PastoralEpistles.com

I've blogged about the phrasing found in this reference before, on ricoblog (here, here, here and here) and on the previous incarnation of PastoralEpistles.com (here).

It's the phrasing that intrigues me, "you will save both yourself and your hearers" because similar phrasing turns up in other writings (2Cl 15.1, IEph 16.1-2) as well.

Here's what I found in Hermas, Mandates 2.2 (27.2):

First, speak evil of no one, and do not enjoy listening to someone who does. Otherwise you, the listener, will be responsible for the sin of the one speaking evil, if you believe the slander which you have heard, for by believing it you yourself will hold a grudge against your brother. In this way you will become responsible for the sin of the one who speaks the evil.

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (377). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Similar, but not quite the same. But still interesting as it tries to explain how the listener falls under guilt of the speaker. Blogged here for posterity so I can find it again when I look into it next.

Posted by Rick Brannan

From Matthew Brook O'Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament (Amazon.com), p. 388:

It seems unlikely that by simply counting words it is possible to differentiate between authors. While a particular author may have a core or base vocabulary, as well as an affinity for certain words (or combination/collocation of words), there are many factors, for instance, age, further education, social setting, rhetorical purpose and so on, that restrict or expand this core set of lexical items. In spite of this, New Testament attribution studies and many commentaries (sadly, some rather recent ones at that) have placed considerable weight on counting the number of words found in one letter but not found in a group of letters assumed to be authentic. (O'Donnell, 388)

I can't tell you the times that I've read authorship discussions on the Pastorals in commentaries where the argument boils down to "read P.N. Harrison's Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, he got it right". This pawning the argument off on what is essentially a misdirected attempt at stylometry through hapax-legomena counting. Statistics are not easy to understand, and when someone makes a statistical case that sounds good it is easy to accept, point to, and never think about again. "So-and-so has all sorts of numbers, statistics, math and tables that I don't fully understand, so it must be right."

I'm not saying that all commentaries, monographs and such that dispute Pauline authorship do this. Some do not, and they are well worth reading because they're really wrestling with the stylistic issues. But if your reason for discounting Pauline authorship rests solely on comparative proportions of hapax legomena between two different slices of a corpus ... well, you're not standing on firm ground.

Posted by Rick Brannan

I have been very quiet on the PE front as I am now working on a project on the Bible and Spirituality.  However, I'd just like to mention a couple of news items.  First, my article "Women as Gossips and Busybodies? Another Look at 1 Timothy 5:13" will be published shortly in the Lexington Theological Quarterly.  Second, I shall shortly be returning to the PE as I shall be working on the notion of 'the good life' in the PE for the project.

Congratulations to my fellow contributors for news on projects they are engaged in.

Lloyd Pietersen

Posted by Lloyd Pietersen

I have just thumbed through the study notes on the Pastorals in the brand new NLT Study Bible (Amazon.com). The notes are written by Jon Laansma who teaches at Wheaton and did his PhD at the University of Aberdeen.

In the interest of full disclosure, two things could be thought to impinge on my judgment here. First, I know Jon and am working on a project with him. Second, I wrote the notes on the Pastorals for the ESV Study Bible (Amazon.com), which could be thought of as a competitor of this study Bible.

I was impressed with these study notes. They were thoughtful, clear and ample. Honestly, as I read, particularly the introductory material, I thought, “Wow! I hope my notes come across as well as these.” In brief compass Jon advocates Pauline authorship and situates the letters after the close of Acts (positions with which I agree). He describes 1 Timothy and Titus as similar to the mandatis principis and does not directly address the genre of 2 Timothy. He does a good job of briefly dispelling the idea that these letters are church manuals and points to their great concern for the gospel shaping life.

On 1 Timothy 2:11-15 there is an extended essay which describes three major positions without embracing any of the three.

These notes are well done. For me the only drawback is the use of the NLT for in depth study. I appreciate the NLT but for in depth study I encourage people to use a more literal translation. Jon's notes, however, are good resource for briefly explaining these letters.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

Reggie Kidd, a leading scholar on the Pastorals, has reflected on what the letter to Titus can say to us in an election year. 

You can also find a three part lecture series of his on the topic, “How Pauline are the Pastoral Epistles?” here.

(HT: James Grant)

Posted by Ray Van Neste

Apart from PastoralEpistles.com's own Perry Stepp, who has a volume on the Pastoral Epistles coming out in Smith & Helwys' Reading the New Testament series, Baker/Brazos has the following commentaries in queue for Fall 2008 and "sometime in 2009":

• The Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture: First and Second Timothy, Titus. George T. Montague, SM.
• Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible: The Pastoral Epistles with Philemon & Jude. Risto Saarinen.
• Paideia: First and Second Timothy and Titus. Christopher R. Hutson (scheduled for 2009, not on Baker's web site yet).

Anyone know of any other publishers releasing commentaries on the Pastorals?

Also, if you're a publisher and would like your Pastoral Epistles commentary (or any other related books) reviewed on this site, please contact us for information.

Posted by Rick Brannan

The Between Two Worlds blog has an interview with Andreas Köstenberger about 1Ti 2.12 [ESV]. Much of it has to do with Köstenberger's book, Women in the Church (Amazon.com).

Check it out.

Posted by Rick Brannan

Saint Augustine Press has published a new English translation of Thomas Aquinas’ Commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (pb., 222 pp).  The commentaries are actually lecture notes which are briefer than typical commentaries. However, this is a significant source for those involved in the academic study of these letters, precisely because so many of his concerns and our concerns are different.  This is C. S. Lewis’ point in urging us to read old books- to judge the balance of our concerns by comparison with the thoughts of those in previous days.

 

So far I have dipped into various places and have been intrigued.  Aquinas’ comments on 1 Timothy 2 will shock many modern readers.  He seems to have no problem with bishops being married in his discussion of 1Timothy 3.  One value of these notes is all the quotes from the OT, Apocrypha, and Greek philosophers which Aquinas supplies.  This could be a real help to those seeking background parallels.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

Yep, back on this horse again (see here). The pastor of the church I attend has begun a series on First Timothy. This week we were on 1Ti 1.3-9, but during the sermon I drifted a bit (not much, don't worry) to think about the intended recipient.

Many people say that First Timothy was written not really to Timothy, but primarily to the church in Ephesus. That is, there is so much in the letter that likely would've been elementary to Timothy (who had been Paul's right-hand man for years by this point) the only reason for it being in there is for Paul to communicate to the church at Ephesus what he had in store for them -- what Timothy was going to do -- so that Timothy would then be in the clear, authority-wise, to go ahead and do it. (Or something like that)

But, if you look at the overall structure of the grammar in the letter, particularly person/number quality of verbs, it really does sound like it was written to Timothy and not to a group that included Timothy as leader.

In church today, I realized (duh) that communication today is much different than communication in the early Christian era. I agree that Timothy likely knew what his job was, and what Paul expected him to do. But with Paul gone, and for all intents and purposes out of reliable, regular contact; what better form for Timothy to have with him then a letter that clearly, plainly spelled out what Timothy was to do in order to get the Ephesian church back in line?

While Timothy knew the task, what would he do when he was challenged, say, six months into the task, by the false-doctrine purveyors he was attempting to extricate from the church? He could re-consult the letter, and say, "No, Paul really does want me to do this. It really is important. It really is tough. But he's clear, this is what I'm to do."

This has much in common with P.Tebt.703 (and also here), which was a letter written from a superior to his lieutenant. In simple language it laid out clearly and plainly the expectations the superior has for his underling. The underling surely knew what he was supposed to do, but (as with First Timothy) the letter could also be consulted in the midst of the task to clarify or recall those long-since-forgotten (or at least hazily-remembered) instructions of the superior. After all, he couldn't send an email, make a phone call, or do a google search to remind himself.

I'm not saying this is exactly the sort of purpose for which First Timothy was written. But it does help me (at this point, anyway) make more sense of the grammar and tone of the letter which seems to say so many things that would be so obvious to Timothy, at least at the time of writing. I'll have to re-check some commentaries (particularly Witherington and Towner, which as I recall reference P.Tebt.703) to recall once again how the bring P.Tebt.703 into the discussion.

Posted by Rick Brannan