PastoralEpistles.com

[[NB: I blogged briefly about this in December 2006 with Who were the Pastoral Epistles written to? though I made no conclusions there.]]

That may not seem like much of a headline, but it's the conclusion I've come to after reading three articles by Jeffrey T. Reed:

Reed, Jeffrey T. "Cohesive Ties in 1 Timothy: In Defense of the Epistle's Unity", Neotestamentica 26/1: 192-213. 1992.

----- "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.

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

There are two basic options when one considers intended audience of First Timothy: Timothy (as the letter states) or the Ephesian church. If you would've asked me two or three years ago, I'd have told you that I thought that First Timothy, though explicitly addressed to Timothy, was really intended for the Ephesian church and was primarily a way for Paul to disseminate information about church structure and the like. This is the same way that Dibelius and Conzelmann (Hermeneia) approach First Timothy; as well as Barrett, Hanson, and Spicq (If I'm understanding Reed 1993a, p. 91 note 2 properly).

But in reading Reed's stuff (particularly 1993a, though the others have things to say about it) I'm convinced otherwise. Why? The short list:

• There are no second person plural verbs in First Timothy.
• There is only one second person plural pronoun in First Timothy, and that is Paul's somewhat formulaic end of "Grace be with you (pl.)"
• The Ephesian church is not a named participant within the text of the letter.
• The second person singular verbs logically resolve to Timothy as subject.
• The first person singular verbs logically resolve to Paul as subject, and typically occur in exhortations to the addressee (Timothy).

In other words, I really do think that First Timothy is a personal letter, both in structure/address and in reality. Paul wrote the letter to Timothy to tell him to do things, and provided some background for those things. Would others have benefitted from reading the letter? Sure; there is stuff in there that would benefit, say, elders of the church. But the only one who would benefit or receive instruction from the whole of the letter is Timothy.

If you're wondering about all of this, or if you're unconvinced, I'd recommend Reed 1993a above ("To Timothy or Not?").

Posted by Rick Brannan

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:

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.

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

One of the eternally problematic passages in First Timothy is 1Ti 2.13-15 [ESV]. This passage alludes to but does not directly quote from Genesis 3.15-16 [ESV].

Today, on his blog Ancient Hebrew Poetry, John Hobbins blogs a bit about the Genesis passage. He has two posts that may be of interest:

• Symmetry, Asymmetry and Word Play in Genesis 3.14-19
• KJV vs. NRSV at Genesis 3.16-17: KJV Wins

Posted by Rick Brannan

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:

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 is only tangentially related to the Pastorals. Regular readers know I've been digging into linkages between the Apostolic Fathers and the Pastoral Epistles.

Note that James Darlack of the Old in the New blog is digging into linkages between the epistle of James and the Apostolic Fathers.

Posted by Rick Brannan