Kirby's blog and sundry essays about early Christianity.
Christian Origins is dedicated to publishing articles distinguished by their attention to detail and reasoned approach. A gamut of viewpoints are presented in essays by laymen and scholars. Send an e-mail with ideas for an article or book review.
Many have e-mailed me because my secure server was down for the past month, and orders could not be placed. I now have a new secure server, and I am happy to accept orders to ship out immediately. If you are interested in the Early Christian Writings CD, please go here. Thank you!
I discovered a fatal flaw in the first formula that I tried, described in my previous post. (This flaw was discovered when working on the first data set described below.) So I have come up with a new formula, and it is one that has met with surprising success in the first three trial runs that I have made. The data sets chosen as "control groups"--cases other than the problem of the Pauline Epistles--are not ideal, but it's the best that I could do with the resources available. The only tagged Greek corpora of which I know are the Bible and some of the apostolic fathers.
First, I will share the results obtained with the new formula, because they should build confidence that there is *something* validly identified by the method--whatever that may be. Then I will briefly describe the procedure of the program in English.
The first data set I created consisted of eighteen chunks of text. They are:
00 Acts 1:1-4:10 2016 words 01 Acts 4:10-7:24 2016 words 02 Acts 7:24-9:37 2016 words 03 Acts 9:37-13:1 2016 words 04 Acts 13:1-15:37 2016 words 05 Acts 15:37-19:3 2016 words 06 Acts 19:3-21:32 2016 words 07 Acts 21:32-25:9 2016 words 08 Acts 25:9-28:31 2322 words 09 Romans 1:1-6:2 2268 words 10 Romans 6:2-10:18 2268 words 11 Romans 10:18-15:33 2151 words 12 1 Cor 1:1-7:14 2268 words 13 1 Cor 7:14-12:12 2268 words 14 1 Cor 12:12-16:24 2294 words 15 Galatians 1:1-end 2230 words 16 2 Cor 1:1-7:12 2248 words 17 2 Cor 7:13-end 2229 words
The Results for Two Groups:
highest score: 0-8 grouped together, 9-17 grouped together A very clean cut between the blocks of Acts text and the blocks of Paul text The second highest score separated the first part of Acts (thus grouping it with Paul).
This was, to me, a satisfying result in favor of the idea that the present formula is onto something. I decided to do something a little more complicated, to test the program in making groupings among more than two groups. I wanted to mix genres within one putative author, so I chose to isolate the letters to the seven churches in Revelation from the rest, which is split into two parts. The other three documents--Acts, Romans, and 1 Corinthians--are split into three parts.
Here are the documents in the second test:
00 Acts 6048 words 01 Acts 6048 words 02 Acts 6354 words 03 Rev: letters 1555 words 04 Revelation 3935 words 05 Revelation 4300 words 06 Romans 2268 words 07 Romans 2268 words 08 Romans 2151 words 09 1 Cor 2268 words 10 1 Cor 2268 words 11 1 Cor 2294 words
Here are the results:
For Two Groupings: Highest (10947): Acts...the rest Second (10765): Revelation...the rest
For Three Groupings: Highest (16424): Acts...Revelation...Paul Second (16058): Acts...4+5 (Rev Body)...Rev Letters (3)+Paul
For Four Groupings: Highest (17626): Acts...3...4+5...Paul Second (17469): Acts...Rev...10...rest of Paul
I stopped there before going on to five groupings. But how does one know how many groupings should be considered optimal?
I have hit upon a rough guide that seems to work well enough so far, which is:
Choose the highest score divided by the square root of the number of authors.
So, for example, 10947 becomes an adjusted score of 7741, 16424 becomes an adjusted score of 9482, and 17626 becomes an adjusted score of 8813. Here, then, by this procedure, the optimal choice is that there are three authors.
Like much else here, I am not sure about the theoretical basis as to *why* this works--if it does, in fact, work.
The third data set that I worked on are the Apostolic Fathers. Someone pointed out to me by e-mail where to find some of them morphologically tagged:
http://www.skrbc.org/bw_files/
Here there are ten documents:
00 First Clement 01 Second Clement 02 Didache 03 Ignatius to the Ephesians 04 Ignatius to the Magnesians 05 Ignatius to the Philadelphians 06 Ignatius to Polycarp 07 Ignatius to the Romans 08 Ignatius to the Trallians 09 Polycarp to the Philippians
Here are the results for the Apostolic Fathers.
With Two Groupings: Highest Score: 0-2 gruped...3-9 grouped (i.e., Didache+1Clem+2Clem grouped against Ignatius+Polycarp) Second Highest Score: 1, 3-8 grouped...0, 2, 9 grouped (i.e., 2Clem+Ignatius grouped against 1Clem, Didache, and Polycarp)
With Three Groupings: Highest: 0, 2...1...3-9 Second: 0, 2, 9...1...3-8
With Four Groupings: Highest: 0, 2...1...3-8...9 Second: 0...1...2-8...9
With Five Groupings: Highest: 0...1...2...3-8...9 SCORE 19412 Second: 0, 7...1...2...3-6, 8...9 SCORE 17855
With Six Groupings: Highest: 0...1...2...3-8...9 SCORE 19412 Second: 0...1...2...6...9...3,4,5,7,8 SCORE 19232
What I noticed about this:
It is quite significant that a grouping of five won out even when competing with groupings of six. Although this won't always happen, it's a sure sign that the 'optimal' grouping based on lexical distinctiveness has been achieved, as determined by the formula.
0 and 2 grouped with two, three, or four groupings. Here could be one of those cases when documents are grouped on a basis other than authorship. Perhaps both came from a very early era in church history and that is reflected in their diction. Also, 2 Clement is by itself for any grouping of three or higher. I believe it to be the latest of these documents, and I conjecture that this is also reflected in its diction.
With that review of the results in these cases, allow me to give a brief description of the (new) formula.
What my program does is, first, to calculate the frequency of each word in each of these texts. Let me take some excerpts from the frequency table that the program makes (for the Apostolic Fathers in this case):
Okay, I got bored after copying this many over. I mostly picked out "interesting" ones, the ones that will actually factor into the total "lexical distinctiveness score" (more about this term below). I included an "uninteresting" one for example: "Christ" is found across the board and will not tell us much (unless we decide to group everything against Didache perhaps).
Qeofo/ros is, of course, the second name of Ignatius. It is found only in those six epistles, and at a rate of 6 to 0 elsewhere when added up, it will do its part to group these texts together in the highest scoring permutations (possible selections of the ten texts to go into a certain number of "boxes" where their frequencies are combined together, to be compared with the frequencies of words in the texts in the other "boxes"). An example of a negative, instead of a positive, characteristic of the Ignatian letters is that none of them contain a(marti/a. This also will do a little bit to group them together.
1 Clement is the only document to contain )Israh/l, A)/bel, Ai)/guptos, Ka/i)^n, Mwu+sh^s, and a)/ggelos. All of these things will set it apart.
Here is how the "lexical distinctiveness score" is calculated in the current algorithm:
Quote otheroccurences = 0.01; // so, no division by 0 below bool iscounted = false; // this will be false if (1) there's only one author
For each word, such as in the table of numbers for each word above, the following is done:
Nothing is added to the "lexical distinctiveness score" if there is only one 'author' assigned to the selected texts, or if the word occurs only one time in the 'author' that has it the most times. ('Author' in quotes because, as Carlson has pointed out to me, other reasons besides authorship can account for lexical distinctiveness. I've also been using the phrase 'author box', but perhaps one could say more accurately 'selection of texts' or 'grouping of texts'.)
Otherwise, we add to that score in accordance to the formula on the last line. First, we start with the frequency of the word of concern per 1000 words in the author/grouping that has that word with the highest frequency.
Then, if no other author/grouping has that word, we multiply by 100 (divide by .01).
Otherwise, we divide by the frequency per 1000 words in the combined total of the frequency in the other authors (plus .01).
Then we multiply by a "calibrating" factor based on the amount of text outside of the highest-frequency-grouping. It is the percentage of words outside of the highest-frequency-grouping.
That's it. And, no, I'm not completely sure myself why this would work.
I thank everyone who has commented and who will comment on the matter.
I discovered a fatal flaw in the first formula that I tried, described in my previous post. (This flaw was discovered when working on the first data set described below.) So I have come up with a new formula, and it is one that has met with surprising success in the first three trial runs that I have made. The data sets chosen as "control groups"--cases other than the problem of the Pauline Epistles--are not ideal, but it's the best that I could do with the resources available. The only tagged Greek corpora of which I know are the Bible and some of the apostolic fathers.
First, I will share the results obtained with the new formula, because they should build confidence that there is *something* validly identified by the method--whatever that may be. Then I will briefly describe the procedure of the program in English.
The first data set I created consisted of eighteen chunks of text. They are:
00 Acts 1:1-4:10 2016 words 01 Acts 4:10-7:24 2016 words 02 Acts 7:24-9:37 2016 words 03 Acts 9:37-13:1 2016 words 04 Acts 13:1-15:37 2016 words 05 Acts 15:37-19:3 2016 words 06 Acts 19:3-21:32 2016 words 07 Acts 21:32-25:9 2016 words 08 Acts 25:9-28:31 2322 words 09 Romans 1:1-6:2 2268 words 10 Romans 6:2-10:18 2268 words 11 Romans 10:18-15:33 2151 words 12 1 Cor 1:1-7:14 2268 words 13 1 Cor 7:14-12:12 2268 words 14 1 Cor 12:12-16:24 2294 words 15 Galatians 1:1-end 2230 words 16 2 Cor 1:1-7:12 2248 words 17 2 Cor 7:13-end 2229 words
The Results for Two Groups:
highest score: 0-8 grouped together, 9-17 grouped together A very clean cut between the blocks of Acts text and the blocks of Paul text The second highest score separated the first part of Acts (thus grouping it with Paul).
This was, to me, a satisfying result in favor of the idea that the present formula is onto something. I decided to do something a little more complicated, to test the program in making groupings among more than two groups. I wanted to mix genres within one putative author, so I chose to isolate the letters to the seven churches in Revelation from the rest, which is split into two parts. The other three documents--Acts, Romans, and 1 Corinthians--are split into three parts.
Here are the documents in the second test:
00 Acts 6048 words 01 Acts 6048 words 02 Acts 6354 words 03 Rev: letters 1555 words 04 Revelation 3935 words 05 Revelation 4300 words 06 Romans 2268 words 07 Romans 2268 words 08 Romans 2151 words 09 1 Cor 2268 words 10 1 Cor 2268 words 11 1 Cor 2294 words
Here are the results:
For Two Groupings: Highest (10947): Acts...the rest Second (10765): Revelation...the rest
For Three Groupings: Highest (16424): Acts...Revelation...Paul Second (16058): Acts...4+5 (Rev Body)...Rev Letters (3)+Paul
For Four Groupings: Highest (17626): Acts...3...4+5...Paul Second (17469): Acts...Rev...10...rest of Paul
I stopped there before going on to five groupings. But how does one know how many groupings should be considered optimal?
I have hit upon a rough guide that seems to work well enough so far, which is:
Choose the highest score divided by the square root of the number of authors.
So, for example, 10947 becomes an adjusted score of 7741, 16424 becomes an adjusted score of 9482, and 17626 becomes an adjusted score of 8813. Here, then, by this procedure, the optimal choice is that there are three authors.
Like much else here, I am not sure about the theoretical basis as to *why* this works--if it does, in fact, work.
The third data set that I worked on are the Apostolic Fathers. Someone pointed out to me by e-mail where to find some of them morphologically tagged:
http://www.skrbc.org/bw_files/
Here there are ten documents:
00 First Clement 01 Second Clement 02 Didache 03 Ignatius to the Ephesians 04 Ignatius to the Magnesians 05 Ignatius to the Philadelphians 06 Ignatius to Polycarp 07 Ignatius to the Romans 08 Ignatius to the Trallians 09 Polycarp to the Philippians
Here are the results for the Apostolic Fathers.
With Two Groupings: Highest Score: 0-2 gruped...3-9 grouped (i.e., Didache+1Clem+2Clem grouped against Ignatius+Polycarp) Second Highest Score: 1, 3-8 grouped...0, 2, 9 grouped (i.e., 2Clem+Ignatius grouped against 1Clem, Didache, and Polycarp)
With Three Groupings: Highest: 0, 2...1...3-9 Second: 0, 2, 9...1...3-8
With Four Groupings: Highest: 0, 2...1...3-8...9 Second: 0...1...2-8...9
With Five Groupings: Highest: 0...1...2...3-8...9 SCORE 19412 Second: 0, 7...1...2...3-6, 8...9 SCORE 17855
With Six Groupings: Highest: 0...1...2...3-8...9 SCORE 19412 Second: 0...1...2...6...9...3,4,5,7,8 SCORE 19232
What I noticed about this:
It is quite significant that a grouping of five won out even when competing with groupings of six. Although this won't always happen, it's a sure sign that the 'optimal' grouping based on lexical distinctiveness has been achieved, as determined by the formula.
0 and 2 grouped with two, three, or four groupings. Here could be one of those cases when documents are grouped on a basis other than authorship. Perhaps both came from a very early era in church history and that is reflected in their diction. Also, 2 Clement is by itself for any grouping of three or higher. I believe it to be the latest of these documents, and I conjecture that this is also reflected in its diction.
With that review of the results in these cases, allow me to give a brief description of the (new) formula.
What my program does is, first, to calculate the frequency of each word in each of these texts. Let me take some excerpts from the frequency table that the program makes (for the Apostolic Fathers in this case):
Okay, I got bored after copying this many over. I mostly picked out "interesting" ones, the ones that will actually factor into the total "lexical distinctiveness score" (more about this term below). I included an "uninteresting" one for example: "Christ" is found across the board and will not tell us much (unless we decide to group everything against Didache perhaps).
Qeofo/ros is, of course, the second name of Ignatius. It is found only in those six epistles, and at a rate of 6 to 0 elsewhere when added up, it will do its part to group these texts together in the highest scoring permutations (possible selections of the ten texts to go into a certain number of "boxes" where their frequencies are combined together, to be compared with the frequencies of words in the texts in the other "boxes"). An example of a negative, instead of a positive, characteristic of the Ignatian letters is that none of them contain a(marti/a. This also will do a little bit to group them together.
1 Clement is the only document to contain )Israh/l, A)/bel, Ai)/guptos, Ka/i)^n, Mwu+sh^s, and a)/ggelos. All of these things will set it apart.
Here is how the "lexical distinctiveness score" is calculated in the current algorithm:
Quote otheroccurences = 0.01; // so, no division by 0 below bool iscounted = false; // this will be false if (1) there's only one author
For each word, such as in the table of numbers for each word above, the following is done:
Nothing is added to the "lexical distinctiveness score" if there is only one 'author' assigned to the selected texts, or if the word occurs only one time in the 'author' that has it the most times. ('Author' in quotes because, as Carlson has pointed out to me, other reasons besides authorship can account for lexical distinctiveness. I've also been using the phrase 'author box', but perhaps one could say more accurately 'selection of texts' or 'grouping of texts'.)
Otherwise, we add to that score in accordance to the formula on the last line. First, we start with the frequency of the word of concern per 1000 words in the author/grouping that has that word with the highest frequency.
Then, if no other author/grouping has that word, we multiply by 100 (divide by .01).
Otherwise, we divide by the frequency per 1000 words in the combined total of the frequency in the other authors (plus .01).
Then we multiply by a "calibrating" factor based on the amount of text outside of the highest-frequency-grouping. It is the percentage of words outside of the highest-frequency-grouping.
That's it. And, no, I'm not completely sure myself why this would work.
I thank everyone who has commented and who will comment on the matter.
I have been toying with the morphologically tagged New Testament prepared by Dr. Tauber, based on the NA-26 Greek text. The feature that I needed was the resolution of each word in the New Testament into its lexical form.
The reason for doing so was to look at an old problem, the lexical frequencies of the Pauline epistles, from a slightly new perspective, my own "max hapax" formula. ("Max hapax" may be a bit of a misnomer, but it sounds nice.)
It can be described in simple enough terms. First, one divides the material into maximally large chunks that will tell you something interesting about your data set, but that won't result in too many chunks (too long to process, not large enough sample size). For a quick analysis, I chose to use just 8 chunks:
00 Romans + Galatians (9341 words) 01 First and Second Corinthians (11307 words) 02 Philippians and First Thessalonians (3110 words) 03 Colossians (1582 words) 04 Ephesians (2422 words) 05 Second Thessalonians (823 words) 06 First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus (3488 words) 07 Hebrews (4953 words)
I left out Philemon, for now, because it may be too short to analyze.
Then one chooses a number of authors between which the chunks can be parceled out. I chose 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. (This also increases processing time. The program has to cycle through all possible permutations of author distribution.)
The "max hapax" formula is this. For each word, the number of occurences per 500 words is calculated for each author. Then the highest rate of occurence is found. Then, one goes through the rest of the authors, and if that author does not have the word or has the word less than 1 time per 500 words, then, for each such author without the word, the value of the highest rate of occurence is added to the "hapax" score for that particular distribution of authors.
The "max" part comes in displaying the top two distributions of authors in terms of the "hapax" score.
The reasoning behind this is, basically, that the more distinctive the lexical style of each author in the distribution, the more likely that distribution is. And, of course, I wanted to see what would happen if one went forward with this kind of analysis.
Here were the results.
For two authors: Highest: Pastorals by themselves, the rest grouped together Second Highest: Hebrews by itself, the rest grouped together
For three authors: Highest: Hebrews; Pastorals; the rest grouped together Second Highest: Hebrews; Pastorals and 2 Thessalonians; the rest
For four authors: Highest: Hebrews; Pastorals; 2 Thessalonians;rest 2nd Highest: Hebrews; Pastorals; Ephesians; rest
For five authors: Highest: Hebrews; Pastorals; 2 Thess; Ephesians; rest 2nd Highest: Hebrews; Pastorals; 2 Thess; Colossians; rest
For six authors: Highest: Hebrews; Pastorals; 2 Thess; Eph; Philippians+1Thess; rest 2nd Highest: Hebrews; Pastorals; 2 Thess; Eph; Colossians; rest
The results interpreted.
Romans, Galatians are always grouped together with 1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians. These four epistles may be attributed to Paul and provide the basis for determining what is Pauline style.
Hebrews and the Pastorals are certainly outliers in terms of lexical style. Hebrews is usually taken as non-Pauline; the Pastorals should be also, and, in fact, they often are on separate grounds.
2 Thessalonians is also on the periphery of Pauline lexical style. So is Ephesians. Their non-Pauline status is probable, though not as certain as in the case of Hebrews and the Pastorals.
Colossians is up in the air for me. For Philippians and First Thessalonians, I would take them as Pauline more probably than not.
Thoughts, suggestions, criticisms, requests for source code?
The theoretical basis for this kind of analysis--in terms of statistics and linguistics--is probably the weak point of what I have produced so far. Basically, I'm not sure why my formula "works" inasmuch as it lines up, undesignedly, with what many scholars have been saying about the Pauline epistles for a long time. One thing I'd like to do is to apply this type of procedure to a different body of texts. The difficulty is getting a corpora that is tagged with the lexical forms of the words. I made a request to B-Greek for notice of any such corpora. If anyone here knows of one (even if it is proprietary and may be difficult to obtain), please let me know.
I may do different types of studies with Tauber's NT in the future. Let me know if you have ideas.
This is the fifth section of the Notes on the Pastoral Epistles. This brings the first chapter to a close. Please comment!
Timothy's Responsibility
1:18 These instructions I give to you, my child Timothy, in accordance with the words once spoken over you by the prophets, so that by them you might fight the good fight, 1:19 wielding faithfulness and a good conscience, which some having thrust from them have made a shipwreck of their faith, 1:20 such as Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme.
Notes L. T. Johnson writes: "The phrase 'this commandment' (ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν) refers explicitly to the commandment stated in 1:5, and forms an inclusio with it as well as with 'that you command' in 1:3. Thus the contrast between false teaching and right understanding in 1:4-10 and 1:18-20 brackets Paul's presentation of himself as a model of the sinner saved by Jesus Christ (1:12-17). Similarly, the verb paratithemi, here in its meaning of 'entrust,' picks up from the participle θέμενος for Paul's commission for service in 1:12: Paul entrusts to Timothy just as he was entrusted by Christ Jesus. The phrase 'My child Timothy' simply gives added weight to the exhortation, as does the use of the vocative in the similar charge at the end of the letter (6:20)." (2001: 184)
Jouette M. Bassler comments, "The prophecies about Timothy were Christian prophecies (see 1 Cor 12:10), either spoken at an earlier time to identify Timothy as God's choice, or pronounced during the ordination ceremony to confirm it (see 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6; also Acts 13:1-3). The reference to them here confirms Timothy's appointed role as an instrument in God's plan (see comments on 1:4) and, more specifically, his role as Paul's legitimate successor. Singled out by prophecy, named as Paul's 'child' (see also 1:2), and possessing the faith and good conscience that are signs both of grace (1:14; 2 Tim 1:3) and of the fulfillment of God's plan (1:5), Timothy is presented as Paul's worthy heir and his designated lieutenant in the fight for truth and virtue." (1996: 46)
A. T. Hanson writes, "We have no record in Acts or Paul's letters of any particular prophecy connected with Paul's choice of Timothy. The Greek is literally 'went before on you', so the phrase could refer, not to Paul's first choice of Timothy, but to Timothy's ordination by Paul. On the whole it seems more likely to have this meaning in view of 4:14, 'the spiritual endowment you possess, which was given you, under the guidance of prophecy, through the laying on of ... hands'. It is probable that in the author's time prophecy accompanied ordination. Christian prophets were very important people in the early Church. In the Didache, a Christian work which may not be very much later than the Pastorals, the Christian congregations have to be reminded that bishops and deacons are as important as prophets." (1966: 29-30)
Raymond F. Collins states, "The purpose of the mandate given to Timothy is that he might fight the good fight (see 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7, where the image ppears with the agon- root). The military metaphor, using the strat- root, 'to fight as a soldier,' is an expression of the agon motif used by Paul and his disciples in reference to the gospel (1 Cor 9:7; 2 Cor. 10:3-4; Phlm. 2; 2 Tim. 2:4). Paul himself tended to use this military metaphor in reference to conflictual situations. As athletes who must strive to attain victory in games and as soldiers who must strive to attain victory in warfare, so the evangelist must strive to proclaim the gospel, notwithstanding the cost or the difficulty. Timothy is to carry the aforementioned prophecies as his weaponry (see 2 Cor. 10:4) or armor (Williams 243 n143; see 1 Thess. 5:8)." (2002: 48)
Dibeliuis and Conzelmann write: "This imagery [of the military service of the pious] was very common and widely used in antiquity. In the immediate environment of primitive Christianity it is found in the texts of the Qumran sect. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness gives a detailed account. In view of such evidence and considering the widespread usage of the imagery, it is not likely that the image arose spontaneously in primitive Christianity. To be sure, in the passage in 1 Tim the widespread mythical image of armor of faith does not occur. The expression 'the good fight' is clearly a common one in the church and was understood not mythically but parenetically. The closest analogies to this usage are offered, not by the mysteries, but by philosophical diatribe. In order to characterize the seriousness of the ethical task, the philosophers liked to compare life to military service. The image of God as the commander-in-chief was frequently used. Thus Epictetus can assume that the concept is familiar. And it is precisely the widespread distribution of this concept in the diatribe which makes it probable that the early Christian use of the image is influenced by popular philosophy, at least in those passages where the image appears in an almost proverbial way (as here and in 1 Cor 9:7; 2 Tim 2:3f) or where it is argued in the style of the diatribe (as in 1 Clem. 37)." (1972: 32-33)
George W. Knight writes, "To these objective and external calls from God and his apostle, Paul adds the personal activity of 'holding' or 'keeping' faith and a good conscience (ecwn, a circumstantial participlate indicating how the 'fight' is to be carried out). Here it seems that faith as belief, the activity of trusting in God and his revelation, is in view, rather than as the faith, the body of truth, through elsewhere Paul relates these two aspects to one another. Faith is directed to a person of the Godhead on the basis of the teaching one has received about that person (cf. Rom. 10:14; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Tim. 2:18). Faith as believing has been the dominant them of this chapter and is the setting for the appeal Paul now makes (see vv. 2, 4, 5, 14; cf. pisteuein in v. 16). Its correlation here with ἀγαθήν συνείδησιν, one's self-conscious moral evaluation, would also seem to demand that pistin is also related to one's activity, i.e., faith. Furthermore, the phrase ἔχων πίστιν is used elsehwere with this meaning (Mt. 17:20; 21:21; Acts 14:9; Rom. 14:22; 1 Cor. 13:2; cf. 1 Tim. 3:9; cf. also 1 Cor. 15:2, where λόγῳ . . . κατέχετε is explained by and virtually equated with ἐπιστεύσατε)." (1992: 109)
As with the phrase "the law is good," it is only possible to see "a shipwreck" an allusion to Marcion, a shipbuilder, if other reasons point us to the conclusion that the Pastorals have been affected by the Marcionite controversy.
Given the pseudonymous character of these epistles, it is difficult to say whether Hymenaeus and Alexander were historical persons; and, if they were, whether they were regarded as persons of the time of Paul or drawn from the name of actual opponents in the time of the composition of the Pastoral Epistles. I would exclude this last possibility on the grounds that the Pastoral Epistles make an attempt to avoid any too exact a reference that would show the work to be an obvious fake. They may be names of characters portrayed as living in the time of Paul, or even, perhaps, the name of historical people in Paul's era, selected for condemnation in this letter.
Craig S. Keener writes, "Official synagogue excommunication seems to have included a curse or execration against the person being banned from the community; it was meant to be equivalent to capital punishment under the Old Testament law. By handing these blasphemers over to Satan, Paul is simply acknowledging the sphere they had already chosen to enter (5:15). Paul’s purpose here is restorative, however, “so that they might be taught not to blaspheme” (NASB), as God had taught Paul (1:13)." (1993)
This is the fourth installment in this series of notes on the Pastoral Epistles. Comments are encouraged.
The Calling of Paul
1:12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength. He has judged me trustworthy in appointing me to his service; 1:13 though I used to be a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and contemptuous. However, I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief; 1:14 and the grace of our Lord filled me with the faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 1:15 Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. 1:16 But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might show his perfect patience, and as an example to those that would later believe on him unto eternal life. 1:17 To the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
Notes Raymond F. Collins writes: "Typically an epistolary thanksgiving appears immediately after the formal salutation of the Hellenistic letter. Paul regularly follows Hellenistic practice (Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:4; Phil. 1:3; 1 Thess. 1:2; Phlm. 4; cf. Col. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:3). The Pastor, however, departs from the style of the classic Hellenistic letter. His thanksgiving occurs only after he has given an explanation of why the letter has been written. His thanksgiving is also different from the typically Pauline letter in that it presents a lengthy description of the apostle himself. Paul's own thanksgivings are expressions of gratitude to God for the faith and love of the community to which he is writing. Rhetorically the Pauline thanksgivings serve as a kind of pathos argument. They are a captatio benevolentiae, an appeal to the goodwill of Paul's correspondents. Serving to reinforce the image and authority of the purported letter writer (1:1), the thanksgiving of 1 Timothy reinforces the ethos appeal of the Pastor's missive." (2002: 35)
Collins notes three ways in which the thanksgiving in 1 Timothy is different from the typical Pauline thanksgiving. First, instead of "I give thanks" (εὐχαριστῶ), this writer uses the "stilted" expression χάριν ἔχω, "I have thanks" (which may reflect the Latin gratias ago).Second, Jesus Christ instead of God is the one to whom thanksgiving is addressed. Third, the expression of gratitude is for the favor shown to Paul instead of focusing on the events in the community to which he writes.
Jouette M. Bassler argues: "To describe this appointment in terms of being judged or deemed faithful or trustworthy (v. 12; cf. 1 Cor 7:25) strikes, however, an odd note. The passage speaks of a former life that was anything but faithful (v. 13; see also Gal 1:13-17) and communicates a strong message about divine grace that confronts and transforms sinners (v. 14; see also Titus 3:3-5). Yet it is reading too much into this phrase to insist that it means that Christ's act of choosing Paul rendered him at once worthy. Instead the author hints at a period between the act of grace, which transformed the life of the former persecutor and provided the requisite faith and love (vv. 13-14), and the appointment to Christ's service, which was based on tangible evidence of that faithfulness. This drives a small but significant wedge between two events that Paul himself regarded as one: his life-changing encounter with the resurrected Christ and his commission to be an apostle (Gal 1:13-17). The wedge was necessary, however, for this author's changed circumstances, for the appointment of proven, faithful ministers was exceedingly important in the struggle with opposing teachers, and here Paul serves as a model for that process (see also 3:10-11; 2 Tim 2:2; Titus 1:9)." (1996: 43)
J. L. Houlden agrees that the passage strikes an odd note: "Thus: could Paul have said that in appointing him to his service God had deemed him faithful (v. 12)? Did Paul think of faith (or faithfulness) as a qualification for work in quite that sense? Both this use of the word and the steadiness of character which it expresses are closer to the mentality of this writer (see the qualities required of his church officers in ch. 3) than that of Paul. Then, would Paul have said that he had received mercy from God in his appointment to his service because he had acted ignorantly in unbelief (v. 13)? The impression is that God overlooked Paul's apparent unsuitability for the post (as in the rest of the letter, we are almost in a world where we can speak of church employment), because there was the extenuating circumstance that in opposing Christ he had acted in ignorance. How fair-minded of God! And how remote we are from the Pauline dynamic of total unworthiness and free unmerited grace. The other motive for the tolerance accorded to Paul is Jesus Christ's patience (makrothumia); and it was displayed in the case of Paul in order that other Christians might also be encouraged. Again, it is hardly a Pauline way of looking at the work of God for man's salvation. It is true that makrothumia appears as a quality of God in Rom. 2:4 and 9:22 (cf. 3:25), but it is in connection with the wide sweep of his dealings with the human race not the close and intimate relationship of grace. It is presented not, as in our passage, as an encouragement to those who are embarking on the Christian life but as a warning and an explanation to those who remain outside it. Moreover, mercy here seems to be almost identical with patience: it is a quality of God's quiet, static, long-term existence rather than his vigorous, dynamic saving work. At a cursory glance, these shifts in sense may seem small. In fact, they are symptoms fo the crucial change which occurred between the life of Paul and the work of his imitator. German theology speaks of it as a shift from 'spirit' to 'office'; that is, from a concern with the direct relationship of God with man for salvation to a concern with the organization and structure of the Church as an institution. The shift was no doubt partly the result of the lower calibre of the later writer, partly the result of the failure of the expected End of the world to materialize, and partly the result of the inevitable pressure of questions of the ordering of the Church. What is interesting in our present passage, which is not ostensibly related to these questions at all, is the way in which the writer, no doubt unconsciously, sees the disposition of God himself reflecting the qualities and attitudes to which he attaches so much importance in the affairs of the church on earth." (1976: 51-52)
Raymond F. Collins states, "In the emerging hagiographic image of Paul that dominated the Pastor's circles, the Pastor now affirms that grace 'superabounded' (hyperpleonasen, a neologism) in Paul. The simple verb pleonazo, 'abound,' by itself has the connotation of abundance, more than enough. The prefix hyper adds an additional nuance to 'more': the Lord's grace is more than more than enough. The Lord's superabundant grace was active with 'faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.' This phrase recurs in 2 Tim. 1:13, where it encapsulates a summary description of the Christian life, as it does here (see 2:15; cf. 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; Titus 2:2)." (2002: 39)
Collins writes, "Embedded within his reflection on Paul is a statement with a decidedly formulaic ring: 'This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance' (1 Tim. :15). This is the first of five such statements in the Pastoral Epistles. The formula appears in both a longer (1 Tim. 1:15; 4:9) and a shorter form (1 Tim. 3:1; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 3:8). From a form-critical perspective, the words stand out. They have no parallel in the undisputed Pauline letters, but their use allows the Pastor to move from the subject of Paul's conversion (1:15) to the traditional notion that God desires the salvation of sinners (4:10). In 1:15 the Pastor relates salvation to the coming of Christ Jesus into the world: 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.' These words have the ring of a creedal formula. They do not, however, explicitly cite the death and/or resurrection of Jesus, the object of most Pauline credal fragments (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-5; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:14; 5:10), nor are they introduced by some form of the verb 'believe.' The formula 'This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance' (πιστὸς ὁ λόγος καὶ πασες αποδοχες ἄξιος), appears to stand in the stead of the more traditional 'believe that.'" (2002:41) Raymond F. Collins continues further on, "What then do the words of the long formula 'worthy of full acceptance' add to the familiar 'This is a trustworthy saying'? The additional wording appears only in 1 Tim. 1:15 and 4:9, the only passages in the New Testament where the word 'acceptance' is used. Hellenistic writers used the phrase 'worthy of acceptance' to suggest that particular persons or things were particularly worthy of approbation or admiration. Hierocles used the expression 'worthy of much acceptance' (πολλες ἄξιον αποδοχες; see Stobaeus, Anthology 4.27.20) to describe some laws. Ultimately, what 'worthy of full acceptance' adds to 'trustworthy' is repetition for the sake of emphasis, much as the author of the book of Revelation uses nai, 'yea' or 'verily,' in addition to the 'Amen' of Rev. 1." (2002: 44)
L. T. Johnson writes: "This piece of tradition echoes some passages in the Gospels, most specifically the conviction found in Luke 19:10: 'The Son of Man came to seek out and find that which was lost' (see also Luke 5:32). 1 Tim 5:18 will echo even more closely another Lukan passage (10:7). And although Paul does not often use the language of 'sinner' (ἁμαρτωλός), one instance is worth citing: 'God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us' (Rom 5:8). For other places where Paul connects the death of Jesus to 'our' sins—including himself with the personal pronoun ἐμὸν—see 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 1:4." (2001: 180)
Donald Guthrie says of the word translated example (ὑποτύπωσιν) that it "may be understood either as an outline sketch of an artist, or as a word-illustration expressing an author's burning purpose (cf. Simpson). In a sublime sense Paul's experience was to serve as a compelling example to countless numbers who should thereafter believe. The construction (ἐπὶ with the dative) after the verb believe indicates that Christ is the firm basis of faith. Such unshakable assurance serves not only in this life but in eternity." (1957: 66) A. T. Hanson writes, "The word translated typical means a summary or outline sketch. It is only used elsewhere in the New Testament in 2 Tim 1:13, where it means a summary of doctrine. A similar word is used in 2 Pet. 2:6, where the N.E.B. translates it as 'an object-lesson'. But the word seems to convey more a pre-enactment or foreshadowing of what is to come. Paul was to be the first of many apparently hopeless cases who would find rehabilitation in Jesus." (1966: 28)
W. D. Mounce writes: "Along with the faithful saying (see below), there is another literary form worthy of note in vv 12–17—the doxology (v 17). Hanson ([1983] 62) says that “all editors agree that this is a liturgical fragment.” Kelly (55) says it may have come from the Hellenistic synagogue, and Houlden (61) says the parallel phrase “King of Ages” in Tob 13:7, 11 confirms its Jewish origin, an assertion weakened by a textual problem with the phrase in Tobit. The parallel in Tobit, however, is not sufficient evidence for the source of Paul’s doxology. The words ἀφθάρτῳ, “incorruptible,” and ἀοράτῳ, “invisible,” are Hellenistic, although the concepts they describe are fully Jewish, so it is difficult to decide what they actually indicate in terms of source. It seems that caution is necessary when attributing any formalized speech to the realm of a liturgical fragment. It is possible that a creative genius like Paul could couch his thought in exalted poetic terminology." (2002)
This is the third part in my notes on the Pastoral Epistles. Comments are not just welcome but highly desirable!
The Purpose of the Law
1:8 But we know that the law is good, if one treat it as law, 1:9 on the understanding that law is not made for the upright, but for the lawless and unruly, for the impious and the wicked, for the sacrilegious and the profane, for those who kill fathers or mothers, for murderers, 1:10 for the promiscuous, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine 1:11 according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
Notes
Craig S. Keener writes, "Philosophers believed that wise people did not need laws, because their wise behavior itself modeled the moral truth on which laws were based. For Paul, this ideal was true for Christians; laws were necessary only to restrain those who were inclined to sin." (1993) Here one may quote Philo, Antiphanes, Menander of Carchedon, and Maximus of Tyre. Philo writes in Allegorical Interpretation, 1.94, "There is no need, then, to give injunctions or prohibitions or exhortations to the perfect man formed after the [Divine] image, for non of these does the perfect man require." The sentence of Antiphanes (408-331 BCE) says, "The one who does no wrong is in no need of law." Menander of Carchedon says, "Wherever good is found, it is better than the law." Maximus of Tyre (125-185 CE), in Discourses 16:3, states, "Truth and healthy understanding and morality and knowledge of the law and right cannot be acquired in any other way than by actually doing them, just as one can never learn the craft of shoemaking unless one actually works at it."
Raymond F. Collins writes, "In an aside, the Pastor offers a reflection on the law. He describes it as good but with a proviso: that one live in accordance with the law (ean tis auto nominos chretai; see Josephus, Ant. 16.2.3 §27). The tense of the verb, a present subjunctive, suggests a reference to future conduct along with some hesitancy as to whether a person can actually live in full accord with the law. The apostle himself had affirmed that everyone has sinned including those under the law (Rom. 2:12; 3:23). Explaining that all have sinned, including those of the circumcision who are bound to follow the law (cf. Gal. 3:22; 5:3; 6:13), Paul had stated that Jewish teachers did the same wicked things that Gentiles did (Rom. 1:29-2:1). They dared to teach others even as they themselves violated the precepts of the law (Rom. 2:17-23) and were prone to the same vices as the Gentiles were." (2002: 29)
A. T. Hanson writes of the phrase provided we treat it as law, "literally 'use it lawfully', and 'lawfully' is a most unPauline word. The sense seems to be 'if you do not contravene the law, you can respect it and see its point. But if you break it, it is there to condemn you.' In Paul's writing the main function of the law is to show men up, to bring them to a realization of their impossible predicament. There is no hint of this in the Pastorals. In fact, according to Paul, you only realize that the law is excellent after you have broken it." (1966: 24-25) And of the reference to a righteous man, Hanson writes, "Nothing could be further from Paul's teaching! See Rom. 3:10, 'There is no just man, not one'." (1966: 25)
Jouette M. Bassler contends, "The author presents as the only legitimate use of the law its application as a moral restraint on the lawless. This is far from Paul's view (see, e.g., Rom 2:12-16; 3:20-31; 8:1-8; Gal 3:19-24) and the author does not develop it carefully. Instead he lists people of various lawless categories for whom the law is lawfully (i.e., 'legitimately') intended. (The wordplay is deliberate.) This is the first of several vice lists in the Pastoral Letters (see also 6:4-5; 2 Tim 3:2-5; Titus 3:3). Such lists were often coupled with lists of virtues and used in moral exhortation (see, e.g., Gal 5:19-23; Col 3:5-17; Philo Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 22-27, 32) or, as here, to vilify opponents (see, e.g., Rom 1:29-31; Lucian Runaways 16) (McEleney 1974). This particular list seems to be carefully constructed in two distinct parts. The first part describes the lawless in terms used elsewhere in these letters to define the opposing teachers and their activities. These teachers, e.g., are also described as 'disobedient' or insubordinate (Titus 1:10; Gk. anhypotaktos), a word suggesting the resisting to authority that is anathema to this author (see 2:11; 3:4; Titus 2:5, 9; 3:1). Their actions are said to lead to godlessness or impiety (2 Tim 2:16; cf. Titus 2:12) and unholy behavior (2 Tim 3:2; cf. 1 Tim 2:8; Titus 1:8), and what they do is repeatedly described as profane (4:7; 6:20; 2 Tim 2:16). Whatever the opposing teachers were saying about the law, the author is suggesting here that its proper use is as a moral restraint just for the likes of them. The second part of the list seems deliberately to echo the Decalogue: 'for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers' (vv. 9b-10; cf. Exod 20:12-17). The effect of the combined list is to link the disobedient, godless, unholy, and profane behavior associated with the opposing teachers with actions condemned by the law they profess to teach." (1996: 41-42)
J. L. Houlden writes: "But what can he mean by the law (v. 8)? Surely he cannot mean what Paul would almost certainly have meant in such a context, that is, the Jewish Law. Writing to a Christian audience some fifty years after Paul's death, he must surely mean the moral teaching accepted by Christians. And the fact that he can use the term without explanation or qualification is itself an indication of how far the Church has travelled since Paul's day. Not only has it lost the edge of his teaching on this matter (perhaps that was inevitable); it has now developed its own moral system, as it were alongside that of Judaism and no doubt other schools of thought in the contemporary society, and can refer to it quite simply as 'the law'." (1976: 53)
George W. Knight writes, "Paul has shown how the law may be used lawfully in accordance with its purpose as an ethical guide to warn against sin. He has demonstrated this by presenting a list that shows that the Decalogue is so understood in the OT. He has concluded by stating that this is also the ethical perspective of the truly healthy teaching based on the gospel, so that both it and a proper use of the law concur in terms of their concern for a righteous life and in their teaching against sin. Thus when the law is rightly applied as an ethical restraint against sin, it is in full accordance with the ethical norm given in the gospel as the standard for the redeemed life. A different use of the law, for example, in a mythological or genealogical application to the righteous, is thereby shown to be out of accord with the law's given purpose and the gospel and its teaching." (1992: 91-92)
J. L. Houlden points out: "Two words are particularly characteristic of this writer: the ungodly (asebeis) introduces a family of words common in the Pastoral Epistles (and, within the New Testament, those other late writings, II Peter and Jude). Eusebeia, the positive noun in the family, occuring first in 2:2, signifies 'piety'. It is one of the leading qualities which form the common ground of esteem shared by these Christians, Hellenistic Judaism and respectable paganism: it was a virtue greatly approved at this time and its use is a small sign that in these letters we are moving from a Christianity which is wholly on the crest of the wave into a degree of acceptance of a pluralist society. In the LXX, the great majority of occurences are in the late book, IV Maccabees. The other typical word is sound (from hugiano). It comes eight times in these letters (never in Paul) and again illustrates the writer's values." (1976: 59) Houlden also observes, "The transformation of Paul into a pure moralist reaches its climax in v. 11, where the ethical commonplaces which have just been listed are identified as the substance of the glorious gospel. The Paul who wrote Rom. 1:16 would hardly have seen it thus (though cf. Rom. 2:16, where the Day of Judgment is part of Paul's gospel)." (1976: 53)
L. T. Johnson writes: "kill fathers, . . . mothers . . . murderers: Each of these words represents an extreme violation of the commandment not to kill; none of them occurs elsewhere in Paul or the NT, but each fits within the wider Koine. Spelled patraloias, the first term appears in Aristophanes, The Clouds 911, 1327; Plato, Phaedo 114A; Josephus, Antiquities 16:356. Marcus Aurelius lists the parricide among the worst of possible moral offenders (Meditations 6:34). The mother-killer (matraloas = Attic, matraloias) appears in Aristophanes, Eumenides 153, 210; is given recognition and definition in Plato, Laws 881A; and is found also in Lucian, Assembly of the Gods 12. The two terms appear together in Plato, Phaedo 114A. The noun androphonia (manslaying) occurs in Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1107A. In Pindar, Pythian Odes 4:252, it is a term applied to women who kill their husbands. In Plato, Phaedo 114A, it refers to simply a murderer. It should be noted that in 2 Macc 9:28, the wicked king Antiochus is termed androphonos and blasphemer, and in 4 Macc 9:15, the word is combined with 'godless.'" (2001: 170)
Raymond F. Collins writes: "The Pastor then adds a specific sexual vice, 'active homosexuals' (arsenokoitais). The term was apparently coined by Paul (1 Cor. 6:9) in reference to the kind of male homosexual activity prescribed by Lev. 18:22. Jewish men were enjoined from having sexual relations with other men as part of the strict code of sexual mores that distinguished Jewish men from Egyptians and Canaanites (see Ep. Arist. 152). Paul shared the traditional Jewish view that acts of homosexuality among men were the result of idolatry (Rom. 1:18-27; 1 Cor. 6:9). For Jews, such sexual activity was deemed to be a particularly egregious form of sexual immorality. It violated the principle of demarcation that pervaded the traditional ethos, Jew and Gentile, clean and unclean, male and female. Jews were expected to act like Jews, men were expected to act like men, and so forth." (2002: 33)
Of the phrase the wholesome teaching, Hanson writes, "Notice that the behaviour which is condemned is opposed to teaching. Sin is thought of as transgressing a fixed law rather than as a broken relationship with a personal God. The author is very fond of that word teaching; he seems to indicate by it a fixed body of doctrine. Paul also uses it, in Rom. 12:7 and 15:4, for example. In the first of these places it probably means instruction for converts preparing for baptism. In the second passage it means information about Christ to be gleaned from study of the Old Testament. Here for the first time the word denotes a body of Christian doctrine." (1966: 25)
Dibelius and Conzelmann note: "'To be sound' and 'sound' (ugiainein, ugihs), as terms which characterize the content of Christian preaching, do not occur anywhere else in the NT. In the Pastorals they are frequently used: 'sound teaching' (ugiainousa didaskalia, 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Tim 4:3; Tit 1:9; 2:1), 'sound words' (ugiainontes logoi, 1 Tim 6:3; 2 Tim 1:13), 'to be sound in faith' (ugiainein [en] th pistei, Tit 1:13; 2:2), 'sound preaching' (logos ugihs, Tit 2:8). But cf. also Justin, Dial. 3.3: '(to be ruled by reason . . .) in order to recognize that the others are in error and that, in their undertakings, they do nothing sound or pleasing to God.' . . . the Pastorals designate with 'sound teaching' (ugiainousa didaskalia) or 'sound words' (ugiainontes logoi) the loftiest and holiest things they know: the true faith, the true message about faith. According to the Pauline use of language one could (e.g. in 1 Tim 6:3) substitute a phrase containing the term 'gospel' (euaggelion). We must assume that it is highly unlikely that in his older age Paul would have designated his gospel with other formulas—unless he ad to formulate new expressions to meet new situations. But the basic terms of the Pastorals are not applied to an actual situation." (1972: 24)
Donald Guthrie notes, "Except here and vi. 15 nowhere in the Bible is makarios (blessed) applied to God, but the usage is frequent in Philo. It describes God not as the object of blessing, but as experiencing within Himself the perfection of bliss. Such a thought accords well with the splendour which He radiates through the gospel." (1957: 62)
It is only possible that the expression "the law is good" responds to Marcion's rejection of the law if one has decided, on other grounds, that Marcion is in view in these epistles.
I have begun to create a set of notes on the interpretation of the Pastoral Epistles. I have completed the first two sections of it (and part of the third). I plan to do a section or two per day. After I have finished making notes, I plan to write an introduction, treating at least the issues of authorship, date, provenance, and occasion. At that time I may, or I may not, write the kind of free flowing prose that is usually termed "commentary."
Here is the second section. I invite your help in making it better.
First Timothy, Warning against False Teachers 1:3 As I urged you to stay at Ephesus, when I was going to Macedonia, that you may charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine, 1:4 nor to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which promote speculations, rather than the divine plan that works through faith; [so do I now] . 1:5 But the purpose of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith: 1:6 from which things some, having swerved, have turned aside unto vain talking,1:7 desiring to be teachers of the moral law, though they understand neither what they say nor the subjects of which they make assertions.
Notes Donald Guthrie says that the author "forgets to reach the grammatical end of the sentence begun in this verse" but that "it should be noted that the roughness would not be quite as apparent in Greek as in English." (1957: 57) The verb translated "charge" is "a military term which means literally to pass commands from one to the other." (1957: 57)
J. L. Houlden writes about the geographical element: "II Timothy is set at the end of Paul's life (4:6 ff.); and the only position for the journey referred to in 1 Tim. 1:3 known from the genuine letters is that mentioned in 1 Cor. 16:5. Together with v. 8 of the same chapter, could that have been the basis on which our writer constructs his little piece of verisimilitude? V. 8 speaks of Paul remaining (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3) in Ephesus until his travelling starts—which could be supposed not to be before Timothy's return, foreseen in v. 11. Then Timothy will in turn remain at Ephesus. If our writer used 1 Corinthians (which was, we know, among the best known of Paul's epistles in these early decades), and used it thus (in a manner so sloppy from the point of view of anyone interested in fitting together a total picture of Paul's career), then we need not be surprised that the evidence of Acts has no useful bearing on our passage. ... In Acts, there are two journeys to Macedonia. The first follows closely on the episode of Timothy's circumcision (16:1 ff., 11 f.), and antedates Paul's activity in Ephesus. From 17:14 f., it may be inferred that Timothy actually accompanies Paul on this journey. In the case of the second visit (20:1), Timothy has gone ahead of Paul (19:22). Neither story can be pressed into any connection with our present passage." (1976: 55) Paul makes a statement to the Ephesian elders along the lines "that they should see his face no more" in Acts 20:38. If verse 3 suggests that Paul was in Ephesus when he urged Timothy to stay there, this is another discrepancy between the Pastoral Epistles and Acts.
L. T. Johnson, on the Greek word translated "to teach a different doctrine," writes, "The verb ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν here and in 1 Tim 6:3 is a NT hapax legomenon, but appears in Ignatius, Polycarp 3:1. Other such hetero- combinations also appear in the Apostolic Fathers; see heterognwmwn (1 Clement 11:2), heterodoxein (Ignatius, Smyrneans 6:2), and heterodoxein [sic] (Ignatius, Magnesians 8:1). These observations formed the basis for Schleiermacher's original linguistic challenge to the authenticity of 1 Timothy. It should also be observed, however, that all three of the hetero- combinations also appear in literature prior to the second century (for hetergnwmwn, see Josephus, Antiquities 10:281; for heterodoxein, see Josephus, Jewish War 2:129; Plato Thaetetus 190E; Epictetus, Discourses 2.9, 19; for heterodoxia, see Plato, Thaetetus, 193D). As his use of heteroglwsso (other tongue, 1 Cor 14:21) and heterozygein (mismatched, 2 Cor 6:14) shows, Paul is not averse to such constructions, and as 2 Cor 11:4 and Gal 1:6 indicate, he is capable of accusing his adversaries of preaching 'another Gospel' (heteron euangelion)." (2001: 162)
Of the references to speculations and vain talking, Craig S. Keener writes: "Both Judaism and the philosophers condemned empty, worthless talk, including arguments about words and the verbal skills of wordy rhetoricians unconcerned with truth. Some groups of philosophers from Protagoras on emphasized verbal quibbling more than seeking truth, regarding the latter as inaccessible; but most philosophers criticized these agnostics. Many professional speakers also valued important speeches above subtle disputes over trivialities, although training in public speaking included extemporaneous speeches on randomly assigned topics." (1993)
Reference to "myths and genealogies" is found in Plato (Timaeus 22a), Polybius (Histories 9.2.4), and Julian (Oration 7:205C). It is possible that this is another reference to "vain talking" without anything more specific in mind, but two interpretations have been popular since antiquity.
George W. Knight writes, "BAGD also indicate that the idea that 'the errors in question have a Jewish background and involve rabbinical speculation' began in the commentaries of Ambrosiaster (cf. also on Tit. 1:14) and Chrysostom, and is 'more or less favored' by Kittel, 'γενεαλογία.' This interpretation is also favored in the commentaries of Jeremias, Kelly, Lock, Schlatter, Simpson, Spicq (ad loc. and 99-104), Weiss, and Wohlenberg (30-44, arguing from Jubilees). Lock argues for the probability of Jewish reference from the teachers' claim to be νομοδιδάσκαλος, from the references in Titus to Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μῦθοι (1:14) and γενεαλογίας καὶ ἐρεῖς καὶ μάχας νομικὰς (3:9), and from Ignatius Magn. 8:1 (which may allude to 1 Tim. 1:4), where μυθεύμασιν παλαιοῖς πλανᾶσθαι is regarded as a sign of living κατὰ Ἰουδαϊσμόν. Jeremias regards the 'myths' as stories of creation and 'genealogies' as the genealogies or generations of the patriarchs (so also Spicq) and appeals to Philo's designation of the history of the patriarchs as 'genealogies.' Lock understands μῦθοι as 'defined by γενεαλογίαι, legendary stories about genealogies' (see also Hendriksen). Spicq points to 'examples of this fantastic and unbridled hermeneutic' in rabbinic Haggadah, Philo's writings, the pseudo-Philonic Biblical Antiquities, Jubilees, and in the Qumran writings (cf. 1QS 3:13-15)." (1992: 73-74)
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 1, preface 1) and Tertullian (De Praesc. 7; 33; Adv. Val. 3) interpret the "endlesss genealogies" in reference to Gnostic thought, particularly the emanations of Aeons, invisible powers inferior to the supreme God, their ultimate source. J. N. D. Kelly makes four arguments against such a view: "(a) the Gnostic systems of aeons were never, so far as we know, called genealogies; (b) had he had them in mind, we should have expected the writer to go more fully into their content instead of being satisfied with a passing, imprecise allusion; (c) we should also have expected a much sharper, more far-reaching criticism than that they encouraged idle speculation and contentiousness; and (d) the fables are expressly labelled 'Jewish' in Tit. i.14, while in [Tit.] iii.9, 'genealogies' are lumped with 'controversies about the law.'" (1963) These arguments are not decisive. For the first argument, at least the Gnostic systems were close enough to be genealogical that both Irenaeus and Tertullian regarded them as such, and the language of engendering is used in the Gnostic literature (see references to "engendered," "begotten," a "mother of the entirety of aions," and the careful attention paid to the order of emanation in Ptolemy's commentary on the prologue of John). The second and third arguments, which are similar in form, could also be applied to the interpretation that these are genealogies of the Hebrews, to ask why the refutation does not go into more detail. Here is one of the occasions in which the pseudepigrapher attempts to avoid absurdity in their refutation of heresy by avoiding too many specifics, which would be appropriate to the genre of a non-pseudonymous heresiology (such as the ones written by Irenaeus and Tertullian). The reference to "Jewish myths" could point to the liberal use of Jewish scripture in some Gnostic groups, while the statement denouncing "controversies about the law" is parallel to the reference to those who set themselves up as experts in morality in this passage and does not refer to the Jewish law in a technical sense.
Presenting a middle view between the Judaizing interpretation and the Gnosticizing one, Dibelius and Conzelmann write: "Since the genealogies are mentioned together with 'myths,' they cannot, in this passage, refer to the Jewish proof for kinship of Abraham, nor to the demonstration of Israel's historical continuity. Neither Paul nor a pseudo-Paul could mention such things in the same breath with 'fables.' ... Gnosticizing interpretations in which Old Testament genealogical registers are understood mythologically (Iren. Adv. haer. 1.30.9) and, moreover, mythical speculations about sequences of principalities and aeons are as fundamental to the the ology of Gnsoticism ... as they are destructive to the belief in the divine education for salvation (οἰκονομία) which is held by the writer of the Pastorals. ... we msut think of early Jewish or Judaizing forms of Gnosticism, which are reflected elsewhere within the horizon of deutero-Pauline literature. Characteristic are: speculations about the elements, but no systematic cosmology; a tendency toward soteriological dualism and the observation of ascetic rules. All this applies to the false teachers opposed by the Pastorals; a similar picture emerges from the epistles of Ignatius." (1972: 17)
Jouette M. Bassler notes, "This Greek phrase [οἰκονομία θεοῦ], which appears only here in the Pastoral Letters, is translated in the NRSV as 'divine training,' though it is found nowhere else with this meaning until the end of the second century in the writings of Clement of Alexandria. The phrase usually refers to God's administration of the universe, including the divine plan for the universe and the divine execution of that plan (see Eph 1:10; 3:9). This more general sense is probably intended here, for there are hints throughout these letters of a divine plan operating in the universe and coming now to fruition (2:6b; 6:15; 2 Tim 1:8-10; Titus 1:2)." (1996: 39)
A. T. Hanson writes, "The phrase a clean heart is used very frequently in The Shepherd of Hermas, a Christian book written in Rome probably at very much the same time as the Pastorals. a good conscience, familiar as the phrase is to us, is not found at all in the genuine letters of Paul. It occurs in 1 Pet. 3:16, 21, and a similar phrase in Heb. 13:18. The author of the Pastorals has a fondness for this sort of phrase. This suggests perhaps that he did not fully understand what Paul had to say about sin and faith." (1966: 24) Hellenistic parallels for the idea of a moral conscience can be found in Seneca (Happy Life 20.3-5, Tranquility of Mind 3.4, Epistle 43.4-5) and Philo (Special Laws 1.203). The phrase "genuine faith" here is a departure from Paul's understanding of "faith," used to speak of the believer's relationship with God. Spicq writes, "A 'sincere' faith is faith that includes intellectual orthodoxy, pious conduct, faithfulness, and loyalty in keeping obligations." (1969: 1.135)
Noticing that Paul usually followed the greeting with a thanksgiving, J. L. Houlden writes, "In our present case, it was, so it seems, more important to make certain preliminary points than to follow slavishly Paul's epistolary habits. If this is correct, then these points give us a guide to the writer's priorities. Two things needed to be done urgently, as soon as he took up his pen. First, he must give an impression of Pauline authenticity by means of geographical reference (v. 3). Second, and more important, he must give an unmistakable account of the doctrinal and moral evils to whose destruction he is dedicated. These matters occupy the forefront of his mind. They form the urgent threat to which he responds. Their prominence is an indication of that urgency." (1976: 51)
I have begun to create a set of notes on the interpretation of the Pastoral Epistles. I have completed the first two sections of it (and part of the third). I plan to do a section or two per day. After I have finished making notes, I plan to write an introduction, treating at least the issues of authorship, date, provenance, and occasion. At that time I may, or I may not, write the kind of free flowing prose that is usually termed "commentary."
What follows is the first section. I invite your help in making it better.
First Timothy, Greeting 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus in obedience to the order of God our Saviour and of Christ Jesus our hope; 1:2 unto Timothy, my genuine child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Notes
Paul is also called an apostle in the greetings to Rom, 1Cor, 2Cor, Gal, Eph, Col, 2Tim, and Tit. He is designated δοῦλος (servant) in Rom, Phil, and Tit. In Phlm he is called a prisoner (δέσμιος).
The expression κατ᾿ ἐπιταγὴν is translated "in obedience to the order" from the parallel expression in Polybius, Histories 12.26.2. ("Hercules ... had injured all those persons against whom he waged war, under compulsion and in obedience to the order of another, but was never voluntarily the author of harm to any man.") See also Tit 1:3, Rom 16:26, 1Cor 7:6, and 2Cor 8:8 for the phrase (literally "according to the command"). With the influence of 2Tim 1:1, the Codex Sinaiticus has επανγελιαν ("according to the promise of God"). The Pastoral Epistles use the title σωτὴρ frequently for God (see also 1Tim 2:3, 1Tim 4:10, Tit 1:3, Tit 2:10, Tit 3:4) or, alternately, for Jesus (2Tim 1:10, Tit 1:4, Tit 3:6), while in the other Paulines this title is found applied only to Jesus (Phil 3:20, Eph 5:23). This is a minor indicator against the authenticity of the Pastorals.
J. L. Houlden writes: "The word was common in pagan circles for gods and emperors; but it is also common in the LXX as a designation for God, e.g. Ps 25 (LXX 24); Is. 12:2; 17:10, as well as for heroes like the judges, cf. Jud. 3:9. Whether the application of the term in our writings to God (and indeed to Jesus as the bringer of salvation) owes more to the LXX, perhaps together with the piety of Hellenistic Judaism, or to the cult of rulers and the mystery religions so popular at the time, it is hard to say. The Pastoral Epistles have little clear reference to Old Testament passages; on the other hand they are far from redolent of the heady and speculative religiosity of the pagan cults, though a word like ἐπιφανείᾳ (appearing) in II Tim. 1:10 (cf. also Tit. 3:4) also belongs to their vocabulary." (1976: 48)
See also Col 1:27 for Jesus as "our hope." Ignatius of Antioch also refers to Jesus as "our hope" (IgnMagn 11:1) or "our common hope" (IgnEph 21:2, IgnPhld 11:2), as does Polycarp (PolPhil 8:1). L. T. Johnson notes, "The theme of hope is prominent in Titus (1:2; 2:13; 3:7), but is of particular theological significance in 1 Timothy. In three places, 'hoping' (ἐλπίζειν) in the living God is opposed to a hope placed in human means (4:10; 5:5; 6:17). It is therefore the more noteworthy that hope is here attached so simply and directly to Christ Jesus." (2001: 157)
Timothy is called a "genuine child" here and in Tit 1:4, while he is called ἀγαπητός (beloved) in 2Tim 1:2. This term recalls the description of Timothy in Phil 2:20, "For I have no one of like spirit, who so genuinely [γνησίως] concerns himself in the things pertaining to you." Jouette M. Bassler notes that the adjective also means "loyal" and states, "As the letters unfold the treachery of the opposing teachers (see 1:6-7; 4:1; 2 Tim 1:15; 4:14-15), the significance of that adjective becomes clear." (1996: 36) Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann write of the technical meaning of the phrase: "A 'true child' (γνήσιον τέκνον) is actually the legitimate child, the child born in wedlock. The expression could be meant here as an allusion to what is reported in Acts 16:1ff or 2 Tim 1:6. It would then have to be understood spiritually, as in Corp. Herm 13.3: 'Do not refuse me, father; I am (your) true son; explain to me the nature of the rebirth.'" (1972: 13)
W. D. Mounce writes: "The significance of the salutation in 1 Timothy has often been overlooked. In relatively few words, a large part of the Ephesian problem is addressed, the core of Paul’s solution given, and the tension between a private letter and a public message established. (1) The Ephesian problem arose because the church had turned away from Paul’s authority and from the salvation through Christ that he preached. So Paul begins by asserting that his apostleship is by a command from God and Christ (cf. Spicq, 1:313); this will be placed in contrast to the opponents who merely 'wish' to be teachers (v 7). (2) The solution is that the church should listen to Timothy’s teaching since Timothy, and not the opponents, is Paul’s spiritually legitimate son." (2002) This contrast is in response to those such as Marcion who claimed Paul as their spiritual father and guarantor of doctrine.
The definite article for "in the faith" is not supplied in the Greek, but it is in the translation to indicate the meaning of "the Christian religion" that is common in the Pastorals. The word "and" is added to "grace, mercy, peace."
L. T. Johnson notes, "As in other Pauline letters, 'grace' (χάρις) replaces the 'greeting' (χαίρειν) of the typical Hellenistic letter (1 Macc 10:18, 25; 11:30; 12:6, 20; 13:36; 14:20; 15:2, 16; 2 Macc 1:1; 9:19; 11:16; 3 Macc 3:12; 7:1; Letter of Aristeas 41; James 1:1). 'Peace' (εἰρήνη) appropriates the traditional Jewish greeting of shalom (LXX Judg 6:23; 18:6; 19:20; 1 Sam 1:17; 20:42; Jdt 8:35), which appears as an epistolary salutation in 2 Macc 1:1 (compare Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; Tit 1:4). Although ἔλεος (mercy) appears in other Pauline letters (Rom 9:23; 11:31; Gal 6:16), it forms part of the greeting only here and in 2 Tim 1:2. In both letters, it is inserted between 'grace' and 'peace.'" (2001: 157)
Hellenistic letters began with a pattern of "X to Y, greeting." Raymond F. Collins expands on the literary form of the beginning of the Pauline letters: "The Pauline epistolary tradition witnesses to an expansion of all three elements—the designation of the sender, the designation of the recipient, and the greeting—in the Hellenistic epistolary scheme for greetings. In his first letter, 1 Thessalonians, Paul identified the senders and the recipients in simple fashion. Thereafter he added an intitulatio to his self-designation as well as to the designation of his recipients. The intitulatio is the 'title' appended to the author's name in Hellenistic letters. In a fashion analogous to the signature block of a contemporary letter, the epistolary title justifies the claim that the letter-writer is about to make on the recipients of the letter. Rhetorically, the title of a Hellenistic letter is an important element of the author's ethos appeal, that is, the attempt to persuade not on the inherent basis of the argument itself (logos) or on the advantage to the audience (pathos) but rather on the authority of the person from whom it comes." (2002: 21)
J. L. Houlden makes the following argument: "Most of Paul's letters bear the greetings not only of Paul himself but also of his associates. The exceptions are Romans, Galatians—and Ephesians. The first case may be explained by the generally less personal nature of the work: it is probably written to a congregation of which Paul has little intimate knowledge, certainly one with which he has had no direct contact. In the second case, paradoxically as it may appear, it may be that the impetuously personal manner in which Paul begins the letter may have made him ignore any friends who were with him (at least there was an amanuensis, cf. Gal. 6:11). Perhaps Ephesians gives us a closer parallel. Here too Pauline authorship is doubted, on many varied grounds. Here too Paul is understandably placed on a pedestal. He is a venerated figure. To associate others with him would detract from the very point which the writer wishes to make. Those who argue for Pauline authorship will naturally retort that the truth is simply that Paul was alone at the time of writing. They must then account for the opening of II Timothy, which again comes from Paul alone, though Luke is with him (II Tim. 4:11). It is more likely that here, as in Ephesians, we are witnessing the beginning of the process whereby Paul is, at least for the Christians who sponsored these writings, the revered hero of the recent past, the anchor of true doctrine." (1976: 46)
