Daniel Kirk on the Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles

Over at Storied Theology, Daniel Kirk posts some thoughts on authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. The best discussion on that topic around was the exchange between Stan Porter and Robert Wall in BBR back in 1997.

Jimmy Dunn on Paul's "Note" from Prison

I'm still (yes, still) reading Jimmy Dunn's Beginning from Jerusalem, and I was intrigued by his reference to an authentic note of Paul embedded in 2 Tim 4.9-18. Overall, Dunn regards the Pastoral Epistles (PE) as pseudonymous: "The Pastoral Epistles are most probably to be read as letters written in the spirit of Paul some twenty or thirty years later."

No sooner does Jimmy say this than he adds:

"But even so, they may incorporate earlier material from Paul or well-grounded traditions about Paul. In reference to Paul himself and his fate, the most interesting is 2 Timothy, particularly 2 Tim 4.9-18. The letter speaks of Paul's 'first defence', which he had had to face alone, and of his 'rescue from the lion's mouth' (4.16-17). This could suggest that there had been a first trial, which Paul had survived, though now he was facing a second, which could and probably would end in his death ... It may even be that we should see in 4.9-18 a note from Paul which he was able to have smuggled out of his final, more severe imprisonment".

Dunn then adds a footnote: "This suggestion first occurred to me when I read the note, of similar character, which William Tyndale managed to have smuggled out of his imprisonment; the note was framed and hung on the wall of Tyndale House, Cambridge".

Interesting theory. A number of scholars have proposed that 2 Timothy alone is authentic among the PE (J. Murphy-O'Connor) or that the PE more generally contain authentic Pauline fragments (P.N. Harrison). The question is whether the biographical remarks like those found in 2 Tim. 4.9-18 are authentic, or whether they were inserted to add a measure of realism (see discussion in T.L. Wilder, Pseudonymity, The New Testament, and Deception, pp. 222-27 at Google Books). In my mind, 4.9-18 really does sound like Paul, although I have to wonder why and who would incorporate an authentic letter into a Pseudepigraphical work (though they might not necessarily have had the word "Pseudepigraphal" in mind!). The somewhat non-Pauline nature of the language and the portrayal of Paul as a hero in the PE requires explanation, and I really do hope to one day explore the possibility of a Lucan connection to the PE as one possible solution.

See Stan Porter's response to Robert Wall on the issue of the authorship of the PE in a BBR article. A very good piece to read to get a heads-up on the debate.

Pastoral Reflections on the Pastoral Epistles

For the last week I've been reading through the Pastoral Epistles (PE) in my nightly reading routine. Several things continue to stand out for me:

1. About two years after I became a Christian I was being posted to Townsville in northern Australia (a divine punishment for making jokes about how fat pregnant women were). I was in a young church with a young pastor, but I was well discipled and the young pastor instilled in me a love for Christian learning . He introduced me to apologetics which lead in turn to theology and then of course to biblical studies (in other words, blame this guy for all my heinous crimes). I shall never forget that just before I was about to leave, I was given as a farewell gift a copy of Millard Erickson's Christian Theology. And on the inside was inscribed the words of 1 Tim. 4.16: "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers". Those words have stuck with me ever since and it is wise counsel to give any young person heading off from the watching eye of their parents, family, and church.

2. The PE are often regarded as about being about doctrine, doctrine, and doctrine. Now that is true to some degree, but love, faith, and godliness are all interrelated to the "right" belief as well. Illustrative of this is 2 Tim. 1.13 where Timothy is exhorted: "What you have heard from me, keep as the pattern of sounding teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus". Doctrine without love or faith is a cerebral cult of the mind.

3. The PE emphasizes salvation by grace. We all know Tit. 3.5 as the sola gratia proof text. But consider the wider context: "But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good". The trinitarian framework here is most striking as is the link with "washing" which could denote regeneration or baptism (or both). We should note that doing what is good is one of the immediate goals of salvation by grace. I would also add 2 Tim. 1.8-9: "But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy life - not because of anything we have done, but because of his own purpose and grace." Again this is clearly teaching salvation by grace alone, but the call to salvation is also a call to a holy life. In my mind, all of this underscores the transformative power of grace, not just as something believed in, but something that is relied upon in our lives.

4. The PE have somethings to say about gender roles (e.g. 1 Tim. 2.11-15) and the inspiration of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3.16), but the hinge upon which the theological and pastoral exhortation of the PE turn is the gospel (1 Tim. 1.11; 2 Tim. 1.8; 2.8). What was "entrusted" to Paul and is now given to Timothy and Titus is the gospel (1 Tim. 1.11; 6.20; 2 Tim. 1.14; Tit. 1.3). In my mind, the centre of pastoral ministry, Christian discipleship, and even evangelicalism is not a specific view of Scriptural authority (i.e. infallibility or inerrancy) or a specific view of gender (e.g. patriarchy or egalitarianism) but the gospel. The mark of the true Pastor is how he (or she) articulates, proclaims, guards, lives, and passes on the gospel of God.

5. My favourite verses in the PE has to be 1 Tim. 5.23: "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses". At the end of a long week in the labour of the Lord I look most forward to a nice glass of Aussie Merlot on a Friday night.

There endeth the lesson!

Luke and the Pastorals

One topic that continues to attract my fascination is that of the relationship of Luke to the Pastoral Epistles (i.e. author, editor, or secretary).

Several works I am hoping to read in this regards are:

F.J. Badock, The Pauline Epistles (1937).

C.F.D. Moule, 'The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles,' in Essays in New Testament Interpretation (Cambridge: CUP, 1982), 113-32 (= BJRL 47 [1965]: 430-52).

Jerome Quinn, ‘The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of Luke-Acts to the Pastoral Epistles,’ Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. C.H. Talbert (Danville: VA: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 62-75.

S.G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastorals (London: SPCK, 1979).

Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations. II. The Acts, the Letters, the Apocalypse (rev. edn; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 301-3.

Jean-Daniel Kaestli, ‘Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles: The Thesis of a Common Authorship,’ in Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, ed. C. Tuckett (JSNTSup 116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 110-26.

I remember talking about S.G. Wilson's proposal to I. Howard Marshall (who has written commentaries on the Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pastorals) and his conclusion was that "the Greek is too different" between both bodies of literature.

Philip Towner on 1 Tim 2:11-15

I'm currently reading through Philip Towner, The Letters of Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006) and here is a summary of what Towner has to say on 1 Tim 2:11-15.

Towner does not advocate the restriction of women from ministerial offices nor does he regard the text as a post-Pauline creation by a follower of Paul who did not share his teacher’s egalitarian view of women. He situates himself between “feminist” and “hierarchicalist” interpretations. His approach has the following characteristics and conclusions, first, Towner is highly dependent on Bruce Winter’s study about the “new Roman women” who asserted their independence with great flare even to the point of making their sexual status ambiguous by their dress and apparel. Given that Christian worship in the atrium of a Graeco-Roman house in Ephesus was a “public” space, Paul does not want the well-to-do Christian women to bring Christians into disrepute by exhibiting this new liberated femininity in public worship. Second, Towner also maintains that the heresy circulating in Ephesus does influence Paul’s restriction here, but he carefully notes the study of S.M. Baugh that has debunked the often repeated scenario that the women were influenced by the hyper-feminist Artemis cult in Ephesus, and Towner adds that there is no definite evidence that the women were even teaching the heresy. Nonetheless, Towner thinks that Paul’s need to provide instructions about marriage (2 Tim 4:3), his statement about the value of childbearing (2 Tim 2:15), the misreading of OT stories (2 Tim 1:4; 2:13-15; 4:1-5), coupled with the attraction of some wealthy women and young widows to the “new women” paradigm does connect the women to the Ephesian heresy. Thus: “Paul prohibits a group of wealthy women from teaching men. The factors leading to his prohibition are: (1) public presentation – outer adornment and apparel and arrogant demeanour give their teaching a shameful and disrespectful coloration; (2) association with false teaching – they may actually have been conveying or supporting heretical teaching” (200). Third, Towner is convinced that elsewhere women did play a public role in Paul’s churches and he detects an equality principle within the Pauline gospel (e.g. Gal 3:28). Fourth, regarding the two complementary infinitives of v. 12 (“to teach” and “to exercise/assume authority over”) he concurs with Andreas Köstenberger’s syntactical and grammatical analysis of the passage but disagrees with him that “to teach” has a positive force since the wider context suggests that the content of the women’s teaching contains heresy or the teaching itself is motivated to assert their dominance over men – in both cases “to teach” has negative connotations. Fifth, concerning the “saved through child-birth” remark in v. 15, Towner thinks that Paul “urges these Christian wives to re-engage fully in the respectable role of the mother, in rejection of heretical and secular trends, through which she may ‘work out her salvation’” (235).