PastoralEpistles.com

I have just recently read Phil Towner’s “Christology in the Letters to Timothy and Titus” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, edited by Richard Longenecker (Eerdmans, 2005).  Towner discusses the key Christological passages in the three letters interacting with recent scholarship and synthesizing the Christology found in each letter.  It is the sort of careful work we have come to expect from Towner and, therefore, is a good entry way into this area of study.  Towner continues (rightly I believe) to stress the fact that, while these letters have some significant commonality, they also have their distinct emphases.

Though I agree with most of the essay, for the sake of conversation I will here point out two smaller things I question.  The first has to do with discerning the background of some of the Christological language.  Discussing the “epiphany” language, Towner asserts,

“Undoubtedly … epiphany language must have been deliberately chosen to engage the dominant religious-political discourse of the day and to force a rethinking of these categories by the proclamation of God’s story in Hellenistic dress.” (225; emphasis mine)

I think this may be overstated.  Since, as Towner notes, this language appears in the Septuagint describing “Yahweh’s interventions in the world” then the use in the PE could arise for a number of reasons.  Towner mentions emperor worship elsewhere so I wonder if that is what he has in mind here.  I am not convinced that emperor worship is in view.  I want to be cautious when trying to establish specific background connections.

Secondly, Towner refers to Timothy’s “dwindling courage and lagging commitment” in 2 Timothy (238).  This is a common assertion, but I think it reads too much into 2 Timothy 1.  Simply because Paul calls on him to stir up his gift (1:6) does not mean he is failing.  The fact that Paul exhorts him not to be timid (1:6) or ashamed (1:8) does not mean that he is being these things.  It is, rather, what is to be expected by a father figure as he exhorts his “son” to face hardship well.  Paul is simply exhorting Timothy to “strap it on”, wade into the fray and take his lumps in the “good fight.”  The similarities between this letter and letters from commanding officers to their subordinates would seem to support my reading as well.

These are not major points in Towner’s essay, and as I noted the essay as a whole is very profitable.  These two points are ones I see in other essays so I raise my critique here to see if a profitable discussion might be raised.

Posted by Ray Van Neste

Roger Pearse (whose blog you really should be reading) has some questions on how αιρετικον ανθρωπον should be translated in Titus 3.10.

He lists a number of English translations (plus the Vulgate) and has some other discussion; but the meat of his question is:

The most natural English usage would appear to be ‘heretic’ or ‘heretical man’.  Why don’t we say so?  How would we translate this in a patristic text? The Vulgate does not hesitate to say “haereticum hominem” - “heretic man”.

A heretic is not necessarily a “divisive person”, after all.  The Greek word, surely, will relate more to the variety of belief in the philosophical schools (haereses) than to modern ecumenism, or indeed even to 4th and 5th century doctrinal debates?

It's been awhile since I've worked through the text of Titus, but I consulted my notes on this word instance from a few years back; here's what I wrote:

While the typical literal translation of αἱρετικός (hairetikos) seems to be factious, this word is somewhat difficult in that it is not a common word, and its meaning is not readily at hand for many readers. Thus I've translated as division-causing instead of the other seeming option, heretical. This is one who not only believes contrary to the sound teaching of Paul, but causes problems in the community by advancing his own heretical agenda (hence factious or division-causing).

Anyone else have ideas? If so, feel free to comment here or (better) head to Roger's blog and interact there.

Posted by Rick Brannan

Andreas Köstenberger blogs further on 1Ti 2.12 ("Was I Wrong on 1 Timothy 2:12?"), a section of scripture that he's done fairly intensive syntactical research on for his edited volume on Women in the Church (Amazon.com).

Do check it out.

Posted by Rick Brannan

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