PastoralEpistles.com

First, on the Koinonia blog (Zondervan), Bill Mounce wrote on 1Ti 3.2 noting that there were four possibilities on how to translate μιας γυναικας ανδρα (the “one-woman man” or “husband of one wife”). Read the post, I won’t duplicate his four options here.

Today, Matthew Burgess on the Confessions of a Bible Junkie blog followed up with some nice tidbits on Mounce’s option 2, which sees the phrase as focused against polygamy. Check it out as well.

After logging in, be sure to visit all the options under Configuration in the Admin Menu Bar above. There are 26 themes to choose from, and you can also create your own.

 

[This is part of a running series on translating Second Timothy. See the introductory post for more information — RB]

Phrasing/Translation: 2Ti 1.15-18

¹⁵ Οἶδας τοῦτο,
¹⁵ You know this,
    ὅτι ἀπεστράφησάν με
    that they have turned away from me—
    πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ,
    all those in Asia,
            ὧν ἐστιν Φύγελος καὶ Ἑρμογένης.
            among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.

¹⁶ δῴη ἔλεος ὁ κύριος τῷ Ὀνησιφόρου οἴκῳ,
¹⁶ May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus,
    ὅτι πολλάκις με ἀνέψυξεν
    because many times he refreshed me.
    καὶ τὴν ἅλυσίν μου οὐκ ἐπαισχύνθη,
    He was not afraid of my chains,
    ¹⁷ ἀλλὰ γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ σπουδαίως ἐζήτησέν με καὶ εὗρεν·
    ¹⁷ but having arrived in Rome he diligently sought and found me.

¹⁸ δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος εὑρεῖν ἔλεος
¹⁸ May the Lord grant him to find mercy
    παρὰ κυρίου
    from the Lord
    ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ.
    on that day.

καὶ
And
    ὅσα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διηκόνησεν,
    of all the service he rendered in Ephesus,
βέλτιον σὺ γινώσκεις.
you are well aware.

Comments

Verse 15

Οἶδας τοῦτο] Runge (Discourse Grammar) labels this a “meta-comment”; from an epistolary form-critical perspective it may also be seen as an instance of the “disclosure formula” (e.g. Marshall). The idea of both approaches is to recognize that this is an instance where the author steps back from his default voice and exhorts the reader/hearer to pay attention to what follows because it is important. In this case, τοῦτο looks ahead to the content of the subordinate clause that immediately follows. Note also that Οἶδας is in the second person singular (that is, the referent would be the addressee, Timothy). Many think that this letter was written to a larger group, but grammatical cues such as this may argue against that notion.

ὅτι ἀπεστράφησάν με] subordinate clause, this is the content referenced by “know this”.

πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ] Here Paul more fully describes who was turning away from him. This is likely not a reference to everyone, everywhere in Asia, who was a Christian. It is more likely a reference to subordinates of Paul in Asia. This scope is clarified by the next comment, a relative clause that sharpens the scope of "all those in Asia".

ὧν ἐστιν Φύγελος καὶ Ἑρμογένης] Here Paul references two specific people, Phygelus and Hermogenes, among the group of “all those who are in Asia”. Because Paul goes to this level of detail here, it is likely that the previous reference is also a smaller group of people, not the mass of Asian Christendom.

Verse 16

δῴη ἔλεος ὁ κύριος] Here δῴη is the aorist optative of διδωμι. Occurrence of the optative is relatively rare in the NT, notable is use of the same verb (with same parsing) in verse 18 below.

ὅτι πολλάκις με ἀνέψυξεν] A subordinate clause, here providing the reason for Paul's wish that the Lord bestow mercy on the household of Onesiphorus: “because many times he refreshed me”.

καὶ] In the above translation, what is one sentence in the Greek I have split into two English sentences. As I read the verse at present, this καὶ marks the beginning of a new clause, where two parts are joined by αλλα and a comparison is made. In the English, this makes more sense as a separate sentence. This instance of καὶ is necessary in that it marks development of the previous clause, but it need not be “Englished” literally (“and”) as inserting a sentence break in the translation recognizes its function.

καὶ τὴν ἅλυσίν μου οὐκ ἐπαισχύνθη] As noted above, this clause (“He was not afraid of my chains”) is involved in a contrast with the clause that follows it. This portion is the “Counterpoint” (cf. Runge, Discourse Grammar), providing a platform for contrast with what follows.

Verse 17

ἀλλὰ γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ σπουδαίως ἐζήτησέν με καὶ εὗρεν] This is the “Point” of the contrasted pair, the item Paul desires to make prominent. Onesiphorus “sought and found” Paul instead of shying away because Paul was in prison.

γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ] Runge (Discourse Grammar) calls this a “nominative circumstantial frame”. This is when a participle is fronted before the primary verb of the clause, providing background to the current situation. Here the background is “having arrived in Rome”, which provides more background to the main action of the clause, “[Onesiphorus] sought and found me”.

Verse 18

δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος εὑρεῖν ἔλεος] Note the similarity with the first portion of v. 16 above. The verb is the same, the subject is the same (“May the Lord grant”). The one receiving is the same as well, in v. 16 it is “the house of Onesiphorus”, in v. 18 it is “him” (e.g., Onesiphorus). In v. 16 “mercy” is directly wished; in v. 18 it is wished for Onesiphorus to be able “to find mercy”. The wishes, however, are slightly different in that v. 18 has a more directly eschatological vibe to it. On this (optative, syntactic and lexical similarity) see Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 159.

παρὰ κυρίου] prepositional phrase, “from the Lord”, and according to the OpenText.org analysis is modifying (providing circumstance) to the infinitive εὑρεῖν (“to find”).

ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ] prepositional phrase, “in that day”. This as well modifies the infinitive εὑρεῖν, “to find”. Paul wishes that Onesiphorus, on that final day, will find mercy from the Lord. This prepositional phrase is doubly interesting with the use of the far demonstrative ἐκεῖνος, “that”, which creates some metaphoric distance between the present time (of the composition) and the time of “that day” (cf. Runge, Discourse Grammar). Secondly, the use of the article with ἡμέρᾳ could be seen and further stressing the nature of “that particular day”.

καὶ ὅσα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διηκόνησεν] “and of all the service he rendered in Ephesus”. The correlative pronoun indicates a comparison of sorts; Paul is reminding the reader(s) that Onesiphorus served well, and that the reader(s) know about it.

ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] A spatial frame (Runge, Discourse Grammar), the larger structure isn’t about Onesiphorus’ service in general, it is specifically about the service he rendered in Ephesus. Also, ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ is a great blog you should really have in your blog reader.

βέλτιον σὺ γινώσκεις] Note the verb here (γινώσκεις, “you know”) is also second person singular, modified by the adverb βέλτιον (only here in the NT). The pronoun σὺ is also second person. As the second person reference is grammaticalized in the verb itself, the existence of the pronoun could be seen to be emphatic, making the second person reference all the more prominent. The referent here is Timothy. Also worthy of note is how this set of verses begins with “you know this” (v. 15) and ends with “you are well aware”. A semantic chain (on semantic chains, cf. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure) of knowing/being aware may be indicated, with vocabulary of cognition beginning and ending the section.

All in all, Onesiphorus’ example has been held up as worthy to Timothy; this in juxtaposition with the information that several in Asia have left Paul. The offshoot is to be like Onesiphorus, do not be like Phygelus and Hermogenes and those who are with them.

[This is part of a running series on translating Second Timothy. See the introductory post for more information — RB]

Phrasing/Translation: 2Ti 1.13-14

¹³ Ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων
¹³ Hold to the standard of sound words
    ὧν παρʼ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας
    which you have heard from me
    ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ
    in faith and love
        τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·
        which are in Christ Jesus.

¹⁴ τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον
¹⁴ Guard the good deposit
    διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου
    through the Holy Spirit
        τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος
        who dwells
            ἐν ἡμῖν.
            in us.

Comments

Verse 13

Ὑποτύπωσιν] See 1Ti 1.16. The above translation takes Ὑποτύπωσιν as the object, which (cf. Marshall 712) seems best. In both v. 13 and v. 14 the object is fronted in the clause, creating a topical frame (cf. Runge, Discourse Grammar). This introduces new information, new participants, or a new concept to the discourse in such a way as to draw attention to it.

ἔχε] imperative. Note also that the predicator in the following verse is an imperative. Also note the basic pattern of both verses: Object-Verb-Adjunct.

ὑγιαινόντων λόγων] "sound words" or "healthy words", this is a concept unique to the Pastoral Epistles.

ὧν παρʼ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας] relative clause. Here Paul takes responsibility for providing the "standard of sound words"

ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ] prepositional phrase. This functions adverbially, providing circumstance to ἔχε ("hold to"). It further describes in what way Timothy is to hold to the standard of sound words.

τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·] Here the article τῇ functions like a pronoun, the structure is like a relative clause. It tells us where the faith and love of the previous prepositional phrase come from.

Verse 14

τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην] fronted object, creating a topical frame (see comment on v. 13 above).

τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον] "guard the good deposit". Note that "deposit" was used earlier in 2Ti 1.12 with the same verb, "guard": "he is quite capable to guard my deposit". Similar language is also in 1Ti 6.20, also see Did 4.13 and EpBarn 19.11. The "deposit" in 1&2 Timothy is Paul's teaching, the true teaching (sound words, healthy doctrine) which is the antidote to the false teaching that Timothy finds himself combating in Ephesus.

διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου] prepositional phrase, functioning adverbially. This provides further circumstance to the verb, "guard". The Holy Spirit, in some unspecified manner, helps with the guarding of the deposit.

τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν] participle clause functioning as relative clause, note the embedded prepositional phrase. This gives further information about the Holy Spirit. The "Holy Spirit who dwells in us" is who assists with the guarding of the deposit.

[This is part of a running series on translating Second Timothy. See the introductory post for more information — RB]

Phrasing/Translation: 2Ti 1.8-12

⁸ μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν
⁸ And so do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord,
    μηδὲ ἐμὲ τὸν δέσμιον αὐτοῦ,
    or of me his prisoner,
ἀλλὰ συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ
but suffer together with me for the gospel
    κατὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ,
    according to the power of God,
        ⁹ τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ,
        ⁹ who saved us and called us with a holy calling,
            οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν
            not according to our works
            ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν,
            but according to his own purpose and grace,
                τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν
                which has been granted to us
                    ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
                    in Christ Jesus
                    πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,
                    from times eternal,
                ¹⁰ φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν
                ¹⁰ and now has been revealed
                    διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
                    through the appearance of our Savior Christ Jesus,
                    καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον
                    who indeed abolished death
                    φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν
                    and brought to light life and immortality
                        διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
                        through the gospel
                            ¹¹ εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδάσκαλος,
                            ¹¹ into which I was appointed herald and apostle and teacher.

¹² διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω·
¹² For this reason I also suffer these things,
ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι,
but I am not ashamed,
    οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα
    for I know whom I have believed
    καὶ πέπεισμαι
    and I am convinced
        ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι
        that he is quite capable to guard my deposit
            εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν.
            until that day.

Comments

Verse 8

οὖν] Typically translated "therefore", this usually relies on preceding context and signals a shift to distillation of a principle or inference (cf. Runge, LDGNT Glossary, "principle"). Thus, based on vv. 6-7, the action specified in v. 8 is appropriate.

μὴ .. μηδὲ] "not ... neither". Note the negation structure. "Do not be ashamed of ... neither [be ashamed of] ..." Several times, negatives will point to an upcoming contrast. This portion sets one side of the contrast ("Don't be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, neither [be ashamed of] me his prisoner"); it will be contrasted with the item that Paul desires to make prominent.

ἀλλὰ] "but", specifying the second portion (thus the more prominent portion of) the contrast. Instead of being ashamed (thus denying or ignoring) the testimony of the Lord; instead of being ashamed of Paul, Paul invites Timothy to join with him to "suffer together with me" for the gospel.

κατὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ] prepositional phrase, reminding of the power given by God, stated in v. 7 above.

Verse 9

τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ] participial clause functioning like a relative clause with immediately previous θεοῦ (God) as antecedent; "who saved us and called us with a holy calling".

οὐ κατὰ .. ἀλλὰ κατὰ] here prepositional phrases are contrasted with some correction. In this extended structure (based on a relative clause), Paul reminds Timothy that God does not call based on one's own works but instead calls "according to his own purpose and grace". As such, this is somewhat reminiscent of Titus 3.5.

τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν] another participial clause, again functioning like a relative clause ("which has been granted to us") which takes preceding "grace" as antecedent. This is followed by two prepositional phrases, each providing further circumstance to the action "being granted".

Verse 10

φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν] φανερωθεῖσαν (has been revealed) matches the preceding δοθεῖσαν (has been granted). Note also the temporal contrast between the preceding "from times eternal" with the current "now". Here δὲ is the hinge of the contrast, and as with other contrasts, the second portion (after δὲ) is the more prominent/salient. The grace had been granted from times eternal, but now it has been revealed. This is followed by a prepositional phrase providing circumstance to how the revealing has taken place.

καταργήσαντος μὲν .. φωτίσαντος δὲ] a somewhat standard μὲν/δὲ structure, again highlighting contrast, this time between death and "life and immortality". Again, note how "life and immortality" are highlighted by the structure.

διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου] prepositional phrase, modifying the previous participle (brought to light ... through the gospel)

Verse 11

εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ] prepositional phrase with relative clause as its object, "into which I was appointed". This is referencing the gospel (cf. Marshall). Also see 1Ti 2.7, which has similar language.

Verse 12

διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν] In the translation, I've rendered this as starting a new sentence, even though NA27 punctuation does not indicate this. Here I follow Marshall (Pastoral Epistles (ICC), p. 708). The repeated transitional phrase (cf. 2Ti 1.6) is to attractive to me and I can't ignore it, particularly since I see this as the end of a minor section/clause group. The repetition of the same phrase from verse 6, plus the reactivation of the concept of suffering (cf. 2Ti 1.8, "don't be ashamed ... but suffer together with me") speak for this reading, from my perspective.

ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι] "but I am not ashamed" another contrast with ἀλλὰ; here again recalling vocabulary from 2Ti 1.8 (v. 8 μὴ ἐπαισχυνθῇς). Unlike v. 8, here not being ashamed is actually the salient part.

οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα] "for I know whom I have believed", here offering support for the position of not being ashamed. After the declaration of not being ashamed, Paul explains further why he is not ashamed.

[This is part of a running series on translating Second Timothy. See the introductory post for more information — RB]

Phrasing/Translation: 2Ti 1.6-7

⁶ Διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀναμιμνῄσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ,
⁶ For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God,
   ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ
   which is in you
       διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου.
       through the laying on of my hands.

⁷ οὐ γὰρ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς
⁷ For God has not given us
   πνεῦμα δειλίας
   a spirit of cowardice
ἀλλὰ δυνάμεως
but of power
   καὶ ἀγάπης
   and love
    καὶ σωφρονισμοῦ.
   and self-discipline.

Comments

[Note: whether all comments will be formatted like this, of this nature, or of similar depth is unknown. I'm just writing about what I see at the time. — RB]

Verse 6

Διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν] points back to the previous section.

ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ] a relative clause. The antecedent is "the gift of God", this further defines the "gift of God".

διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου] a prepositional phrase, functioning adverbially to provide further circumstance to the primary verb (ἐστιν) of the clause. Thus the prepositional phrase describes how the gift of God came to be in/with Timothy: through the agency of Paul's "laying on of hands". On "laying on of hands", see also 1Ti 4.14.

Verse 7

γὰρ] Indicates this clause offers support or strengthens the current argument (preceding discourse). Cf. Runge Discourse Grammar. Paul is offering support (strengthening his argument) for his reminder of verse 6, for Timothy to "rekindle his gift".

γὰρ .. ἀλλὰ .. ] Statements using ἀλλὰ involve the contrasting of two options, with the emphasized or more important (more salient) option in the second place, following ἀλλὰ.* The second option corrects or replaces the first option. In this instance, Paul uses the strawman of the spirit God didn't give ("a spirit of cowardice") to contrast the spirit God did give: one of power, love and self-discipline. This is what Paul wants Timothy to hear: The "spirit" that both he and Timothy have is one of power, love and self-discipline; it is not one of cowardice. This sets up where Paul next goes in verse 8.

---

* I've written extensively on the discourse function of ἀλλὰ, see particularly this paper for background, definitions and conclusions.

[This is part of a running series on translating Second Timothy. See the introductory post for more information — RB]

Phrasing/Translation: 2Ti 1.1-5

¹ Παῦλος
¹ Paul
    ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
    an apostle of Christ Jesus
        διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ
        through the will of God
        κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς
        according to the promise of life
            τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
            which is in Christ Jesus.
² Τιμοθέῳ ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ,
² To Timothy, my beloved son.

χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη
Grace, mercy, peace 
    ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.
    from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

³ Χάριν ἔχω τῷ θεῷ,
³ I offer thanks to God,
    ᾧ λατρεύω ἀπὸ προγόνων ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει,
    whom I serve (as did my forebears) with a clear conscience,
    ὡς ἀδιάλειπτον ἔχω τὴν περὶ σοῦ μνείαν
    as I have constant memories of you
    ἐν ταῖς δεήσεσίν μου νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας,
        in my prayers night and day,
        ⁴ ἐπιποθῶν σε ἰδεῖν,
        ⁴ longing to see you,
            μεμνημένος σου τῶν δακρύων,
            remembering your tears,
            ἵνα χαρᾶς πληρωθῶ,
            so that I might be filled with joy,
        ⁵ ὑπόμνησιν λαβὼν τῆς ἐν σοὶ ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως,
        ⁵ having recollections of your sincere faith,
            ἥτις ἐνῴκησεν
            which dwelt
                πρῶτον ἐν τῇ μάμμῃ σου Λωΐδι καὶ τῇ μητρί σου Εὐνίκῃ,
                first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice,
                πέπεισμαι δὲ
                and now I have been convinced
                    ὅτι καὶ ἐν σοί.
                    that it also [dwells] in you.

About the Phrasing/Translation section

The phrasing/translation section is intended to give a feel of the structure and flow of the section without necessarily completely and consistently documenting relationships between each portion. Indentations typically indicate clauses that are in some way subordinate to or dependent on the clause that precedes (or, in some cases, follows); but the indentation also represents prepositional phrases. Many of these are judgment calls and could be interpreted at least one more way. For example, the conglomeration of infinitive and participial clauses in verses 3-5 could be represented a few different ways — and it is, just check Mounce, Marshall and Knight; then look at OpenText.org, and after that check out the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament (LDGNT).

The translation portion is largely dependent on a previous translation I did in 2003 or 2004, though I will be making some changes to the translation along the way. Even the translation that ends up here is not final. I'll be revisiting it (particularly the rendering of connectives) later if/when I begin to write about the discourse structure of the letter (my ultimate goal).

The sections themselves will be (largely) taken from Ray Van Neste's work, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles, with some extra secret sauce from Runge's LDGNT and OpenText.org.

Of course, one reason for putting this work on this blog is for feedback. Depending on the busy-ness of my schedule I may or may not respond directly, but I will read and consider it. So please do feel free to comment.

I think I'm going to begin something that I may or may not finish. I always hesitate announcing a new "series" because I may never finish the series. But, I find myself thinking about Second Timothy now, and thinking about an analysis and discussion of the text.

One initial step I take in thinking about a text is to translate it. But I don't just translate, I also think about the structure of the text. When I did this for the Didache awhile back, I ended up with what I called a "Phrasal Interlinear". I'm starting the same thing with Second Timothy. I may or may not finish. (Update: Finished on May 3, 2009.) The good news is that I already translated Second Timothy five or six years ago, though it needs some work.

Posts

• Second Timothy 1.1-5
• Second Timothy 1.6-7
• Second Timothy 1.8-12
• Second Timothy 1.13-14
• Second Timothy 1.15-18
• Second Timothy 2.1-7
• Second Timothy 2.8-13
• Second Timothy 2.14-21
• Second Timothy 2.22-26
• Second Timothy 3.1-5
• Second Timothy 3.6-9
• Second Timothy 3.10-13
• Second Timothy 3.14-17
• Second Timothy 4.1-8
• Second Timothy 4.9-13
• Second Timothy 4.14-15
• Second Timothy 4.16-18
• Second Timothy 4.19-22

Consulted Resources

I'd be stupid not to consult existing resources for this sort of thing. And there are many. Here are a few of the best. Thankfully, I have all of these (except for Comfort's new textual commentary) in Logos Bible Software.

Texts

Runge, Steven. The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. Logos Bible Software. (Uses UBS4 text as primary, includes in-context glosses from the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament)

Porter, O'Donnell, Reed, Tan. The OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament: Clause Analysis. Logos Bible Software.

Commentaries

Knight, George. Pastoral Epistles (Amazon.com) (NIGTC). Eerdmans.

Marshall, I. Howard. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Amazon.com). T&T Clark.

Mounce, William. Pastoral Epistles (Amazon.com) (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 46). Thomas Nelson

Towner, Philip. The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Amazon.com) (NICNT). Eerdmans

Lexicons

BDAG, LSJ, Louw Nida.

Monographs

Van Neste, Ray. Structure and Cohesion in the Pastoral Epistles (Amazon.com). Sheffield Academic.

Text-Critical Material

NA27 apparatus

Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Amazon.com). Tyndale.

Metzger, Bruce W. Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Amazon.com). United Bible Societies

One of the catchword arguments that P.N. Harrison uses in his book The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (Amazon.com) has to do with how Paul usually expresses thanks. Here's Harrison:

In expressing his thankfulness to God, Paul consistently uses the word ευχαριστεω (Ro 1.8; 1Co 1.4; 2Co 1.11; Eph 1.16; 5.20; Php 1.3; Col 1.3; 1Th 1.2; 2Th 1.3; 2.13; Phm 4); this author never writes that word, but uses instead the Latinism χαριν εχω (= gratiam habeo) 1Ti 1.12; 2Ti 1.3. (Harrison, 28-29)

I've always been intrigued by this. First, because Harrison assumes his conclusion in the first sentence where he mentions what "Paul consistently uses"; second because he's right about the discrepancy (not Pauline authorship). The Pastorals don't use ευχαριστεω in thanksgiving sections, other Paulines do.

Why bring this up? This morning I began digging back into my translation of Second Timothy, and I ran into 2Ti 1.3, where χαριν εχω is used. And I have a few thoughts on this now.

Some of Harrison's cited instances (Eph 1.16; 5.20) use ευχαριστεω as a participle in a series of modifications, not as the primary verb. His 2Co 1.11 instance may implicitly refer to God as receiving the thanks, but is doesn't explicitly state it. And note that 2Th 1.3; 2.13 use ευχαριστεω as an infinitive, modifying the verb οφειλομεν. Again, not an exact syntactic parallel for the phenomenon under discussion. Note also that Harrison missed 1Co 14.18, which should be added to his list.

Of course, I'd suppose that Harrison (and others) would see these as evidence that Ephesians and Second Thessalonians aren't Pauline either. In any case, the are not direct examples of the phenomenon he is trumpeting, so they shouldn't be listed as evidence for or against his lexical/syntactic argument here.

In the non-Pastorals usage at the head of thanksgiving sections, ευχαριστεω always takes "God" as its complement: "I give thanks to God". More specifically, it is ευχαριστεω τω θεω. In 1Ti 1.12, it is not "God" that Paul thanks with χαριν εχω, it is "the one who has empowered me, Christ Jesus our Lord". Still in the dative, but not quite apples-to-apples.

But that still leaves 2Ti 1.3, which has χαριν εχω τω θεω (compare to ευχαριστεω τω θεω in Ro 1.8; 1Co 1.4; 14.18; Php 1.3; Col 1.3; 1Th 1.2; Phm 4). This is actually Harrison's stronger counterexample (though he doesn't mention it).

My thoughts? Well, εχω (present active indicative first-person) + dative is not unknown in Paul (Ro 12.4; 15.17; 1Co 2.16; 7.25; 8.1; 9.4, 5, 6, 17; 11.16; 12.21; 2Co 3.4; 4.7; Gal 6.10; Eph 1.7; 2.18; 3.12; Col 1.14; 2.1; 2Th 3.9), so it is a structure that Paul could've used. I haven't examined these instances so I don't know exactly what contexts they occur in, if they take references to the deity as complements, etc.

But one interesting item that comes up is Luke 12.50 (yes, Luke). I've always been enamored with the theory that Luke was Paul's amanuensis for the Pastorals, and that his role may have even been closer to co-author. Luke 12.50 is as follows:

NA27: βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχω βαπτισθῆναι καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως ὅτου τελεσθῇ
ESV: I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!

This is mildly interesting to me because the same thing could be said a different way. In fact, it is said a different way in Mark 10.38:

NA27: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε. δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι;
ESV: Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

In other words, in Luke's rewrite of this idea (sure, I think Luke used Mark as source (cf. Lu 1.1-2), but I also think Q is a load of hooey) he uses "I have a baptism" instead of "I am baptized". He uses an εχω construction instead of the plain verb.

I realize it's a reach built on next to nothing, but hey, this is a blog post so why not? Could Luke have done the same thing with Paul's words? Paul says ευχαριστεω τω θεω; Luke writes χαριν εχω τω θεω. Same idea, same stuff being communicated, just a different way of doing it. As Witherington posits, it's the voice of Paul but the hand of Luke.

I've always seen the amanuensis argument (whether it is Luke or not) as a strong one in favor of Pauline authorship/responsibility because we know that Paul uses an amanuensis in other letters. Many of the "style" arguments that seem so valid in challenging Paul's authorship can probably be seen (I'd say better seen) as pointing to different amanuensis situations, not to mention different roles of the amanuensis, influence of listed (and perhaps unlisted) co-authors, genre and the target of the letter.

Anyway, this is too long and I've gotta go. Perhaps more on this later (but perhaps not).

[NB: Cross-posted from my personal blog, ricoblog. — RB]

In a post on my personal blog I threatened to do some comparisons between Comfort, Metzger, Omanson's rewrite of Metzger and (where applicable) Westcott & Hort's "Notes on Selected Passages". First, the list of books:

• Comfort: New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Amazon.com) (Tyndale, 2008)
• Omanson: A Textual Guide to the New Testament (Amazon.com) (German Bible Society, 2006) This is a "geared towards translators" edition of Metzger's Textual Commentary.
• Metzger: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (Amazon.com) (United Bible Societies, 1994)
• NET: NA27/NET Diglot (Amazon.com) (Biblical Studies Press, 2004). I realize that the non-diglot NET has more notes and may have greater coverage, but the diglot is the only edition I have to hand at present.
• Westcott & Hort: The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction and Appendix (Amazon.com) (Vol. 2). (MacMillan & Co., 1896)

In this post, I'll provide a list of readings covered in the book of First Timothy. I may expand upon some of the readings in subsquent posts. In this list, the following abbreviations are used: C = Comfort; O = Omanson; M = Metzger; NET = NET Bible TC notes; WH = Westcott & Hort

• 1Ti 1.1: C O M NET
• 1Ti 1.4a: C O M
• 1Ti 1.4b: C O M NET WH
• 1Ti 1.12: C
• 1Ti 1.15: O M
• 1Ti 1.17a: C O M
• 1Ti 1.17b: C M NET
• 1Ti 2.1: C O M
• 1Ti 2.7a: C O M NET
• 1Ti 2.7b: C
• 1Ti 3.1 segmentation: O
• 1Ti 3.1: C M WH
• 1Ti 3.3: C M
• 1Ti 3.16 segmentation: O
• 1Ti 3.16: C O M NET WH
• 1Ti 4.3: WH
• 1Ti 4.10: C O M NET
• 1Ti 4.12: C M
• 1Ti 5.4: C
• 1Ti 5.5: C
• 1Ti 5.16: C O M NET
• 1Ti 5.18: C O M
• 1Ti 5.19: M WH
• 1Ti 5.21: C
• 1Ti 6.3: C M
• 1Ti 6.5: C O M NET
• 1Ti 6.7: C O M NET WH
• 1Ti 6.9: C O M
• 1Ti 6.13: C O M NET
• 1Ti 6.17: C O M
• 1Ti 6.19: C O M
• 1Ti 6.21a: C O M NET
• 1Ti 6.21b: C O M
• 1Ti subscription: C M

Interesting standouts: First, Comfort's coverage is most thorough in number of variations handled. Outside of the "segmentation" issues only noted by Omanson, Comfort misses 1Ti 1.15; 4.3; 5.19. These are areas that are of some text-critical interest, but not necessarily where differences arise in translation. Items that Comfort alone handles include 1Ti 1.12; 2.7b; 5.4, 5, 21.

Westcott and Hort don't intend to be comprehensive (they only have 140 pages for the whole NT), but it is interesting that in 2 of the 5 places they show up, Comfort is silent: 1Ti 4.3; 5.19. The discussion in 1Ti 5.19 is about how a phrase in the Greek text is not found in some extant Latin witnesses. In the case of 1Ti 4.3, it is simply difficult extant text. While these are issues, it is pretty obvious that these sorts of things don't really fit the target that Comfort (and Omanson) are trying to hit. W&H give text-critical information to text critics; Comfort and Omanson translate the text-critical information for a larger audience. Metzger sort of sits in the middle of both.

I may dig further into some of these, particularly those that have examples in every listed source (perhaps 1Ti 1.4b or 1Ti 6.7? 1Ti 3.16 is so well-known as to be over-analyzed), just to compare the level of discussion and style of notes each edition has. Let me know if you're interested in that sort of thing.

David Downs has provided a helpful review of Aageson, James W.Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church at Review of Biblical Literature.

I recently received a review copy of the Scofield Study Bible released in recognition of the 100^th anniversary of the first publication of this study Bible (in 1909).  Though I am not a dispensationalist, one must acknowledge the impressive impact the Scofield Study Bible has had in its time.

My point here though is to note, with disappointment, that the study Bible still lists “Church Order” as the “Theme” of 1Timothy and Titus.  The notes in these letters are quite dated even in this update.

While at SBL I discovered the Blackwell Bible Commentaries series and picked up a review copy of one volume, The Pastoral Epistles Through the Centuries, by Jay Twomey.  This is a fascinating series.  According to the “Series Editors’ Preface:

The Blackwell Bible Commentaries series, the first to be devoted primarily to the reception history of the Bible, is based on the premise that how people have interpreted, and been influenced by, a sacred text like the Bible is often as interesting and historically important as what it originally meant.

The commentaries then do not seek to expound the text but to reveal how the texts have been understood and used.   I don’t know any other source that provides this in as extensive a manner.  We do have commentary series that survey patristic writers or reformation writers, but this series samples more broadly taking in general literature as well as explicitly theological writings.  Thus, in the Pastorals volume Twomey interacts with Chrysostom and Calvin but also Cervantes and Chaucer.

 

So far I have found this volume to be very interesting.  I will look to comment more in the future as I get further into the book.  This whole series will be one to watch.

Perhaps one of the most controversial (and therefore most written-upon) passages of First Timothy is 1Ti 2.12.

The blog Evangelical Textual Criticism today points to a recent article by Philip Payne, "1Ti 2.12 and the Use of ουδε to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea". This is from New Testament Studies 54 (2008): 235-253.

Check out the article. I've not read it yet so don't have much more to report. I do note, however, that the function of αλλα (something I've recently written about) apparently plays some sort of role in Payne's discussion, though he looks to focus more on ουδε.

Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemics in 1Timothy 2:1-7, Malcolm Gill

(Peter Lang, 2008), pb., 196 pp.

This is the published version of a PhD dissertation done at Dallas Theological Seminary. Gill’s main thesis is that 1Timothy 2:1-7 should be read as a polemic against the claim of Roman Emperor’s to be the “mediator” between the gods and humans. 

Much has been written in recent years about the impact of the imperial cult on the New Testament, and Gill seeks to apply this to 1Timothy.  In doing this he surveys the research previously done on the prominence of the imperial cult in Asia Minor (chapter 2) and investigates the possible backgrounds of the word mesites, translated as “mediator” in 1 Tim 2:5 (chapter 4).

I think one of the more useful parts of this book is his survey of research on the imperial cult in Asia Minor.  However, I found myself unconvinced by the overall thesis.  Gill argues for a Graeco-Roman background to the passage and its key vocabulary and against Jewish background.  His arguments seem forced at places.   I found myself more taken with the opposite argument put forward in a recent PhD dissertation done at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by Chuck Hetzler titled, “Our Savior and King: Theology Proper in 1 Timothy.”  Though unaware of Gill’s work (since it has just appeared), Hetzler provides more compelling evidence for Old Testament context for the vocabulary used of God in 1 Timothy.  I hope Hetzler’s work will soon appear in published form so others can compare the arguments.

Gill’s book could have used another round of editing as well.  It had numerous surveys of options which did not always contribute to the point of the argument.  Also there were very many errors from spelling, to missing words, wrong words, etc.  This detracted from the work.

There are only four volumes (that I know of) in this series, and two of those are Quinn & Wacker's work on 1&2 Timothy (Amazon.com). Wacker was Quinn's student, as I understand it, and he finished the commentary after Quinn's passing.

I finally got around to getting this set because it is now available in Logos Bible Software format, in the Eerdmans Critical Commentary (4 vols) collection.

I haven't been exactly thrilled with Quinn's work on Titus, though I do greatly appreciate the copious patristic references he makes in that volume. I'm hoping for similar density of references in these volumes.

Thanks to the great folks at Baker Academic / Brazos Press for a review copy of this book.

Hot off the press, this is Risto Saarinen's work on the Pastorals, Philemon and Jude for the Brazos Theological Commentary of the Bible series published by Brazos Press. Perry Stepp will be posting about this one, so keep your eyes peeled in the upcoming weeks.

For more information on the book, here's the back cover copy:

The Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible enlists leading theologians to read and interpret scripture creedally for the twenty-first century, just as the church fathers, the Reformers, and other orthodox Christians did for their times and places. The Pastoral Epistles with Philemon & Jude (Amazon.com) is the seventh volume in the series. This commentary, like each in the series, is designed to serve the church--through aid in preaching, teaching, study groups, and so forth--and demonstrate the continuing intellectual and practical viability of theological interpretation of the Bible.

"Risto Saarinen's commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Jude (Amazon.com) does an excellent job of mediating the insights of recent large-scale works in a readable exposition that concentrates on theology, bringing in from time to time the contributions of such expositors as Chrysostom and Calvin. Helpful appendices and excursuses break new ground in situating the letters within the context of ancient teachings on moderation, mental disorders, and generosity, and the author's background in Scandinavian Lutheranism affords a fresh perspective. Saarinen is not uncritical of what he sees as the Pastor's misogynism and argues that following literally his tendency to accommodate church practice to contemporary social standards may achieve today the opposite effect from what was intended. His hermeneutical approach in terms of theological subjects and elucidatory predicates offers a fresh entry into the teaching of Jude. This is a stimulating study that helpfully and sympathetically challenges some traditionalist approaches without being the last word on the subject."—I. Howard Marshall, University of Aberdeen

Here's a brief table of contents:

First Timothy

Introductory Part (1Ti 1.1-20)
Worship, Life, and Order in the Church (1Ti 2.1-3.16)
Instructions for the Pastoral Work of Timothy (1Ti 4.1-6.2)
True and False Teachers (1Ti 6.3-21)

Second Timothy

Opening of the Letter (2Ti 1.1-5)
Witness and Suffering in the Footsteps of Paul (2Ti 1.6-2.13)
False Teachers and Their Conduct (2Ti 2.14-3.9)
Concluding Advice to Timothy (2Ti 3.10-4.22)

Titus

Appointment of Elders in Crete (Titus 1.1-16)
Virtues among Christians (Titus 2.1-15)
Good Works in the Society (Titus 3.1-15)

Philemon

Jude

Thanks again to Baker/Brazos!

Thanks again to Baker Academic who provided a copy of George T. Montague, SM's First and Second Timothy, Titus (Amazon.com); which is part of Baker's new Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series.

I've had a chance to poke around the book and must say I'm impressed. This commentary is designed to be used, and that's refreshing. Here is a list, in no particular order, of some of the features of the print book.

• The translation used is the New American Bible (NAB), which is what one would expect for a Catholic commentary.
• Cross References. Each translation section is followed by cross references—to the Old Testament, the New Testament, and also to the Catholic Catechism (by topic and page, as shown below). References to the Lectionary (and also the "Lectionary (Byzantine)") are also made, where applicable.

• Sidebars. There are Biblical Background sidebars and Living Tradition sidebars that frequently occur throughout the text. These bring to light different sorts of background information (literary, cultural, historical, theological) and highlight portions of later non-canonical writings (Apostolic Fathers, other Greek & Latin fathers.
• Pictures and Maps. There are pictures. This is great for a commentary; one example is a picture of the theatre in Ephesus. Another is a picture of Schøyen MS 2649 (portions of a scroll of Leviticus that is actually relatively legible) in the context of 2Ti 4.13, "... bring me the scrolls and parchments". These sorts of things bring the setting into view of the reader and make the whole exercise a little more real.
• Reflection and Application. At the end of each commentary section is another section titled "Reflection and Application". Here all sorts of things may be discussed, the primary task seems to be to discuss the text in the context of the present. For instance, the portion on 1Ti 2.5-7, "For there is one mediator between God and men ..." discusses the Catholic practice of invoking saints in prayer, particularly Mary.
• Glossary. There is a short glossary at the back; words in the text that occur in the glossary have a dagger† next to them. The entries are short and generally helpful (though the definition for "aorist" is not good at all, equating it with the simple past tense).
• Indexes. There are two indices, one "Index of Pastoral Topics" and another "Index of Sidebars". A reference index would be nice, if only to catch the section cross-references in one easy-to-consult place. It would've also been nice to have an index with the mounds of references to writings of the Fathers and the catechism and lectionary references.
• Greek Words. Greek words, where directly discussed, are in transliteration throughout. It would've been nice to have an index to the Greek words as well.

In short, I love the features of the book and the way it is put together.

If you're Catholic and you're studying the Pastoral Epistles, this is a no-brainer: buy the book now (Amazon.com), particularly if you're not looking for some deep academic tome. If you are Catholic and looking for a deep academic tome, you still want to buy it (Amazon.com) (and probably Fiore (Amazon.com), too).

If you're not Catholic but you're studying the Pastoral Epistles, I'd use another commentary as a primary (pick one: Towner (Amazon.com), Witherington (Amazon.com), Mounce (Amazon.com), Knight (Amazon.com)), but I'd consider getting Montague's CCSS volume (Amazon.com) simply because it is a good alternate view at understanding and applying the text.

This is Benjamin Fiore's The Pastoral Epistles (Amazon.com) in the Sacra Pagina series. The review is available on RBL, of course. On authorship, Fiore thinks the Pastorals are pseudonymous, dated between 80-90 (largely because he sees the ecclesiology of the Pastorals as somewhere between so-called 'genuine' Paulines and Ignatius).

I've read Fiore's introduction and parts of the commentary; overall it is good though is presuppositions do flavor the commentary. As with anything, it is best to read critically.

The primary reason I'd purchased Fiore (last year at SBL) was to get a specifically Catholic commentary on the Pastorals. Since then, Baker Academic has published Montague's volume on the Pastorals for the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Amazon.com) series. If you're looking for a volume on the Pastorals written from a Catholic perspective, I'd recommend Montague (Amazon.com) over Fiore (Amazon.com).

The good folks at Baker Academic have sent along a hot-off-the-presses copy of First and Second Timothy, Titus (Amazon.com), from the newly-commenced commentary series Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. The text of the NAB (New American Bible) is provided in the commentary.

If you're unfamiliar with the series, a video overview is available on the series web site.

There are excerpts from the book on Baker Academic's web site (here, here and here); there is a 16-page discussion guide designed for "Personal Reflection or Small Group Study". This is cool stuff; Baker should be commended for putting together the whole package on the book's web page.

Most of the blurbs in the front matter and back cover are about the series, not the book. Here's the book blurb from BakerAcademic.com:

George Montague offers a Catholic pastoral commentary on the letters to Timothy and Titus in the second volume in the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (CCSS). He presents sound exegesis followed by reflection on the pastoral, theological, and practical applications of the text.

Here's the blurb from Amazon.com (Amazon.com):

In the second volume of the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (CCSS), George Montague offers a Catholic pastoral commentary on the letters to Timothy and Titus, presenting sound exegesis followed by reflection on the pastoral, theological, and practical applications of the text. The CCSS offers readable, informative commentaries from the best of contemporary Catholic scholarship to help readers rediscover the Word of God as a living word in which God himself is present. Each commentary relates Scripture to life, is faithfully Catholic, and is supplemented by features designed to help readers understand the Bible more deeply and use it more effectively in teaching, preaching, evangelization, and other forms of ministry. This series is perfect for professional and lay leaders engaged in parish ministry, lay Catholics interested in serious Bible study, and Catholic students.

Yeah, pretty much the same thing though the Amazon.com blurb works in the series description as well.

Here's the table of contents:

Illustrations
Editor's Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction to the Pastoral Letters

The First Letter to Timothy
Timothy's First Charge (1 Timothy 1)
Liturgy and Conduct (1 Timothy 2)
Qualifications of Ministers (1 Timothy 3)
False Teaching and Advice to Timothy (1 Timothy 4)
Rules for Different Groups (1 Timothy 5)
Final Directives: Slaves, Truth, Riches (1 Timothy 6)

The Second Letter to Timothy
Timothy's Gifts and Paul's Lot (2 Timothy 1)
Counsels to Timothy (2 Timothy 2)
Meeting the Challenges of the Last Days (2 Timothy 3)
Final Charge to Timothy and Paul's Faith amid His Loneliness (2 Timothy 4)

The Letter to Titus
Organizing the Church in Crete (Titus 1)
Virtues for Different States of Life (Titus 2)
How We Should Live—and Why (Titus 3)

Suggested Resources
Glossary
Index of Pastoral Topics
Index of Sidebars
Map

I have not had a chance to read the book yet. I will say it was designed well. And it is one of the few commentaries that I have seen that actually has pictures (black & white photos) of different areas or artifacts relevant to the discussion. That's pretty cool.

I couldn't contain myself, however, and peeked to see how 1Ti 1.20 is handled. You know:

18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare,  19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith,  20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1Ti 1.18-20, ESV)

I've never checked an explicitly Catholic commentary on this verse and wanted to see how the verse was related to excommunication. Well, it is directly and equivalently related: "These two Paul handed over to Satan, a technical term for excommunication." (Montague 47, emphasis his). That doesn't surprise me, and it doesn't seem altogether wrong to me either. These guys were given the right boot of fellowship. It's just that 'protestant' commentaries rarely ever cross the line and call it excommunication. The goal isn't separation, the eventual goal is reconciliation, as Montague aptly concludes.

I'm looking forward to giving this one the once-over. Thanks, Baker Academic!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

On a more popular level, I notice that the Gospel Coalition conference next Spring will focus on an exposition of 2 Timothy.  The conference theme is “Entrusted with the Gospel: Living the Vision of Second Timothy.”  You can follow the link to see the speakers and which text each one will have.  The sessions work progressively through the letter.

This sounds like a good conference and it is encouraging to see such a setting mining the riches of this wonderful letter.

HT: James Grant

The manuscript for my commentary, Reading Paul's Letters to Individuals: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Letters to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy, is officially in the mail to Smyth and Helwys.

S&H expects the commentary to be available in October, just in time for SBL. Maybe I'll need to go to Boston after all.

This is the commentary that Glenn Hinson was supposed to write, then Marty Soards. Both ended up not filling the contract. Then Hulitt Gloer wrote a manuscript, but was not able to finish it for health reasons.

So in January--you may recall--the editor of the series, Charles Talbert (who was my doctorfather at Baylor) asked if I could finish Gloer's manuscript.  And I've spent the last few months doing so.

I'd originally hoped to have 300 - 325 double spaced pages, and ended up with 425: OUCH! Did I type all that stuff?

What's innovative or fresh about the commentary? Two things, off the top of my head:

First, it is a scholarly commentary, interacting extensively with primary sources (Philo and Josephus, especially) and cutting-edge secondary sources (e.g., Bruce Winter's work on the new Roman woman), BUT the exposition is aimed at preachers and teachers. This would be the first commentary I would recommend for people who want to preach these letters.

Second, this is the first commentary on the Pastorals to take into account the role that succession plays in these letters.

Nick Norelli responds to a query by someone named Brian about translation of 2Ti 2.15 [ESV].

Brian's query asks:

• parse and explain your translation for σπούδασον (why you chose the word you did).
• parse and explain your translation for παραστῆσαι (why you chose the word you did).
• parse and explain your translation for ὀρθοτομοῦντα (why you chose the word you did).

Nick translates thusly: "Make every effort to present yourself to God [as] an approved worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." See his post for further explanation.

I did a translation of the Pastoral Epistles four or five years ago. My translation of 2Ti 2.15 (actually, 2.14-18) is:

14 Remind them of these things, warning them before God not to fight about words, which is nothing useful and serves to ruin those who hear. 15 Take pains to present yourself approved of God, an unashamed worker, guiding the word of truth along a straight path. 16 But shun frivolous chatter and empty talk. These will lead to further ungodliness 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Of whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who concerning the truth have strayed, saying the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.

On Brian's questions, I actually have notes online. Here are my notes on verbs, nouns and adjectives in 2Ti 2.15. Note that I've revisited portions of the translation since I wrote the notes (one of the reasons for writing the notes).

I am honored to be participating in a new book from B&H Academic entitled Entrusted with the Gospel:  Paul's Theology in the Pastoral Epistles.  It will be a collection of essays focusing on specific aspects of the Pastorals written by scholars who have been working on these letters for some time.  Contributors include Howard Marshall, Andreas Kostenberger, and Terry Wilder.  Work is just beginning but I thought readers of this blog would be interested to know of the project.

When Westcott & Hort published their edition of the Greek New Testament in 1881, they also released (in a second volume (Amazon.com)) a 300+ page Introduction discussing their text-critical principles (the volume also has 200+ pages of appendix, equaling 600+ pages of goodness). That introduction also discusses in some detail the typesetting of the edition in Section E, "Punctuation, Divisions of text, and Titles of books" (§§417-423, pp. 318-322).

[[NB: I've discussed the introduction on my other blog, ricoblog. The Intro/Appendix is available from Google Books if you'd like to check it out.]]

In the introduction (§419, p. 319) they discuss how they encode what is essentially a discourse-level hierarchy (sentence level and above) into the text using paragraph formatting, casing, and spacing.

Have you ever wondered why (if using a printed WH or an electronic edition with proper casing/punctuation) some paragraphs/sections begin with words in ALLCAPS; why sometimes there is vertical space before a new paragraph, and most of all why there are these long spaces (over a centimeter!) within paragraphs? And why sometimes sentences start with a capitalized letter, and others do not?

Well, you've stumbled onto WH's typography/casing/spacing based outline of the text without knowing it. Here are the basics:

Major Section: vertical white space above, headed by word in CAPS
Section: vertical white space above, no initial CAP WORD
Paragraph: Newline with indentation
subparagraph: full stop followed by large amount of horizontal whitespace
UC-initial sentence: "Groups of sentences introduced by a capital bear the same relation to subparagraphs as subparagraphs to paragraphs"
lc-initial sentence: When a lower-case initial word starts a sentence. lowest punctuated unit; grammar dictates structure within the sentence unit.

Following this, I've examined a printed edition of WH and distilled the outline to First Timothy, which is below. I've only gone through this once (and that was hasty) so there may very well be some errors. Also note that the hierarchy I've implied is based on containing references; WH's typography/casing/spacing does not imply a strict heirarchy (see Matthew). Also, dialogue in Greek NT's typically begins with a sentence-initial cap; I've yet to determine how that would mesh with the encoded structure, largely because no such dialogue exists in First Timothy. That said, here's the outline. Notable is how 1Ti 3.1a [ESV] is handled, and also 1Ti 6.2b [ESV].

1.1-6.22: Major section headed by ΠΑΥΛΟΣ

1.1-2: Paragraph
      1.1-2: UC-initial sentence

1.3-20: Paragraph
   1.3-7: subparagraph, UC-initial (single sentence)
   1.8-11: subparagraph, UC-initial (single sentence)
   1.12-17: subparagraph
      1.12-16: UC-initial sentence
      1.17: UC-initial sentence
   1.18-20: subparagraph, UC-initial (single sentence)

2.1-3.16: Paragraph
   2.1-7: subparagraph, UC-initial
      2.1-4: UC-initial sentence group
         2.1-2: UC-initial sentence
         2.3-4: lc-initial sentence
      2.5-7: UC-initial sentence
   2.8-3.1a: subparagraph, UC-initial
      2.8: UC-initial sentence
      2.9-10: UC-initial sentence
      2.11-12: UC-initial sentence
      2.13-3.1a: UC-initial sentence group
         2.13-15: UC-initial sentence
         3.1a: lc-initial sentence
   3.1b-13: subparagraph, UC-initial
      3.1b-7: UC-initial sentence group
         3.1b: UC-initial sentence
         3.2-6: lc-initial sentence
      3.8-13: UC-initial sentence group
         3.8: UC-initial sentence
         3.9-11: lc-initial sentence
         3.12-13: lc-initial sentence
   3.14-16: subparagraph, UC-initial
      3.14-16a: UC-initial sentence
         3.16b: metrically arranged

4.1-10: Paragraph
   4.1-5: subparagraph, UC-initial
      4.1-5: UC-initial sentence group
         4.1-3: UC-initial sentence
         4.4-5: lc-initial sentence
   4.6-10: subparagraph, UC-initial
      4.6-10: UC-initial sentence group
         4.6-7: UC-initial sentence
         4.8: lc-initial sentence
         4.9-10: lc-initial sentence

4.11-16: Paragraph
      4.11-16: UC-initial sentence group
         4.11-12: UC-initial sentence
         4.13: lc-initial sentence
         4.14: lc-initial sentence
         4.14-16: lc-initial sentence

5.1-6.2: Paragraph
   5.1-16: subparagraph, UC-initial
      5.1-2: UC-initial sentence
      5.3-8: UC-initial sentence
      5.9-13: UC-initial sentence group
         5.9-10: UC-initial sentence
         5.11-13: lc-initial sentence
      5.14-16: UC-initial sentence group
         5.14-15: UC-initial sentence
         5.16: lc-initial sentence
   5.17-25: subparagraph, UC-initial
      5.17-20: UC-initial sentence group
         5.17-18: UC-initial sentence
         5.19-20: lc-initial sentence
      5.21: UC-initial sentence
      5.22: UC-initial sentence
      5.23: UC-initial sentence
      5.24-25: UC-initial sentence
   6.1-2a: subparagraph, UC-initial
      6.1-2a: UC-initial sentence group
         6.1: UC-initial sentence
         6.2-2a: lc-initial sentence

6.2b-6.21a: Paragraph
   6.2b-10: subparagraph, UC-initial
      6.2b-10: UC-initial sentence group
         6.2b-5: UC-initial sentence
         6.6-8: lc-initial sentence
         6.9-10: lc-initial sentence
   6.11-16: subparagraph, UC-initial
      6.11-16: UC-initial sentence group
         6.11: UC-initial sentence
         6.12: lc-initial sentence
         6.13-16: lc-initial sentence
   6.17-19: subparagraph, UC-initial
      6.17-19: UC-initial sentence
   6.20-21a: subparagraph, UC-initial
      6.20-21a: UC-initial sentence

6.21b: Paragraph
      6.21b: UC-initial sentence

I've had the question of how 1Ti 4.3 and 1Ti 3.2 fit together rolling around in my head for awhile.

1Ti 4.3 is in the context of a description of the false teachers of Ephesus, noting things they (unjustly) forbid. Below is 1Ti 4.1-3:

4.1 Τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως προσέχοντες πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων, 2 ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων, κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν, 3 κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς μετάλημψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. (1Ti 4.1-3, NA27)

4.1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (1Ti 4.1-3, ESV)

1Ti 3.2 (along with 1Ti 3.12 and 1Ti 5.9) specify a marriage relationship for those in leadership positions in the fellowship.

3.2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν, (1Ti 3.2, NA27)
3.12 διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων. (1Ti 3.12, NA27)
5.9 Χήρα καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, (1Ti 5.9, NA27)

3.2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (1Ti 3.2, ESV)
3.12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (1Ti 3.12, ESV)
5.9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, (1Ti 5.9, ESV)

So, how does all of this fit together? The false teachers say that marriage is forbidden, but Paul says that those in positions in the church (Overseer, Deacons, and Widows) should be or have been married.

This popped in my head again as I've been reading Lloyd K. Pietersen's The Polemic of the Pastorals (Amazon.com), where he mentions the "status degradation" aspect of the whole thing:

Finally, Garfinkel draws attention to the fact that, in any successful status degradation ceremony, the typical, negative characteristics of those being denounced must be appreciated by the witnesses by means of a 'dialectical counterpart'. In this way the community cannot conceive of those denounced without reference to this positive counter conception. In the Pastorals, the qualities of bishops, elders and deacons serve as dialectical counterparts to the deeds of the opponents. Thus, for example, the injunction in 1 Tim 1.2 [sic] that the bishop should be μιας γυναικος ανδρα serves as the dialectical counterpart to the opponents who, among other things, κωλυοντων γαμειν (1 Tim 4.3). Goulder is thus right to argue that the qualifications of leadership function polemically. (Pietersen 111)

I don't buy all of what Lloyd mentions here (specifically that the Pastorals may be "a literary version of a status degradation ceremony" (Pietersen 111)), but I do think there is significant value to noting that what the false teachers forbid (marriage) is prominent in the descriptions of those in positions of leadership and influence in the church.

Whatever your view of the polemic/paraenesis of the Pastorals, this disparity between the what the false teachers espouse (no marriage) and what Paul espouses for those in prominence in the church (marriage is not just OK, it is expected) needs to be noted.

Michael Bird (Euangelion) has been reading the Pastoral Epistles, and has some reflections on them.

So check 'em out.

I'm a little late in mentioning this, but I wanted to point folks to John Hobbins' blog Ancient Hebrew Poetry. John is an amazing guy. He posted this rather lengthy article on Literary Translation using 1Ti 6.8-10 as an example.

So do check it out.

Since Perry has been giving some updates on his writing endeavors, I figured I'd update too since I recently hit a milestone.

If you know me, you know I've been working on my writing project, in my free time, for (I think) five years now. The working title, as of right now, is Word Studies in Context: First Timothy.

Basically, I've been working through First Timothy, phrase by phrase, looking at similar-sense word usage (as indicated by lexicons like BDAG, LSJ, Louw-Nida, TDNT) in the Pastorals, in the Epistles, and in the NT; but also in the LXX, Apostolic Fathers, Josephus, Philo, Pseudepigrapha and some other stuff (Papyri, Corpus Hermiticum, even stuff like the third century "Life of Polycarp" in a few instances) to determine/further understand how words and concepts are used in First Timothy.

The idea has always been to lay the groundwork for further study, likely a discourse analysis of First Timothy. I'm not done with the word level portion (I have much revision to do, I need to rewrite the intro and first chapter, and I have literally hundreds of handwritten notes in a kinkos-bound draft of chapters 1-5 to review and integrate).

But it is a big step. The PDF is 464 pages — not double spaced but with wide margins for notes and edits (if/when I print it out). The paper is 8.5x11, but the text would fit in a relatively standard sized book page. An earlier sample (10 pages covering 1Ti 5.17-19) is available if you're interested in peeking.

When will I finish? I don't know. But getting through the first pass (some portions are much more polished than other portions) is a big deal, at least to me. Chances are I'll start digging into discourse issues before I completely finish tweaking/rewriting the word studies portion.

Why does it take so long? Well, since I've started I've met, courted and married the woman I love; and we've started a family (our daughter is nine months old!). These things take time and rightly upstage the writing project. But my wife is a saint and, by the grace of God, understands and encourages me in the writing project, so it will continue. And hopefully, sometime in the next few years, it'll be at a state where it can be further shared or perhaps even self-published. If the sample interests you, let me know!

I've blogged about this a few times previously (here and here).

In working through the end of 1Ti 6, one comes across vv. 17-19. These are instructions to Timothy about those who are "rich in this present age":

17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. (1Ti 6.17-19, ESV)

If Paul is generally writing to the Ephesian community, why is he instructing Timothy to instruct those "rich in this present age"? If the letter is intended to be read to the community at large, wouldn't these people be present at the reading?

We've been on Winter Break (Thursday and Friday off, no school), so I've been able to do some writing. 

When I started on the project in January, I tried to work my way through Philemon.  I thought I could get that letter finished and then move on to the PE.  I rewrote / restructured / supplemented all the materials on slavery in the NT world, but got really bogged down when I reached the materials dealing with classical rhetoric--NOT my area.

So I've set Philemon aside, and now I'm writing the introduction to the PE.  Yesterday, I outlined about 35 pages (double-spaced) of material.  About 40% of that material needs to be written from scratch.  Well, I got TEN PAGES of the "from scratch" part written today.  I'm feeling pretty good about the project right now.

Of course, there are midterms and pregistration and prof reviews and taxes to do and a fuel filter to change and . . .

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.
  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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]