PastoralEpistles.com

[NB: Ray Van Neste is the author of this post; the name changed in the database when Rick cleared up some link issues]

I had thought for sometime about writing something on the interpretation of Titus 1:6. In stating the qualifications for serving as an elder/pastor the text states that “his children are believers.” It could also be translated “his children are faithful.” The standard commentaries do not wrestle much with this issue, but it is huge in considering who should serve in this important role. In dialogue with Justin Taylor I discovered he had written a paper on this very topic. I am very pleased to see it is now available in the most recent 9 Marks newsletter. This is a well written piece and I commend it to you. I agree wholeheartedly with Justin that the text is not requiring that a pastor’s children be Christians but that they be submissive and obedient.

Posted by Rick Brannan

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

Michael Bird summarizes Philip Towner's approach to 1Ti 2.11-15 in Towner's recently published volume in the NICNT commentary series, The Letters to Timothy and Titus.

Here's the link to Michael's summary.

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