PastoralEpistles.com

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

So, I've been reading Second Clement lately. Today, while looking at 2Cl 3 in Holmes' Apostolic Fathers (Amazon.com), and I noticed an interesting—in light of 1Ti 2.4—variant. Convienently, we only have Second Clement extant in two Greek editions (and one Syriac). So I'm assuming that Holmes has been exhaustive in his variants (outside of orthographical issues) between Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and Codex Heirosolymitanus (9th century).

Here's Holmes' text (with interesting section in bold):

Τοσοῦτον οὖν ἔλεος ποιήσαντος αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς—πρῶτον μέν, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες τοῖς νεκροῖς θεοῖς οὐ θύομεν καὶ οὐ προσκυνοῦμεν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ ἔγνωμεν διʼ αὐτοῦ τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας—τίς ἡ γνῶσις ἡ πρὸς αὐτόν, ἢ τὸ μὴ ἀρνεῖσθαι διʼ οὗ ἔγνωμεν αὐτόν; (2Cl 3.1, Holmes Greek)
Seeing, then, that he has shown us such mercy—first of all, that we who are living do not sacrifice to dead gods, nor do we worship them, but through him have come to know the Father of truth—what else is knowledge with respect to him if it is not refusing to deny him through whom we have come to know him? (2Cl 3.1, Holmes English)

Holmes follows Alexandrinus (which is usually, apart from orthography, a smart idea, according to none other than J.B. Lightfoot). But note Heirosolymitanus' reading:

Τοσοῦτον οὖν ἔλεος ποιήσαντος αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς—πρῶτον μέν, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες τοῖς νεκροῖς θεοῖς οὐ θύομεν καὶ οὐ προσκυνοῦμεν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ ἔγνωμεν διʼ αὐτοῦ τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας—τίς ἡ γνῶσις της αληθειας, ἢ τὸ μὴ  αὐτόν διʼ οὗ ἔγνωμεν; (2Cl 3.1, Heirosolymitanus)

Haven't thought much about the deletion/pronoun shift at the end of the verse, but note how "knowledge concerning him" in Alexandrinus is "knowledge concerning the truth" in Heirosolymitanus. That evokes 1Ti 2.4:

ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. (1Ti 2.4, NA27)
who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.(1 Ti 2:4, ESV)

Of course, there are some explanations for the Heirosolymitanus reading. της αληθειας echoes the earlier phrase, "father of the truth"; it could be a scribe's errant duplication of that phrase. But that doesn't necessarily account for the balance of changes, does it? The balance of the changes in this verse, I'd guess, force consideration of a deliberate change, not an errant one. That is, it seems to me the balance of the changes make the first change work. In that light, who knows which one is the better reading? In this case, we have the "majority rules" trump card — the Syriac witness supports Holmes' reading.

 I scanned the rest of the variants to see if there might be some gnostic vibe to the differences in Greek editions, but didn't see any. My guess is that Holmes (and Lake, and Lightfoot) is right.

But still interesting to think about nonetheless. It also goes to show why familiarity with period texts (in this case, Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament) helps so much when thinking about text-critical issues.

Posted by Rick Brannan

I blogged about this now nearly a month ago; in the end of the post I wrote:

I'd thought I would have to instead find the 1933 Tebtunis volume in a library somewhere, but this is so much better. I had to blog it quick; first so I could find the reference easily when I really want it later on; and secondly so y'all could be aware of it.

In the meantime, a friend went up to the library at Trinity Western, and he retrieved the information on P.Tebt 703 from the printed edition for me. I thought it would be 10 pages at most, consisting mainly of transcription and translation.

I was wrong.

The information on P.Tebt 703 runs for 36 pages. There are seven pages of background and discussion, followed by a six-part table of contents (!) before the transcription begins. Following the transcription is the standard translation/notes section that runs for 20 pages!

While there are some similarities in content between P.Tebt 703 and First Timothy and Titus, I think the jury is still out on them sharing genre. But if you're looking to study this, the information in the Tebtunis Papyri, Vol 3 Part 1, for P.Tebt 703, is well worth looking up and studying.

Posted by Rick Brannan

If you read many recent commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles (particularly Witherington, though Johnson and probably Towner and Marshall), and if you have read the section on First Timothy in Carson's New Testament Introduction and also in Frank Theilman's New Testament Theology, you've heard of P.Tebt. 703.

P.Tebt. 703 is one of the Tebtunis Papyri. It is a letter dated "after 208 BC". It is described as:

Copy of an official memorandum probably from the dioiketes to probably the oikonomos, giving instructions concerning agriculture, transport, royal revenues and monopolies, official correspondence, and behavior of royal officials.

Many folks look to P.Tebt. 703 as an example of a superior writing instructions to his lieutenant concerning administration of an area/group and see similarities with what Paul is writing to Timothy in First Timothy (and, similarly what Paul writes to Titus in the epistle to Titus).

I've been looking for a full translation of P.Tebt. 703 for a few days (well, thinking about looking) and this morning I finally remembered that I could hit APIS (Advanced Papyrological Information System) and probably find it pretty quickly. It's better than I'd thought. The APIS entry has images, verso and recto, of all the extant leaves of the letter along with summary description and translation.

I'd thought I would have to instead find the 1933 Tebtunis volume in a library somewhere, but this is so much better. I had to blog it quick; first so I could find the reference easily when I really want it later on; and secondly so y'all could be aware of it.

Posted by Rick Brannan

I happened across a book titled Epictetus and the New Testament by one Douglas Simmonds Sharp, published in 1914. The only copy I found was in Logos Bible Software's SeminaryLibrary.com. Actually, there is a copy in Google Books, but for some unknown reason it has restricted access (even though it was published in 1914). Anyway, on pp. 74-75, the following like word usages are listed: εμπλεκω and επιπλησσω. Here's the image I cropped from the book; I don't really have time to retype it (apologies for that):

I include it here because I thought it might be interesting to some; also because it serves as a mental note to evaluate at a later point when I do further work on similarities between the Pastorals and other contemporary literature (e.g. the Apostolic Fathers)

Posted by Rick Brannan

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

At SBL I finally managed to find a reasonably priced copy of Carl Joachim Classen’s Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament (Brill, 2000).  This book is a collection of papers and articles previously given and published.  His first two essays are useful on the question of the legitimacy of using categories of classical rhetoric in analyzing Paul’s letters.  Classen is a classicist rather than a biblical scholar so he brings a valuable perspective to the question.

 

The third essay is the one that directly concerns the Pastoral Epistles and is entitled, “A Rhetorical Reading of the Epistle to Titus.”  Though I differ from Classen on the structure of the letter, I benefitted from reading his analysis while working on my own.  He does conclude that the letter is carefully written (in contrast to many) and that the author did not follow the directions of any of the classical handbooks on rhetoric.  Any examination of the structure of Titus ought to interact with Classen.

 

(You can see my differences with Classen either by comparing his work with my monograph or a brief article, “Structure and Cohesion in Titus,” published in The Bible Translator 53:1 (Jan 2002):118-33.)

Posted by Ray Van Neste