PastoralEpistles.com

I have previously posted a list of quotes on the negative view of the Pastorals. Just today I came across another to add to the list. Henry Sheldon in his 1922 New testament Theology covered Pauline theology and then added a brief piece on the Pastorals, opening with this statement: The Pastoral Epistles add so little of theological subject-matter to the content of the other epistles bearing the name of Paul that it will not be necessary to devote to them more than a few sentences. (266) Hopefully current work (including this book:http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/academic/books.asp?p=9780805448412) is disproving this dismissive assessment.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul's Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas Köstenberger and Terry Wilder, is set to be published April 2010. I previously mentioned this book as in progress. I am honored to be a contributor to this volume and excited about its potential.

The book aims to provide an overview of recent scholarship on the Pastorals and give an overall view of the message of these letters.

The contributors and chapter titles are as follows:

• Köstenberger- “Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles”
• Wilder- “Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and the Pastoral Epistles”
• Alan Tomlinson- “The Purpose and Stewardship Theme within the Pastoral Epistles”
• Ray Van Neste- “Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles”
• Greg Couser- “The Sovereign Savior of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus”
• Daniel Akin- “The Mystery of Godliness Is Great: Christology in the Pastoral Epistles”
• George Wieland- “The Function of Salvation in the Letters to Timothy and Titus”
• Benjamin L. Merkle- “Ecclesiology in the Pastoral Epistles”
• Paul Wolfe- “The Sagacious Use of Scripture”
• Thor Madsen- “The Ethics of the Pastoral Epistles”
• Chiao Ek Ho- “Mission in the Pastoral Epistles”
• Howard Marshall- “The Pastoral Epistles in Recent Study”

You can see further information at the publisher’s site (http://bhpublishinggroup.com/academic/books.asp?p=9780805448412).

Posted by Ray Van Neste

Just this week I received an advanced copy of the inaugural volume of the Africa Bible Commentary series, and this volume is on the Pastoral Epistles! I have not had time to read much of it yet, but I wanted to go ahead and mention this volume to others. The series grew out of work on the one volume Africa Bible Commentary. The introduction for the series states: The contributors are Anglophone or Francophone African scholars, all of whom adhere to the statement of faith of the Association of Evangelicals in Africa. The series is aimed at pastors and sermon preparation with more technical issues handled in footnotes. It is also self-consciously aimed at the African context- illustrations are drawn from life there and the current concerns of churches in Africa are addressed. Study questions at the end of each section raise specific issue current in African churches. One of the key aims of the series is then to be more directly accessible by African readers. Of course, for those of us in North America or Europe, it offers us the opportunity to hear from the church in Africa, to see how they are wrestling with the scripture in their context. I am particularly interested to read how the issues discussed in the Pastorals are being dealt with by my African brothers and sisters. This looks like a promising series.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

I’ve recently taken the time to work through the contents of papyri and uncials dated 5th century and before, from a few different sources. I was pleasantly surprised at the number of MSS witnessing the Pastoral Epistles.

MS	Date	Contents
P32	ca 200 (Comfort & Barrett: 150-200)	Titus 1.11-15; 2.3-8
01 (Sinaiticus)	5th century	1Ti, 2Ti, Titus
02 (Alexandrinus)	5th century	1Ti, 2Ti, Titus
04 (Ephraemi)	5th century	1Ti 1.1-3.9; 5.20-6.21; 2Ti 1.1-2; Titus 1.1-2
016	5th century	1Ti 1.1-3, 10-13; 1.19-2.1, 9-13; 3.7-9; 4.1-3, 10-13; 5.5-9, 16-19; 6.1-2, 9-11, 17-19; 2Ti 1.1-3, 10-12; 2.2-5, 14-16, 22-24; 3.6-8, 3.16-4.1, 8-1, 18-20; Titus 1.1-3, 10-11; 2.4-6, 14-15; 3.8-9
048	5th century	1Ti 5.5-6.17, 20-21; 2Ti 1.4-6, 8; 2.2-25; Titus 3.13-15
061	5th century (Tisch: 4th-6th)	1Ti 3.15-16; 4.1-3; 6.2-4, 5-8
088	5th-6th century	Titus 1.1-13
0240	5th century	Titus 1.4-8
0241	5th-6th century	1Ti 3.16-4.3, 8-11

Dates are from NA27 unless otherwise specified.

My sources include:

Comfort & Barrett, The Text of the Earliest Greek New Testament Manuscripts (Amazon.com). [Logos Version]

Tischendorf’s Novum Testamentum Graece, Editio Octavo Critica Maior, prolegomena volume [Logos Version]

NA27 Appendix I, Codices Graeci et Latini in hac editione adhibiti.

Posted by Rick Brannan

I’ve been slowly working through George Wieland’s The Significance of Salvation: A Study of Salvation Language in the Pastoral Epistles, published by Paternoster. It is excellent, and it is likewise an excellent example of how a monograph focused on a topic within a book (or books) of the New Testament can be extremely valuable.

Commentaries can be valuable too, but a focused monograph like Wieland’s can spend its time dealing with a particular subject (this one on the use of salvation language in the Pastorals) without the baggage of everything else a commentary has to handle.

This book lists at $33.99, but until May 27, 2009 you can get it for 50% off (so, $17 + S&H) at Eisenbrauns. If you have $20 in your book budget to spare, you should pick it up.

The Significance of Salvation
A Study of Salvation Language in the Pastoral Epistles
Paternoster Biblical Monographs-PBM
by George M. Wieland
Paternoster Press, 2006
xxii + 344 pages, English
Paper, 6 x 9
ISBN: 1842272578
List Price: $33.99
Your Price: $17.00 (Until May 27, 2009)
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/WIESIGNIF

Posted by Rick Brannan

Google is amazing!  Yesterday I was completing a writing project and using “Google books” to track down a few stray references.  On one page Google linked to an article by Kevin Gary Smith titled “The Structure of Titus: Criss-cross Chiasmus as Structural Marker.”  I had never heard of this article so I followed the link.  I discovered that this article is from volume 3 (March 2007): 99-110, of Conspectus the online, refereed journal of South African Theological Seminary.

 Smith interacts with my article and monograph on the structure of Titus as well as an article by Clark.[1]  Smith accepts the chiastic structural suggestions made by Banker[2] and myself but wants to press them further.  There is little point in me here summarizing the argument when the article is readily available and only 12 pages in length. 

 I am pleased to see ongoing reflection on the structure of the Pastorals, and I agree with Smith that Titus “may well be the most delicately structured of all Paul’s letters” (99).  In the end Smith says his argument “confirms, with minor adjustments” my own proposal (109).  I think this is true, though I am not convinced by the adjustments. He mentions his intention to publish a follow up article with supporting linguistic evidence.  I will be eager to see that article as well.

I would be quite interested to hear from others what they think of Smith’s argument.  It is good to see this conversation continue.

---

[1] Ray Van Neste, ‘Structure and Cohesion in Titus,’ Bible Translator  53.1 (January 2002): 118-33; Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (London: T&T Clark, 2005); D. J. Clark, “Discourse Structure in Titus,” Bible Translator  53.1 (January 2002): 101-17.

[2] John Banker, Semantic Structure Analysis of Titus (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1987).

 

Posted by Ray Van Neste

David Downs has provided a helpful review of Aageson, James W.Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church at Review of Biblical Literature.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

While at SBL I discovered the Blackwell Bible Commentaries series and picked up a review copy of one volume, The Pastoral Epistles Through the Centuries, by Jay Twomey.  This is a fascinating series.  According to the “Series Editors’ Preface:

The Blackwell Bible Commentaries series, the first to be devoted primarily to the reception history of the Bible, is based on the premise that how people have interpreted, and been influenced by, a sacred text like the Bible is often as interesting and historically important as what it originally meant.

The commentaries then do not seek to expound the text but to reveal how the texts have been understood and used.   I don’t know any other source that provides this in as extensive a manner.  We do have commentary series that survey patristic writers or reformation writers, but this series samples more broadly taking in general literature as well as explicitly theological writings.  Thus, in the Pastorals volume Twomey interacts with Chrysostom and Calvin but also Cervantes and Chaucer.

 

So far I have found this volume to be very interesting.  I will look to comment more in the future as I get further into the book.  This whole series will be one to watch.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

There are only four volumes (that I know of) in this series, and two of those are Quinn & Wacker's work on 1&2 Timothy (Amazon.com). Wacker was Quinn's student, as I understand it, and he finished the commentary after Quinn's passing.

I finally got around to getting this set because it is now available in Logos Bible Software format, in the Eerdmans Critical Commentary (4 vols) collection.

I haven't been exactly thrilled with Quinn's work on Titus, though I do greatly appreciate the copious patristic references he makes in that volume. I'm hoping for similar density of references in these volumes.

Posted by Rick Brannan

Thanks to the great folks at Baker Academic / Brazos Press for a review copy of this book.

Hot off the press, this is Risto Saarinen's work on the Pastorals, Philemon and Jude for the Brazos Theological Commentary of the Bible series published by Brazos Press. Perry Stepp will be posting about this one, so keep your eyes peeled in the upcoming weeks.

For more information on the book, here's the back cover copy:

The Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible enlists leading theologians to read and interpret scripture creedally for the twenty-first century, just as the church fathers, the Reformers, and other orthodox Christians did for their times and places. The Pastoral Epistles with Philemon & Jude (Amazon.com) is the seventh volume in the series. This commentary, like each in the series, is designed to serve the church--through aid in preaching, teaching, study groups, and so forth--and demonstrate the continuing intellectual and practical viability of theological interpretation of the Bible.

"Risto Saarinen's commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Jude (Amazon.com) does an excellent job of mediating the insights of recent large-scale works in a readable exposition that concentrates on theology, bringing in from time to time the contributions of such expositors as Chrysostom and Calvin. Helpful appendices and excursuses break new ground in situating the letters within the context of ancient teachings on moderation, mental disorders, and generosity, and the author's background in Scandinavian Lutheranism affords a fresh perspective. Saarinen is not uncritical of what he sees as the Pastor's misogynism and argues that following literally his tendency to accommodate church practice to contemporary social standards may achieve today the opposite effect from what was intended. His hermeneutical approach in terms of theological subjects and elucidatory predicates offers a fresh entry into the teaching of Jude. This is a stimulating study that helpfully and sympathetically challenges some traditionalist approaches without being the last word on the subject."—I. Howard Marshall, University of Aberdeen

Here's a brief table of contents:

First Timothy

Introductory Part (1Ti 1.1-20)
Worship, Life, and Order in the Church (1Ti 2.1-3.16)
Instructions for the Pastoral Work of Timothy (1Ti 4.1-6.2)
True and False Teachers (1Ti 6.3-21)

Second Timothy

Opening of the Letter (2Ti 1.1-5)
Witness and Suffering in the Footsteps of Paul (2Ti 1.6-2.13)
False Teachers and Their Conduct (2Ti 2.14-3.9)
Concluding Advice to Timothy (2Ti 3.10-4.22)

Titus

Appointment of Elders in Crete (Titus 1.1-16)
Virtues among Christians (Titus 2.1-15)
Good Works in the Society (Titus 3.1-15)

Philemon

Jude

Thanks again to Baker/Brazos!

Posted by Rick Brannan

Thanks again to Baker Academic who provided a copy of George T. Montague, SM's First and Second Timothy, Titus (Amazon.com); which is part of Baker's new Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series.

I've had a chance to poke around the book and must say I'm impressed. This commentary is designed to be used, and that's refreshing. Here is a list, in no particular order, of some of the features of the print book.

• The translation used is the New American Bible (NAB), which is what one would expect for a Catholic commentary.
• Cross References. Each translation section is followed by cross references—to the Old Testament, the New Testament, and also to the Catholic Catechism (by topic and page, as shown below). References to the Lectionary (and also the "Lectionary (Byzantine)") are also made, where applicable.

• Sidebars. There are Biblical Background sidebars and Living Tradition sidebars that frequently occur throughout the text. These bring to light different sorts of background information (literary, cultural, historical, theological) and highlight portions of later non-canonical writings (Apostolic Fathers, other Greek & Latin fathers.
• Pictures and Maps. There are pictures. This is great for a commentary; one example is a picture of the theatre in Ephesus. Another is a picture of Schøyen MS 2649 (portions of a scroll of Leviticus that is actually relatively legible) in the context of 2Ti 4.13, "... bring me the scrolls and parchments". These sorts of things bring the setting into view of the reader and make the whole exercise a little more real.
• Reflection and Application. At the end of each commentary section is another section titled "Reflection and Application". Here all sorts of things may be discussed, the primary task seems to be to discuss the text in the context of the present. For instance, the portion on 1Ti 2.5-7, "For there is one mediator between God and men ..." discusses the Catholic practice of invoking saints in prayer, particularly Mary.
• Glossary. There is a short glossary at the back; words in the text that occur in the glossary have a dagger† next to them. The entries are short and generally helpful (though the definition for "aorist" is not good at all, equating it with the simple past tense).
• Indexes. There are two indices, one "Index of Pastoral Topics" and another "Index of Sidebars". A reference index would be nice, if only to catch the section cross-references in one easy-to-consult place. It would've also been nice to have an index with the mounds of references to writings of the Fathers and the catechism and lectionary references.
• Greek Words. Greek words, where directly discussed, are in transliteration throughout. It would've been nice to have an index to the Greek words as well.

In short, I love the features of the book and the way it is put together.

If you're Catholic and you're studying the Pastoral Epistles, this is a no-brainer: buy the book now (Amazon.com), particularly if you're not looking for some deep academic tome. If you are Catholic and looking for a deep academic tome, you still want to buy it (Amazon.com) (and probably Fiore (Amazon.com), too).

If you're not Catholic but you're studying the Pastoral Epistles, I'd use another commentary as a primary (pick one: Towner (Amazon.com), Witherington (Amazon.com), Mounce (Amazon.com), Knight (Amazon.com)), but I'd consider getting Montague's CCSS volume (Amazon.com) simply because it is a good alternate view at understanding and applying the text.

Posted by Rick Brannan

The good folks at Baker Academic have sent along a hot-off-the-presses copy of First and Second Timothy, Titus (Amazon.com), from the newly-commenced commentary series Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. The text of the NAB (New American Bible) is provided in the commentary.

If you're unfamiliar with the series, a video overview is available on the series web site.

There are excerpts from the book on Baker Academic's web site (here, here and here); there is a 16-page discussion guide designed for "Personal Reflection or Small Group Study". This is cool stuff; Baker should be commended for putting together the whole package on the book's web page.

Most of the blurbs in the front matter and back cover are about the series, not the book. Here's the book blurb from BakerAcademic.com:

George Montague offers a Catholic pastoral commentary on the letters to Timothy and Titus in the second volume in the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (CCSS). He presents sound exegesis followed by reflection on the pastoral, theological, and practical applications of the text.

Here's the blurb from Amazon.com (Amazon.com):

In the second volume of the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (CCSS), George Montague offers a Catholic pastoral commentary on the letters to Timothy and Titus, presenting sound exegesis followed by reflection on the pastoral, theological, and practical applications of the text. The CCSS offers readable, informative commentaries from the best of contemporary Catholic scholarship to help readers rediscover the Word of God as a living word in which God himself is present. Each commentary relates Scripture to life, is faithfully Catholic, and is supplemented by features designed to help readers understand the Bible more deeply and use it more effectively in teaching, preaching, evangelization, and other forms of ministry. This series is perfect for professional and lay leaders engaged in parish ministry, lay Catholics interested in serious Bible study, and Catholic students.

Yeah, pretty much the same thing though the Amazon.com blurb works in the series description as well.

Here's the table of contents:

Illustrations
Editor's Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction to the Pastoral Letters

The First Letter to Timothy
Timothy's First Charge (1 Timothy 1)
Liturgy and Conduct (1 Timothy 2)
Qualifications of Ministers (1 Timothy 3)
False Teaching and Advice to Timothy (1 Timothy 4)
Rules for Different Groups (1 Timothy 5)
Final Directives: Slaves, Truth, Riches (1 Timothy 6)

The Second Letter to Timothy
Timothy's Gifts and Paul's Lot (2 Timothy 1)
Counsels to Timothy (2 Timothy 2)
Meeting the Challenges of the Last Days (2 Timothy 3)
Final Charge to Timothy and Paul's Faith amid His Loneliness (2 Timothy 4)

The Letter to Titus
Organizing the Church in Crete (Titus 1)
Virtues for Different States of Life (Titus 2)
How We Should Live—and Why (Titus 3)

Suggested Resources
Glossary
Index of Pastoral Topics
Index of Sidebars
Map

I have not had a chance to read the book yet. I will say it was designed well. And it is one of the few commentaries that I have seen that actually has pictures (black & white photos) of different areas or artifacts relevant to the discussion. That's pretty cool.

I couldn't contain myself, however, and peeked to see how 1Ti 1.20 is handled. You know:

18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare,  19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith,  20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1Ti 1.18-20, ESV)

I've never checked an explicitly Catholic commentary on this verse and wanted to see how the verse was related to excommunication. Well, it is directly and equivalently related: "These two Paul handed over to Satan, a technical term for excommunication." (Montague 47, emphasis his). That doesn't surprise me, and it doesn't seem altogether wrong to me either. These guys were given the right boot of fellowship. It's just that 'protestant' commentaries rarely ever cross the line and call it excommunication. The goal isn't separation, the eventual goal is reconciliation, as Montague aptly concludes.

I'm looking forward to giving this one the once-over. Thanks, Baker Academic!

Posted by Rick Brannan

I have just recently read Phil Towner’s “Christology in the Letters to Timothy and Titus” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, edited by Richard Longenecker (Eerdmans, 2005).  Towner discusses the key Christological passages in the three letters interacting with recent scholarship and synthesizing the Christology found in each letter.  It is the sort of careful work we have come to expect from Towner and, therefore, is a good entry way into this area of study.  Towner continues (rightly I believe) to stress the fact that, while these letters have some significant commonality, they also have their distinct emphases.

Though I agree with most of the essay, for the sake of conversation I will here point out two smaller things I question.  The first has to do with discerning the background of some of the Christological language.  Discussing the “epiphany” language, Towner asserts,

“Undoubtedly … epiphany language must have been deliberately chosen to engage the dominant religious-political discourse of the day and to force a rethinking of these categories by the proclamation of God’s story in Hellenistic dress.” (225; emphasis mine)

I think this may be overstated.  Since, as Towner notes, this language appears in the Septuagint describing “Yahweh’s interventions in the world” then the use in the PE could arise for a number of reasons.  Towner mentions emperor worship elsewhere so I wonder if that is what he has in mind here.  I am not convinced that emperor worship is in view.  I want to be cautious when trying to establish specific background connections.

Secondly, Towner refers to Timothy’s “dwindling courage and lagging commitment” in 2 Timothy (238).  This is a common assertion, but I think it reads too much into 2 Timothy 1.  Simply because Paul calls on him to stir up his gift (1:6) does not mean he is failing.  The fact that Paul exhorts him not to be timid (1:6) or ashamed (1:8) does not mean that he is being these things.  It is, rather, what is to be expected by a father figure as he exhorts his “son” to face hardship well.  Paul is simply exhorting Timothy to “strap it on”, wade into the fray and take his lumps in the “good fight.”  The similarities between this letter and letters from commanding officers to their subordinates would seem to support my reading as well.

These are not major points in Towner’s essay, and as I noted the essay as a whole is very profitable.  These two points are ones I see in other essays so I raise my critique here to see if a profitable discussion might be raised.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

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.

Posted by Rick Brannan

I have been very quiet on the PE front as I am now working on a project on the Bible and Spirituality.  However, I'd just like to mention a couple of news items.  First, my article "Women as Gossips and Busybodies? Another Look at 1 Timothy 5:13" will be published shortly in the Lexington Theological Quarterly.  Second, I shall shortly be returning to the PE as I shall be working on the notion of 'the good life' in the PE for the project.

Congratulations to my fellow contributors for news on projects they are engaged in.

Lloyd Pietersen

Posted by Lloyd Pietersen

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.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

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)

Posted by Ray Van Neste

Saint Augustine Press has published a new English translation of Thomas Aquinas’ Commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (pb., 222 pp).  The commentaries are actually lecture notes which are briefer than typical commentaries. However, this is a significant source for those involved in the academic study of these letters, precisely because so many of his concerns and our concerns are different.  This is C. S. Lewis’ point in urging us to read old books- to judge the balance of our concerns by comparison with the thoughts of those in previous days.

 

So far I have dipped into various places and have been intrigued.  Aquinas’ comments on 1 Timothy 2 will shock many modern readers.  He seems to have no problem with bishops being married in his discussion of 1Timothy 3.  One value of these notes is all the quotes from the OT, Apocrypha, and Greek philosophers which Aquinas supplies.  This could be a real help to those seeking background parallels.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

The manuscript for my commentary, Reading Paul's Letters to Individuals: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Letters to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy, is officially in the mail to Smyth and Helwys.

S&H expects the commentary to be available in October, just in time for SBL. Maybe I'll need to go to Boston after all.

This is the commentary that Glenn Hinson was supposed to write, then Marty Soards. Both ended up not filling the contract. Then Hulitt Gloer wrote a manuscript, but was not able to finish it for health reasons.

So in January--you may recall--the editor of the series, Charles Talbert (who was my doctorfather at Baylor) asked if I could finish Gloer's manuscript.  And I've spent the last few months doing so.

I'd originally hoped to have 300 - 325 double spaced pages, and ended up with 425: OUCH! Did I type all that stuff?

What's innovative or fresh about the commentary? Two things, off the top of my head:

First, it is a scholarly commentary, interacting extensively with primary sources (Philo and Josephus, especially) and cutting-edge secondary sources (e.g., Bruce Winter's work on the new Roman woman), BUT the exposition is aimed at preachers and teachers. This would be the first commentary I would recommend for people who want to preach these letters.

Second, this is the first commentary on the Pastorals to take into account the role that succession plays in these letters.

Posted by Perry L. Stepp

I am honored to be participating in a new book from B&H Academic entitled Entrusted with the Gospel:  Paul's Theology in the Pastoral Epistles.  It will be a collection of essays focusing on specific aspects of the Pastorals written by scholars who have been working on these letters for some time.  Contributors include Howard Marshall, Andreas Kostenberger, and Terry Wilder.  Work is just beginning but I thought readers of this blog would be interested to know of the project.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

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 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!

Posted by Rick Brannan

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.

Posted by Rick Brannan

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.

Posted by Rick Brannan

Sometimes I'm asked why I have an interest in the Pastoral Epistles. I've been fascinated by them for a long time. Here are some reasons:

• 1Ti 4.12-16:

  Let no one treat you with contempt due to your youth, but you yourself become an example of the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, and in purity. Until I come occupy yourself with public reading of Scripture, with encouragement, and with teaching. Do not neglect the gift in you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elder council. Practice these things, be immersed in them, so that your progress might be visible to all. Take pains with yourself and your teaching, persist in them: for in doing this you will deliver both yourself and your hearers. (1Ti 4.12-16, my own translation)
  
  I can remember reading these verses in Junior High and being astounded by the whole "youth" thing. Here Paul was telling someone perceptibly younger but still in a leadership position to stick to his guns and do the job he was entrusted with. That's always stuck with me.

• If you ascribe to Pauline authorship (and I do) then these are the last things we have from the mind of Paul. It's his views on stuff nearer to the close of his ministry than the start of it. It isn't systematic, but it does provide insight. How did Paul's views develop over time? How did he see the church?
• These are, ostensibly (though see this post and comments) letters to people, not to churches.
• The Pastoral Epistles (and First Timothy, in particular) touch on some hot-button issues. You know: role of men and women in the fellowship, how to discern and handle false teachers, God desiring "all people to be saved" ... you get the gist.
• Titus 2.11-15:

For the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation to all men instructing us, so that having renounced impiety and worldly desires, we might live self-controlled and justly and godly in this present age, looking forward to the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and deliverer of us, Jesus Christ, who gave himself on behalf us, so that he himself might redeem us from all lawlessness and purify for himself a chosen people, zealous for good works. These things speak and exhort and set forth with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Tt 2.11-15, my own translation)

I treasure these words; they are both humbling and motivating. They remind me that I am saved, that Jesus Christ is the source of my salvation, and that He will come again to take us home. Marana tha!

There is more, but those are the biggies.

Posted by Rick Brannan

Amanuensis.  Paratheke.

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

Posted by Perry L. Stepp

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.

Posted by Perry L. Stepp

It seems to me that the authorship question will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.  What is interesting is how scholarly fashions change.  It was not that long ago that commentators could confidently claim "scholarly consensus" on the pseudepigraphical nature of the PE.  The current scholarly climate makes that consensus far less secure.  It seems to me, regardless of authorship, that there is a genuine move to date the Pastorals much earlier than the previous generation of PE scholarship.  An early date, of course, has always been held by those accepting Pauline authorship but there are now others such as Howard Marshall, Richard Bauckham and myself who, although unpersuaded by Pauline authorship, accept that the letters are first century, probably second-generation, documents.

Posted by Lloyd Pietersen

In the previous post, I wrote that last Spring semester, I required my undergrad Pastoral Epistles class to purchase and write book reports on my book, Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle.  I want to unpack my comment.

I came to KCU in fall 2003.  I have taught the Pastoral Epistles to undergrads (300-level) every spring since then.  I have also taught these letters in an online graduate seminar.

The graduate seminar students had few problems with my book.  They understood it, were able to summarize the contents, and even offered a few helpful criticisms. 

The Spring 2006 class: half the class was completely lost.  One of the problems was that I had several second-semester Freshmen in the class.  Freshmen should not take 300- or 400-level Bible classes.  (Of course, ONE of the Freshmen actually did handle the book pretty well.)

I did not require the book in Spring 2004 or 2005, because it had not been released yet.  But my impression of my students in those semesters was that they would have been able to handle the book, and would have benefitted from it even as they struggled with it. 

My observations:

1. The quality of students in a given class can fluctuate wildly from semester to semester.  This is frustrating for those of us professors who really want our students to understand and benefit from the material we try to teach them.
2. This is also one of the attendant joys of trying to teach serious Biblical studies classes in a Liberal Arts setting.  In some of my Bible classes, I'll have 30-40% of the students who are ministry majors.  I may teach the same class the next year, but have only 10% of the students majoring in Bible or ministry.
   
3. I tried to aim the book so that educated ministers, church leaders, etc., could benefit from it.  It was not just written for eggheads like me.  Most semesters, my Pastoral Epistles classes would have gotten it.
   
4. I should quit beating myself up for requiring the book, and just chalk it up to experience. 
   
5. Will I require future undergraduate classes to purchase and use my book?  Yes, but I'll check the majors of preregistered students, etc., to determine ahead of time if they can handle the book. 
   

Posted by Perry L. Stepp

So what am I doing over my Christmas break?

BIG TASK #1: generating syllabi for not one but TWO Pastoral Epistles-related classes for the spring. 

1. FIRST is a 300-level class in the Pastorals.  I've taught this class every spring since I've been at KCU and have NOT been happy with it, ever.  Previously, I've taught it where the students had to write several small research papers on issues like authorship, women in the PE, etc.  I've also done it with other types of projects and papers.  THIS SEMESTER, I'm going to have students make group presentation on the hot topics (women in the church, church discipline, etc.)
2. SECOND is a class in expository preaching, which I'm teaching because our preaching professor left and hasn't been replaced.  I'm going to focus on exegesis and sermon development, and the Pastorals will be our primary text.

What books are we using?  Towner's new commentary; Luke Johnson's offering from the Knox Preaching Guides, which I've had reprinted; Mark Harding's What Are They Saying about the Pastoral Epistles?; I think that's it.

Last spring, I required students in the undergrad class to purchase and write a book report on my book, Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle.  It was a disaster.  I felt guilty about requiring my students to spend $85 on my book, and it was WAY too far over their heads.

So now I only require it for my graduate seminar in the Pastorals. 

Other things I'm doing, non-Pastorals related:

• BIG TASK #2: Installing Pergo on the top floor of our house.  It's a Christmas present for both me and my wife.  Honestly, it's more a present for my wife, but I've always wanted it too!
• Doing all kinds of church and ministry related stuff;
• Doing all kinds of family stuff--Christmas concerts, basketball practice, daddy's taxi service, shopping and cleaning up;
  
• Teaching an online class (200-level Gospel of Luke) from 15 December through the end of January.  I've got a ton of emails and online discussion posts to read every day.  (We're using SAKAI, btw, and it ain't great.)
• And (of course) watching football and eating way too much.
  

Posted by Perry L. Stepp

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.

Posted by Rick Brannan

This is my first post and I am honoured to be involved in this blog with Rick and Perry.  I echo the comments made by Perry in his first post.  I would like to offer some thoughts that I hope will generate some discussion.  As a first post I will restrict my comments to very general ones.  I am sure the discussion will lead us to more specific deliberations.

The (previous) scholarly consensus on the Pastoral Epistles (PE) is that they are late documents reflecting Pauline communities which had become institutionalised and had come to terms with the delay of the Parousia by settling down into a form of accommodation with the wider society.  My work disputes a number of aspects of this consensus and remains in dialogue with the Hermeneia commentary on the PE by Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann in which Dibelius famously argued that the PE promote the ideal of good christian citizenship (christliche Bürgerlichkeit) - a form of bourgeois christianity.

In my book, The Polemic of the Pastorals, I argued that the letters do not reflect communities in which Paul's vision of the church as a charismatic community has faded through the process of institutionalisation.  My current work focuses on the communities' wider relationship with society.  I am intrigued by the rhetorical function of 2 Tim 3:12.  This verse receives scant attention in the Hermeneia commentary.  Although sympathetic to the current emphasis on treating each letter separately and not taking the PE as a literary corpus, I personally remain convinced by the results of older scholarship that for reasons of style, vocabulary, etc. they should, with due sensitivity, be treated together.  If so, the presence of a text like 2 Tim 3:12 in this corpus means that it is problematic to read 1 Tim 2:1-2 as a straightforward indication that the communities have accommodated themselves to society.  For example, 16th century Anabaptists, who were persecuted by both Protestants and Catholics, regularly quoted 2 Tim 3:12 (it is one of the most cited texts in Martyrs Mirror, the Anabaptist martyrology first published in 1660), yet they also freely made use of 1 Tim 2:1-2.  For example, Article XXVII of the Mennonite Confession of Faith (dated around 1600) begins: "we confess: [t]hat the office of magistracy is an ordinance and institution of God who Himself willed and ordained that such a power should be over every country in order that thereby countries and cities might, through good policy and laws, for the punishment of the evil and the protection of the pious, be governed and maintained in quiet and peace, in a good civil life ..." (my emphasis).  In this case persecuted Christians could echo the prayer expressed in 1 Tim 2:1-2 precisely because they were persecuted and marginalised in society.  It seems to me that the PE can be read as instructions to communities who recognise only too well that the subversive claims of the gospel (e.g. God, not Caesar, as saviour) could lead to persecution at any time.  If we take seriously Ephesus as the destination of 1 and 2 Timothy then is it illegitimate to view some of the vocabulary of at least these two letters in the PE as in conscious dialogue with the imperial cult?

I look forward to your comments!

Posted by Lloyd Pietersen

As you've likely noticed, there have been several changes here at PastoralEpistles.com.

The biggest change is that there is now more than one blogger. In addition to Rick Brannan (yours truly), Perry L. Stepp, Lloyd Pietersen and Ray Van Neste have agreed to begin posting to PastoralEpistles.com.

Perry is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Kentucky Christian University. He's recently had a book published by the Sheffield Phoenix Press, Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle. He's also presented papers at SBL in the Disputed Paulines group. It's great to have him aboard.

There will likely be at least one more blogger added to the team; more information on that in a future post.

Lloyd is a Research Fellow in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies  at the University of Bristol. Here's some further information on Dr. Pietersen from his web site:

Dr Lloyd Pietersen obtained his PhD from the University of Sheffield. His thesis has been published as The Polemic of the Pastorals: A Sociological Examination of the Development of Pauline Christianity (JSNTSup 264; London/New York: T & T Clark International, 2004). He is currently a Research Fellow in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Bristol and is co-chair of the Social World of the New Testament Seminar at the British New Testament Conference.

Ray is Assistant Professor of Christian Studies and Director of the R.C. Ryan Center for Biblical Studies at Union University. He is also author of Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 280; Lonon/New York: T&T Clark International, 2004). And he has his own personal blog too.

What is this site all about, then?

Well, it's about the Pastoral Epistles. Folks who blog here have a more-than-average interest in the Pastorals. We'll blog about stuff like:

• Quick reviews of books, articles, chapters, etc. that we read that have to do with the Pastorals. The same book or article may be discussed by multiple authors on the site.
• Extended reviews.
• Reviews of or interaction with conference presentations or papers.
• Interaction with other web sites, blog posts, etc. that mention things that primarily or tangentially refer to the Pastoral Epistles.
• Thoughts, musings and whatnot. We'll feel free to use the blog as a scratch pad of sorts as we think through topics or exegetical points having to do with the Pastoral Epistles.
• Whatever else seems interesting to us, as long as we can relate it back to the Pastorals.

If you're familiar with the older PastoralEpistles.com site, it is still available at http://www.pastoralepistles.com/oldsite. Content may or may not migrate over to the new site.

Anyway, thanks for your support of the site. Please bear with us while we get the place set up. And please do update your RSS / Feed reader links. The new link is http://pastoralepistles.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetRss. You can use this in any feedreader/aggregator or online tool such as BlogLines.

Tell your friends!

Posted by Rick Brannan