely led by ‘charismatics.’ This view shows up not only in more critical schools of thought but can be found in evangelical settings as well. Merkle clearly shows that concern for official leadership is clear in Paul and Acts. There is no aversion to ‘office’ in Paul and there is more concern with authority than is sometimes acknowledged (for example see Robert Banks, “Church Order and Government” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters). Merkle rightly demonstrates that this view is rooted in an approach which prioritizes 1 Corinthians to the exclusion of Paul’s other letters.

I had been thinking for some time that a rebuttal of these ‘no structure, no authority’ views need to be written. Now I know Merkle has done it and done it well.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

One thing that has driven some of my research in the Pastoral Epistles has been the very negative 'press' these letters have received in last century or so.  I was stunned when I first began academic study of the Pastoral Epistles by the cavalier, condescending attitude of many scholars toward the Pastorals.  Along the way I have collected some representative quotes, and for my paper at ETS I particualrly went back to get more from A. T. Hanson.

 

So, first, here is Hanson.  The condescending attitude is astounding.

“He does not have any doctrine of his own, but makes use of whatever comes to him in the sources which he uses.” Hanson notes that Paul also used pre-formed materials but says Paul integrated these pieces into his own argument.  “Not so with the Pastorals.  Here the material is simply presented with its implied christology and no attempt is made to work it into a consistent doctrine.

            The consequence is that we find several different ways of expressing the significance of Christ in the Pastorals, not all consistent with each other.”[1]

 

“There seems to be nothing very distinctive about Titus, unless it be the negative feature that it has no Pauline transposition and no scriptural midrash.  This is why one is led to suspect that Titus was written last of all and that the author was beginning to run short of material.”[2]

 

“He is no profound theologian ….”[3]

 

“To the author’s simple mind, heretics are sinners.”[4]

 

“The author of the Pastorals could not do much at the intellectual level, but he could and did help to strengthen the institution [the church].”[5]

 

But at least, according to Hanson, the author of the Pastorals is “less moralistic, less unfortunately ambitious in his use of Scripture” than Clement of Rome.[6]

 

Lest, this be too positive though, Hanson goes on to state: “there is little evidence that the author of the Pastorals would himself be very competent if he were ever to be required to prove or defend the Christian tradition from Scripture….”[7]

 

 

Hanson is a key representative of this view but the view is not limited to him or his era.  In an essay just published, German scholar, Gerd Häfner, wrote:

“it seems clear that the author of these letters is no expert in Scripture-based reasoning”[8]

 

Others, while not so negative, still have failed to see any coherence to the argumentation.  These quotes show up in my book which seeks to counter this impression.

 

‘There is no sustained thought beyond the limits of the separate paragraphs; from paragraph to paragraph- and sometimes even within paragraphs (e.g., 1 Tim 2:8ff)- the topic changes without preparation and sometimes apparently without motive.’[9]

 

‘There is a lack of studied order, some subjects being treated more than once in the same letter without apparent premeditation . . . These letters are, therefore, far removed from literary exercises.’[10]

 

‘In this sort of writing, however, there is no need to labor to discover logical order or subtle lines of thought supposed to provide coherence.’[11]

 

‘The Pastorals are made up of a miscellaneous collection of material.  They have no unifying theme; there is no development of thought.’[12]

 

‘Not only is the theology generally seen to be a collection of traditions, but it is also usually treated as a fairly arbitrary, inconsistent, unthought-out amalgam with little coherence.’[Young is summarizing the common view of the Pastorals at the time not neessarily giving her opinion][13] 

 

‘Organization and development of thought are expected from an author, but the Pastorals are characterized by a remarkable lack of both.’ [14]

 

‘the letters have no driving concern, no consistent focus of interest; instead they read like an anthology of traditions, many arranged mechanically together by topic, some simply juxtaposed.’[15] 

Posted by Ray Van Neste

I was able to catch a couple of Pastoral Epistles related papers at ETS and to meet some readers of this blog.  Particularly good, I thought, was Tim Swinson’s paper " ‘Faithful Sayings’ or One Faithful Word? Another View of πιστος ο λογος in the Pastoral Epistles.”  Swinson argued that this phrase in the Pastorals should be translated “The word [i.e. the gospel message] is faithful,” and I found the argument quite convincing.  I want to look into the issue further.  I won’t mention more of is argument here since I assume it is part of his dissertation which is in progress, but if the paper is made available (the audio is available, I assume specific sessions will eventually be available), I commend it to you.  I also eagerly anticipate the completion of the dissertation.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

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.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

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.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

I'm gearing up to do a home-group Bible study on First Timothy in the "winter" quarter (so, Jan-March/April 2008) for my church. I intend to use it as an excuse to look at First Timothy from the perspective of discourse analysis. I think too often home-group studies of NT epistles devolve into "word study" sessions ("The Greek word means ... ") and the larger perspective of the actual message of the letters is lost. I'm hoping to stay away from that. There are places where studies on words are useful, but my goal will be to come to a better understanding of First Timothy as a letter; not an understanding of pieces of it.

I should say straight up that anyone interested in discourse and the Pastoral Epistles needs to read, learn and love Ray Van Neste's Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (Amazon.com). I'm not just saying that because Ray blogs for PastoralEpistles.com—I'm saying it because it's that good. Get ye to the library and checketh it out (unless you want to drop $150 on the book). I'll probably use Ray's sections and units as the basis of segmentation of the books for my study.

Apart from that, there's a bunch of other stuff to read. Most of these I've read at least once, but I plan on reading them again before I dig in on formal preparation/writing.

There is one article that has proven difficult for me to locate:

Reed, Jeffrey T. "Discourse Features in New Testament Letters, with Special Reference to the structure of 1 Timothy", Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 6: 228-52. 1993.

I know that an index for the Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics is on the web (at SIL's site), but the article itself isn't. If anyone can point me to the article, or knows a library that actually carries the periodical, I'd appreciate the info.

Here's the short list of stuff I'll be re-examining:

Articles / Essays

Reed, Jeffrey T. "To Timothy or Not? A Discourse Analysis of 1 Timothy" in S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.) Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (JSNTSup 80; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 90-118. 1993.

----- "Cohesive Ties in 1 Timothy: In Defense of the Epistle's Unity", Neotestamentica 26/1: 192-213. 1992.

----- "The Cohesiveness of Discourse: Towards a Model of Linguistic Criteria for Analyzing New Testament Discourse" in S.E. Porter and J.T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (JSNTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 28-46. 1999.

----- "Identifying Theme in the New Testament: Insights from Discourse Analysis" in S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (JSNTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 75-101. 1995.

----- "Discourse Features in New Testament Letters, with Special Reference to the structure of 1 Timothy", Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 6: 228-52. 1993.

Levinsohn, Stephen H. "Some Constraints on Discourse Development in the Pastoral Epistles" in S.E. Porter and J.T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (JSNTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 316-333. 1999.

----- "A Discourse Study of Constituent Order and the Article in Philippians" in S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (JSNTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 60-74. 1995.

Wendland, Ernst R. "'Let No One Disregard You!' (Titus 2.15): Church Discipline and the Construction of Discourse in a Personal, 'Pastoral' Epistle" in S.E. Porter and J.T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (JSNTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 334-351. 1999.

Books

Guthrie, George. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (NovT Sup 73; Leiden: Brill). (also reprinted by Baker Books, which is the copy I have, though I don't have the citation handy)

Miller, J.D. The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents (SNTSMS 93; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 1997.

Reed, Jeffrey T. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians, Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity (JSNTSUp 137; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). 1997.

Van Neste, Ray. Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 280; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). 2004.

That oughta do it. Note Miller's book is (at least for me) frustrating to read because I absolutely don't agree with it. Ray responds directly to many of the issues raised by Miller; which is why it is helpful to examine both books. If you can only choose one, go with Ray.

There are some specialized studies I'll probably also read and work through (e.g. Heckert on Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles (Amazon.com)), but don't appear on the list. I'm not trying to be comprehensive with the above list; think of it more like a shotgun approach: maximum info in minimum reading. Do you have another article or book to add to the list? Let me know via the comments.

I will likely blog sporadically about this study, hopefully to work through an approach to discourse. But I may not — it all depends on how I feel while I'm in the process.

Update (2007-09-17): I've had a few folks offer to send me the article. Y'all are incredible! Thanks very much!

Posted by Rick Brannan

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?

Posted by Ray Van Neste

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).

Posted by Ray Van Neste

The ever-helpful Review of Biblical Literature has published Raymond Collins' review of Witherington's book:

Ben Witherington III
Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John (Amazon.com)
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5714
Reviewed by Raymond F. Collins

Collins is generally accepting of Witherington's work despite their disagreement on authorship.

I've read the introductions and various other portions of Witherington's section on the Pastoral Epistles and can recommend it.

Posted by Rick Brannan

The recent IVP Introduction to the Bible is a nicely done book with a great line up of contributors.  The book provides a nice overview of both testaments including intertestamental history.  The chapters take up issues of history, structure, and meaning.  Such a project is always laudable.

 

However, the section on the Pastorals is disappointing.  The coverage is of course brief in such a volume- about 3 full pages.  In such space it is difficult to do much, but my disappointment has to do with the overall picture given of the letters.  The book states that the PE “generally focus on the personal lives and activity of those leaders [Timothy & Titus] (or ‘pastors’- hence the title ‘pastoral’ letters).”  While this opinion of the letters is commonly repeated it simply does not hold.  Of course the letters are addressed to Timothy and Titus, but they are taken up far more with the behavior of others in the church. The letters address far more the ‘public’ activity of Timothy than their ‘personal’ lives.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

I've blogged a bit (and still have more to blog) about linkages (be they quotes, allusions, or references) between the Pastorals and the Apostolic Fathers.

My purpose is twofold: First, obviously, is to explore areas where potential dependence of the AF on the NT has been posited. But second is to try to understand the criteria by which these dependencies are posited.

One thing you may have noticed (if you've actually read the posts) is that dependence seems posited on the basis of a catchword or two combined with general topical/contextual agreement.

I've recently become interested in locating potential areas of dependence without having to read and comprehensively know both corpora, and I'm not interested in poring over the details of concordances. Running all sorts of searches is also a bit of a downer. So I figured I'd experiment a bit with writing a script or two to do some comparisons en masse.

My initial comparisons have been between the Pastorals and First Clement. This is because I have several data points already for First Clement: The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers; as well as Hagner's work on the Old and New Testament in First Clement; and also Lightfoot's two volumes on First Clement. This means I can at least check what I find against a super-set of data where others have already posited linkages.

The script I wrote is currently fairly simple: find references where both corpora share four-consecutive-word lemma strings, with the lemmas in any order. There are problems with this, but initial results were interesting. They are listed in brief below. I have some other ideas on how to sharpen and expand results; as I experiment I may post more info here.

Cruddy Matches

• 1Ti 2.2 => 1Cl 27.4.
• 1Ti 6.1 => 1Cl 42.2; 56.1. The phrase can be loosely translated "of God and the".
• 1Ti 6.17 => 1Cl 13.1.
• 2Ti 1.3 => 1Cl 50.3. Dueling senses of χαρις; NT "I thank God" vs AF according to "the grace of God they have".
• 2Ti 3.17 => 1Cl 33.5. NT "the man of God" to AF "God [created] man".
• 2Ti 4.18 => 1Cl 17.2. NT "to him be the glory" to AF "at the glory [of God]"
• 2Ti 4.8 => 1Cl 49.6.

Decent Matches

• 1Ti 1.14 => 1Cl 65.2. "the grace of our Lord" as something that is possessed or given.
• 1Ti 1.17; 2Ti 4.18 => 2Cl 20.12; 32.4; 38.4; 43.6; 45.7; 45.8; 50.7; 58.2; 61.3; 64.1; 65.2. This is a general benediction "... forever and ever, amen". Some have the addition, "to him be the glory, forever and ever, amen"; but not all.
• 1Ti 3.13; 2Ti 3.15 => 1Cl 22.1. "faith in Christ"; a unique and perhaps Pauline concept? Maybe not to these points in the Pastorals, but I'd guess it does go back to Paul.
• 1Ti 5.18 => 1Cl 34.6; 35.7. This is a variant of the quotation formula, "For the Scripture says:". Clement quotes OT frequently, so it is not surprising to see this formula appear -- certainly no direct reference to the Pastorals here.
• 1Ti 6.3 => 1Cl 13.1. "words of the/our Lord Jesus". The PE use this as the basis of sound doctrine (does it agree with Jesus? It's sound); Clement urges rememberance of "the words of the Lord Jesus" for similar reasons.
• 2Ti 1.14 => 1Cl 63.2. Prepositional phrase "through the Holy Spirit" matches, but the context is different, and the phrase is generic enough to not need source.
• 2Ti 2.9; Tt 2.5 => 1Cl 42.3. "the word of God" used with similar import.
• 2Ti 4.14 => 1Cl 34.3. The phrase is somewhat stereotypical, "according to his works", but here NT speaks of punishment and AF speaks of reward. Perhaps the better NT reference is Re 22.12.
• Tt 3.6 => 1Cl 50.7; 59.3. "though Jesus Christ" is a generic phrase; so the match is not surprising.
• Tt 2.11 => 1Cl 8.1; 50.3; 55.3. "the grace of God", though the phrase is common and the words occur in differing orders and cases.

Impressive Matches

• 1Ti 2.7 => 1Cl 60.4. Though this could also be somewhat related to Ps 145.18[LXX 144.18]. Holmes notes 1Ti 2.7 as an xref in his edition.
• 2Ti 2.21 => 1Cl 2.7. Though most note the parallel is more likely to Titus 3.1 (both Holmes and Lightfoot note this), which differs in preposition).

Others

There is also a group of parallels sharing words like lord/jesus/christ along with pronouns, articles and prepositions:

• NT: 1Ti 1.1, 2, 12, 14; 5.21; 6.3, 14, 15; 2Ti 1.2, 3; 2.2; 4.1; Tt 1.4; 2.14
• AF: 1Cl 12.5; 16.2; 20.11, 12; 21.6; 24.1; 36.1; 38.1; 42.1; 42.3; 44.1; 46.7; 49.6; 50.7; 58.2; 59.4; 64.1; 65.2;

 

Posted by Rick Brannan

This summer I have submitted two chapters (1 Tim/Titus & 2 Tim) to a forthcoming NT Survey textbook (Kregel) which is to be titled, What the New Testament Authors Really Cared About: A Survey of Their Writings.  While there are numerous NT Survey’s on the market this one aims to be brief and particularly targeted at undergraduate students.  Most surveys are written by seminary professors for that level.  This one is written entirely by people teaching undergraduates.  It is also very focused and brief.  The goal is to summarize the chief concerns of each book in a readable format. 

 

My point here, though, is to submit to readers what I did with the Pastorals.  I was to distill the letters into what I understood to be Paul’s chief concerns in the letters.

 

For 1 Timothy and Titus I argued that Paul’s chief concern was corporate and personal godliness.  I wrote:

Paul’s central concern both in 1 Timothy and Titus was the godliness of Timothy and Titus as individuals and of the congregations in which they ministered.  The concern for godliness governed everything Paul wrote in these letters.  Paul explicitly stated that his purpose in writing to Timothy was to urge godly behavior among believers.  In 1 Timothy 3:14-15 he stated, “I am writing you these instructions so that … you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household.”

I also listed church health and right teaching as key concerns in these two letters.

 

Fro 2 Timothy I suggest perseverance is the major burden of the letter with concern for passing on the pure gospel being a key, related issue.

 

What do you think?

Posted by Ray Van Neste

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.

Posted by Rick Brannan

John Glynn’s 10^th edition of his Commentary and Reference Survey (Kregel) has just been released.  This is the most thorough of such books around- though recommendations from Don Carson still carry the most weight with me! 

Glynn’s book is a great resource.  He has added two chapters on software in this edition.

 

His section on the Pastorals is well done.  As before, he has a list of forthcoming commentaries which is always interesting.  In addition to his listing of “Technical, Semitechnical” and “Exposition” types of commentaries he has a list of books dealing with 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and a list of “Special Studies.”  I was gratified to note that Lloyd’s book and mine were included in the list, though neither were marked as best buys. J  I am not sure exactly how he determined which books to list in this section since there seem to be some obvious gaps, Towner’s monograph for example.  Perhaps the idea is that with Towner’s two commentaries there is no need to list his monograph.

 

This is a very useful- and impressive- book.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

I just received the Ryan Center's copy of Gordon Fee's Pauline Chrtistology.  I have deeply appreciated Fee's work on the Spirit in Paul, God's Empowering Presence, and have therefore eagerly anticipated this new book.  He follows the same basic format as the earlier book though he could not be as comprehensive for obvious reasons.

60 pages are devoted to the Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (with each letter treated individually).  I have not had the chance yet to work through it, but Fee had already described to me his argument that Paul does not call Jesus God in Titus 2:11-14.  It is a significant argument though I have not been able to settle yet on my evaluation of it.

This will be a significant book on many levels.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

[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

Posted by Perry L. Stepp

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.

Posted by Lloyd Pietersen

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?

Posted by Perry L. Stepp

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 con