PastoralEpistles.com

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

Having now survived the end of term, I am finally going to provide some posts.  I am very pleased to be participating in this project.  I hope to post some reviews of books related to the Pastoral Epistles, some interaction with some recent articles, links to recent reviews of monographs on the Pastoral Epistles.

Kudos to Rick for putting this together!

Posted by Ray Van Neste

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

Of course we have the testimony of the epistles themselves along with the traditional titles proclaiming Timothy and Titus as recipients.

Some have taken issue with this on the basis of testimony within the epistles, particularly First Timothy.

After all, if Timothy had been with Paul for years (cf. Ac 16.1-5) and was beloved of Paul to the degree that Paul called him his "true child in the faith" (cf. 1Ti 1.2; 2Ti 2.2) why did Paul spend so much time on seemingly basic things? You know, like qualifications for overseers and deacons? Wouldn't Timothy have known that stuff cold based on his previous experience?

And why the extended superscription with Paul justifying his apostleship with one of the longest such statements he uses (1Ti 1.1; 2Ti 1.1) for such purposes: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Saviour and of Christ Jesus our hope".

Paul didn't really need to justify his apostleship for Timothy (you know, co-sender of a bunch of Paul's epistles?), did he?

Same stuff goes for Titus.

I have my own ideas, of course, and they're relatively mainstream. But I'm curious as to what others might think about these things.

Who was intended to receive (or intended to hear, if you think there is a distinction) the letters to Timothy? And the letter to Titus? And what was their purpose?

Feel free to use the comments. If you blog about it on your own blog, drop me a note [pe | pastoralepistles | com] and I'll add a link here. Thanks!

Posted by Rick Brannan

Scot McKnight, author of several books and a blogger to boot (see his blog Jesus Creed) posts about that one passage in the Pastorals that everyone seems to gravitate toward: 1Ti 2.8-15.

McKnight reviews a few chapters from a book by Sarah Sumner called Men and Women in the Church. But what you really want to read through is the comment thread on the post — all sorts of opinions are being aired there.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, you may want to check out the post and the comments.

Update: I realize I've blogged somewhat on this topic before; mostly thinking-out-loud sorts of posts. The posts go together; the second post really needs to be read after the first one. Check 'em out in the old blog for more info:

• Saved by Childbirth in 1Ti 2.15
• Saved by Childbirth: A Follow-Up

 

Posted by Rick Brannan

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Rick Brannan