PastoralEpistles.com

I'm reading through Irenaeus' Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (Amazon.com) (translated by Joseph Smith) in the evenings before going to bed. It's a pretty quick read and will familiarize you with Irenaeus before digging into his Against Heresies (Amazon.com) (translated by Dominic J.Unger, and my next evening reading target).

First, to set the scene, let me quote 1Ti 2.13-15:

¹³ For Adam was created first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not misled, but the woman, being deceived, has become a transgressor. ¹⁵ But she will be saved through childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with good judgment. (my own translation)

Ok, now, here's Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, §33:

33. And just as it was through a virgin who disobeyed that man was stricken and fell and died, so too it was through the Virgin, who obeyed the word of God, that man resuscitated by life received life. For the Lord came to seek back the lost sheep, and it was man who was lost; and therefore He did not become some other formation, but He likewise, of her that was descended from Adam, preserved the likeness of formation: for Adam had necessarily to be restored in Christ, that mortality be absorbed in immortality, and Eve in Mary, that a virgin, become the advocate of a virgin, should undo and destroy virginal disobedience by virginal obedience. (Smith, 69. emphasis added)

Now I'm not sure what to think of this passage from Irenaeus; I certainly think Christ died once for all, male and female alike. So I don't know quite what to think about Eve being "restored" in Mary. But this passage links Eve and Mary in a sense of restoration. More importantly, because of Mary's obedience, man received life. Eve disobeyed, her disobedience was made right again with Christ's birth to a virgin mother and the resultant salvation through Christ. At least, on the surface, that's what I sense Irenaeus to be saying.

Irenaeus is early, likely the generation after the Apostolic Fathers. Polycarp, whom Irenaeus heard teach and was likely a pupil of, was martyred in 155 or 156. Irenaeus became Bishop of Lyons in 177 or 178 and, according to Smith, likely died in the early third century (Smith 6). Irenaeus also likely knew of at least First Timothy; consider the start of his preface to Against Heresies:

Certain people are discarding the Truth and introducing deceitful myths and endless geneaologies, which, as the Apostle says, promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith. (Unger, 21)

That's the very first sentence of the preface, explicitly quoting 1Ti 1.4 [ESV] and attributing it to Paul (the "Apostle"). So Irenaeus is mid/late 2nd century, he knew of First Timothy (as did Polycarp, who in Poly. Phil. 4.1 may have quoted 1Ti 6.10 [ESV]) and he had this view of Eve being restored in Mary.

Realizing all of this —  how does Irenaeus in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching square with 1Ti 2.13-15? Most commentaries these days discount the 'childbearing' in v. 15 as having anything to do with the arrival of Christ through being born to Mary. But isn't that pretty much what Irenaeus is saying here?

Postscript: Please note, this is all just me "thinking out loud" (i.e. blogging). I read the passage in Irenaeus last night and it's been simmering on the back burners of my brain since. I checked Marshall's ICC volume, Knight's NIGTC volume, and Dibelius & Conzelmann in Hermeneia. No mention of this reference, though D&C refer to Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 1.24.2 (which attributes marriage and childbirth to Satan). I'd check Towner's NICNT and Witherington, but I've loaned the volumes to a friend and don't have them handy. I haven't checked elsewhere to see if this passage of Irenaeus has ever been associated with these verses.

Posted by Rick Brannan

A recent trip up north brought me to the very excellent library of the Vancouver School of Theology on the University of British Columbia campus.

Whilst browsing the shelves, I ran across a book I've been looking for for years: J.K. Elliott's The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. This is vol 36 in the University of Utah's Studies and Documents series. It was published in 1968.

I've seen this title referred to in footnotes in several commentaries, studies and other monographs, but have been unable to track it down. Now that I have, I'm glad I did. The monograph is a portion of Elliott's doctoral work. He uses his own "eclectic" methodology to establish his own text of the Pastoral Epistles. He interacts with a number of MSS, and what one ends up with is a textual commentary (from his eclectic point of view) on the Pastorals. Additionally, the introduction is a short but very well written guide to his methodology.

And the appendices are fairly fun too. Appendix 6 has several lists that show where Elliott's readings are in agreement and at variance with published editions (Westcott/Hort, TR, Tischendorf, Tregelles, etc.) and is concluded with a list of all of his unique readings (against the editions he checked) along with the MSS that provide the textual evidence for the unique reading. For example, in 1Ti 1.4 [Westcott-Hort], he accepts οἰκοδομην over οἰκονομιαν. No other edition (at least in 1968) took that reading. But he does, and he explains why.

An interesting follow-up will be to examine his unique readings with UBS4/NA27 and see if the UBS/NA has taken up any of his readings.

Update: I just scanned the 67 listed unique readings against NA27; nary a one of them is used in NA27. Most of Elliott's readings have to do with word order, orthography, adding/deleting a conjunction or adding/deleting an article. Very few would actually change the sense of the text, and those only slightly.

I hope to blog on his 'eclectic' approach over at my personal blog (ricoblog) at some point. (Update [2007-03-26]: I've begun this series, see the bottom of the post for further links) One unique aspect is that MS 'quality' is only one of a number of factors. Readings supported in as little as one MS or even one early version, in Elliott's methodology, may be considered as 'original' if other factors look good. In other words, there is no automatic veto if a reading is poorly attested -- especially if that reading scores well in other areas examined.

Just to say: If you're examining the Greek text of the Pastorals in any depth, you may consider locating Elliott's work. Best to check a well-stocked theological library!

Posted by Rick Brannan

In early February, Ray posted on Titus 1.6 [ESV] and "believing/faithful children". In that post, Ray linked to an article in the 9 Marks newsletter.

Regarding that link, an anonymous commenter asked me:

Rico: Have you read the book in footnote 2?: Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, revised & expanded (Littleton, Col.: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995), 229.

Please consider the concept of "elders" he presents in his research through the Acts and Epistles uses of the Greek words used.

I've not read Strauch's book. But I have read with interest R. Alastair Campbell's The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity. Campbell gives a more complete view than just centering on practice in Acts and the Epistles; he traces the concept of "eldership" through through the Hebrew Bible, into the New Testament, and then through Apostolic Fathers (particularly Ignatius). I don't agree with some of his presuppositions (he thinks the Pastorals are psuedepigraphal and contemporary with or immediately preceding Ignatius' writings and this colors some of his conclusions regarding the role of elders in the Pastorals) but nonetheless he approaches the topic diachronically and does a good job of it.

Anyone else have thoughts on "eldership" as it is discussed in the Pastorals? Or on the topic of "church leadership" in general within the Pastorals?

Posted by Rick Brannan

This whole passage has been in the back of my mind for some time. In it are the following three premises:

• Honor widows who are truly widows (1Ti 5.3-16 [ESV])
• Double honor for elders who "lead well" (1Ti 5.17-25 [ESV]); those in error are to be corrected
• Slaves are to honor their masters (1Ti 6.1-2 [ESV])

Sure, that's all fine and dandy -- until you ask the question, "What does it mean to honor?" In the case of widows and elders, the text makes it fairly clear this means taking care of them materially. Widows are to be provided for, and elders who rule well are to be doubly provided for (5.18, with its OT quotes, makes this fairly plain).

And slaves are to "honor" their masters. But surely this doesn't mean that slaves are to provide materially for their masters, does it? What really does 6.1-2 say?

1 All who are under a yoke as slaves, let them consider their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and our teaching might not be maligned. 2 But those having believers as masters must not be disrespectful because they are brothers, rather they must serve more, because the ones who benefit from their good work are believers and beloved. (my own translation)

This all comes down to "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" which, as some of my co-workers will tell you, pervades my very being. I suppose my basic problem is that the same terminology is used for "honor" throughout the passage whether it is discussing widows, elders or slaves/masters. But in context it doesn't mean exactly the same thing in each instance, even though all three exist in close succession and in an overall similar context. But can it mean such different things in such close succession? Why wouldn't the third instance of "honor" carry similar meaning to the first two?

Is the difference because the "honor" explained in detail in the first two (widows/elders), and left unmodified/specified in the last? That is, the method of honor itself is not fully explicated, though the effects of having the honor are?

(gotta go, but that sums up my basic thoughts as I've mulled over this text for the past months) 

Update (2007-03-08): Of course, if slaves submit to their masters and do what they are told, then the master will benefit materially (assuming the master is acting in his own interest and has some sensibility ... perhaps too much to assume?). The end of 6.2 alludes to this, " ...  the ones who benefit [masters] from [the slaves'] good work are believers and beloved". And by "serving more" if their master is Christian, then the master benefits more. So maybe there is some sort of connection with material gain here?

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

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

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

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

Posted by Rick Brannan

[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