Author: Ray Van Neste (Page 10 of 11)

Ray Van Neste is a believer in Christ, husband, father, pastor, and professor. He serves as the Dean of the School of Theology & Missions and Professor of Biblical Studies at Union University, and teaches classes on New Testament, Greek, and pastoral ministry.

Calvin: 2 Timothy the most Profitable Book of Scripture

September 26, 2013 /

John_CalvinI am working through Calvin’s sermons on the Pastoral Epistles in preparation for the Reformation Commentary on Scripture volume on the PE and editing a new edition of the English translation of these sermons. Today I came across this strong statement in Calvin’s first sermon on 2 Timothy.

As no doubt, if a man reads this epistle diligently he shall find the spirit of God shown to him in this way, and in such majesty and virtue, that whether he wants to or not, he will be as it were ravished with it. As for me, I know I have profited and do daily profit more by this epistle than by any book of the scripture, and if every man will look into it diligently, I doubt not but that he will find the same.

And if we desire to have witness of God’s truth pierce through our hearts, we may well keep ourselves here.  For a man must be very heavy on sleep, and more than a block if God does not work in him when he hears the doctrine that is drawn out from here.

Luther seems almost to say that whatever book of the Bible he is working on is the most important. Calvin though is typically more careful and deliberate with such praise, so this is quite striking.

“Almsgiving and ‘the Commandment’ in 1 Timothy 6:14”

September 19, 2013 /

Last year in New Testament Studies Nathan Eubank provided what is, I believe, a new interpretation of “the commandment” (η εντολη) in 1 Timothy 6:14. His article is titled “Almsgiving is ‘the Commandment’: A Note on 1 Timothy 6.6–19.”

Eubank argues that “the commandment” was a common idiom in Rabbinic Judaism for almsgiving. He provides several supportive texts, though the dates of some are uncertain. This, it is suggested, solves the problem of 1 Timothy 6:11-16 (an exhortation to Timothy) protruding between two paragraphs which deal with money issues (6:6-10 & 6:17-19). On this reading the exhortation to Timothy is also about money. 6:6-10 urges contentment and warns against the love of money. In 6:11-16 Timothy is told to flee this love of money, pursue righteousness and to give alms (v. 14). Then, those who already have money are warned not to look to wealth as their security.

This is a well-argued article and worthy of attention from anyone working on 1 Timothy. I appreciate Eubank’s interest in finding cohesion in the argument and flow of thought in the letter. However, I am not yet convinced. I am not concerned here to give a full rebuttal but simply to note a few things.

Eubank notes some possible difficulties with some of his rabbinic examples if you have an early date for 1 Timothy (which is my position). Beyond that, I am not sure that a reference to almsgiving in 6:14 solves the perceived problem with 6:11-16. Those who see disunity are likely still to wonder about these six verses “interrupting” the flow. If we recognize the regular movement back and forth from focus on Timothy to focus on opponents and/or the congregation in the letter, then we are not surprised to see it in chapter 6 as well. 6:11-16, then, does not need to address wealth in order to cohere. The flow of thought would then be something like this: Timothy is to teach truth (6:2-3) unlike the opponents who are caught up in greed (6:4-10). In contrast to these opponents Timothy is to pursue righteousness as he awaits Christ’s return (6:11-16). Then Timothy is to warn the rich in the congregation not to follow the ways of the opponents but to pursue eternal things as they also await the “future” (6:17-19).

Eubank is to be thanked for raising this possibility, pointing out this rabbinic background and making a plausible argument. His argument is more involved than what would be summarized here. I commend the article to you and welcome your thoughts in the comments.

Pauline Scholar, Meet Homeric Scholar

September 17, 2013 /

I regularly encourage my biblical studies students that one aspect of training ourselves to interpret the Bible well is to read good literature. Good literature helps to round us out as human beings, and it simply trains us to read well. C. S. Lewis illustrates this well in his classic essay, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism.”

This point is powerfully made by Anthony Esolen in his article, “Pauline Scholar, Meet Homeric Scholar: How Textual Analysis Misses Authorial Genius & Literary Inspiration,” in the July/August 2013 issue of Touchstone Magazine. Esolen is a professor of English and widely published author- someone who is on my “read whatever he writes list.” In this brief article Esolen draws from his years of working with classic literature to question some of the literary criticism often used on New Testament studies. He notes that though for a long time scholars insisted that Homer’s poems, Beowulf, and other works were not actually the work of one man, the tide has turned and the skepticism has been shown to be unfounded. He describes the skeptical scholarship as working with “all the wrong assumptions,” typically requiring authors to write the way we would or in the ways we expect.

Here is a key paragraph:

“Linguistic analysis alone is pretty good at telling us, within a century, when something was written, and at confirming that the man who wrote Richard III also wrote Macbeth. It’s not very good for establishing chronological order within a century, not for confirming that the man who wrote one thing did not also write another. On linguistic analysis, apart from authorial affirmation, we can determine that the author of the Gospel of Luke is also the author of Acts. But beyond such conclusion we dare not go with confidence. We cannot say that one author could not have written Romans and Ephesians, which are a foot or two apart, as compared with the furlong that separates the author of the first part of The Dream of the Rood from the same man when he’s writing the second part, the mile that separates Milton’s satirical sonnets from the sweet Il Penseroso, and the light year that separates The Merry Wives of Windsor from King Lear.”

This literary perspective is important for various discussions in New Testament studies including the authorship of the Pastorals. Given the wide range of style and vocabulary used by other prominent writers in history we should be cautious about what can be determined concerning authorship by variations in vocabulary and style. Can we really say with such self-assurance, as I have heard scholars do, what Paul could not have written?

The full piece by Esolen is well worth reading. It is not available online, but Jim Kushiner, Executive Editor of Touchstone, has graciously offered to send a complimentary hard copy of the issue containing this article to any of our readers who ask. If you’d like a copy, email jdockery@fsj.org noting that you are responding to this column and ask for a copy of the July/August 2013 issue.

UPDATE: The article is now available online and I have linked it above. Thanks to Jim Kushiner for his gracious offer during the time the article was not online.

I’m Back!!

February 17, 2008 /

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.

Towner on the context of Titus

February 15, 2007 /

[an aside: I sometimes wonder if, when mentioning a scholar or work on the PE, we shouldn’t immediately tag the author with a short, 3-5 word description of his/her view of authorship]

In his new commentary (NICNT), Philip Towner (authorship: Pauline via a free amanuensis) introduces what is (at least to me) a new argument regarding the context of Titus.  He points to local Cretan mythology regarding Zeus as a deified / ascended Cretan king (thus born on the island, NOT on Olympus), etc., and how Cretan portrayals of Zeus are of a long-haired young man, with all the impulsiveness and lusts of youth.

These myths, Towner argues, provide the backdrop for reading Titus.  And the first interpretive key to the letter is 1.2b, hO APSEDHS QEOS.  From there, Towner reads the letter as polemically engaging the Cretan views of Zeus AND empire and emperor (“appearing,” descriptions of God’s character, etc.)

Has anyone other than Towner read Titus on this basis?  Has anyone critiqued this reading, beyond a brusque and reactionary “the PE are pseudonymous, Towner thinks they’re Pauline”?

PLStepp

Authorship

February 8, 2007 /

I have deliberately kept out of the discussion on authorship to date but I’ll add my thoughts here seeing as all our other contributors have commented.  I agree totally that too much in the past has been made of differences in style, ecclesiology, theology, etc. and I am pleased that recent scholarship has questioned the basis on which the old scholarly consensus was formed.  Perry also rightly raises the question of these letters initial reception.  Richard Bauckham addresses this question in “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters”, JBL 107 (1988), 469-94.  He writes: “For any pseudepigraphical letter which has the didactic aims of NT letters must find some such way of bridging the gap between the supposed addressee(s) and the real readers, which the pseudepigraphical letter as a genre seems necesarily to create” (p. 476).   Bauckham argues that material in the PE concerning false teaching fulfils this function (p. 493).  Furthermore, he argues, if the situation “Paul” foresees after his death is the situation of the real readers, then Timothy and Titus are part of this situation.  Consequently, if the PE are pseudepigraphical, then they have to be written, on Bauckham’s analysis, within the lifetime of Timothy and Titus (and with their full collusion).

I reach similar conclusions by an entirely different route.  I have argued that the PE function sociologically as a literary form of a status degradation ceremony.  For this to work sociologically this means that at least Timothy and Titus, if not Paul (as the prime actors), have to be real actors in the ceremony.  This means either they are authentic (all 3 actors are real) or they are written within the lifetime of Timothy and Titus (i.e. within one generation of Paul’s death).

Neither Bauckham’s analysis or mine, of course, proves the inauthenticity of the PE but Bauckham persuasively, both in the above article and in his Word commentary on 2 Peter, argues for the inauthenticity of the latter.  He roots the procedure of 2 Peter in the conventions of Jewish testamentary genre: “The pseudepigraphal device is therefore not a fraudulent means of claiming apostolic authority, but embodies a claim to be a faithful mediator of the apostolic message. Recognizing the canonicity of 2 Peter means recognizing the validity of that claim, and it is not clear that this is so alien to the early church’s criteria of canonicity as is sometimes alleged” Richard J. Bauckham, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary: 2 Peter, Jude (Dallas: Word, 2002), 161.  Do others here accept the pseudepigraphical nature of 2 Peter?

If there is at least one pseudepigraphical letter in the NT canon we cannot therefore argue on theological/ideological grounds alone for the authenticity of the PE.  I personally find, despite the reservations of my colleagues here, Howard Marshall’s allonymity arguments persuasive.

Thing 1, Thing 2

February 7, 2007 /

To quote the great theologian Dr. Seuss:

Thing 1: have we adequately thought through the fact that, even under the current consensus (deceptive pseudonymity a generation or more after Paul’s death), the PE were received by the original audience as genuinely Pauline? 

Whatever the case with authorship–and I don’t buy the standard arguments–when we posit some kind of deceptive pseudonymity, we are a. acting as resistant readers, and b. marginalizing or ignoring the way the letters were heard by the original audience(s).

Thing 2: when the PE mention houses or families (e.g., OIKOS in Titus 1.11, “misleading whole families“, what is the possibility that this is a reference to HOUSE CHURCHES (a home-based congregation within the network of house churches) rather than a nuclear or extended family, whatever constituted such in that day and culture?

A Handful of Thoughts on Authorship

January 5, 2007 /

Of the papers from Washington, Wayne Brindle’s and Jens Herzer’s have given me the most food for thought. 

FIRST, Herzer’s work (along with Trobisch’s) has pushed me further along toward abandoning the term “pseudonymity” in regard to the PE.  If the letters were deceptively written in Paul’s name, then call the darn things FORGERIES.  No other term fits the bill.  Ultimately, “pseudonymity” is a euphemism, a “weasel-word.”

SECOND, Brindle (page 6), when summarizing Marshall’s work on authorship, briefly describes three mediating positions between direct Pauline authorship and out and out forgery.  They are:

  1. a free amenuensis;
  2. “someone may have edited and published several of Paul’s writings after his death” (emphasis added)
  3. Marshall’s allonymity, where “someone close to [Paul] may have continued to write as he would have done, perhaps completing some works that Paul had begun.”

Brindle’s paper is an argument against #3 in favor of #1. 

My own position is a modified version of #2.  The PE are the published editions of Paul’s teachings (tradition, i.e., both oral and written material), posthumously published.  The member of Paul’s circle most likely to edit and publish these materials in this way is Timothy himself.  He is acting as Paul’s tradent, the keeper of Paul’s diatheke, in much the same way as Plato served as Socrates’s tradent.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Pastoral Epistles

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑