Author: Rick Brannan (Page 12 of 13)

Irenaeus, Eve, Mary and Childbearing

March 15, 2007 /

I’m reading through Irenaeus’ $amz(0809102641 Proof of the Apostolic Preaching) (translated by Joseph Smith) in the evenings before going to bed. It’s a pretty quick read and will familiarize you with Irenaeus before digging into his $amz(0809104547 Against Heresies) (translated by Dominic J.Unger, and my next evening reading target).


First, to set the scene, let me quote 1Ti 2.13-15:



13 For Adam was created first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not misled, but the woman, being deceived, has become a transgressor. 15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with good judgment. (my own translation)


Ok, now, here’s Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, §33:



33. And just as it was through a virgin who disobeyed that man was stricken and fell and died, so too it was through the Virgin, who obeyed the word of God, that man resuscitated by life received life. For the Lord came to seek back the lost sheep, and it was man who was lost; and therefore He did not become some other formation, but He likewise, of her that was descended from Adam, preserved the likeness of formation: for Adam had necessarily to be restored in Christ, that mortality be absorbed in immortality, and Eve in Mary, that a virgin, become the advocate of a virgin, should undo and destroy virginal disobedience by virginal obedience. (Smith, 69. emphasis added)


Now I’m not sure what to think of this passage from Irenaeus; I certainly think Christ died once for all, male and female alike. So I don’t know quite what to think about Eve being “restored” in Mary. But this passage links Eve and Mary in a sense of restoration. More importantly, because of Mary’s obedience, man received life. Eve disobeyed, her disobedience was made right again with Christ’s birth to a virgin mother and the resultant salvation through Christ. At least, on the surface, that’s what I sense Irenaeus to be saying.


Irenaeus is early, likely the generation after the Apostolic Fathers. Polycarp, whom Irenaeus heard teach and was likely a pupil of, was martyred in 155 or 156. Irenaeus became Bishop of Lyons in 177 or 178 and, according to Smith, likely died in the early third century (Smith 6). Irenaeus also likely knew of at least First Timothy; consider the start of his preface to Against Heresies:



Certain people are discarding the Truth and introducing deceitful myths and endless geneaologies, which, as the Apostle says, promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith. (Unger, 21)


That’s the very first sentence of the preface, explicitly quoting $esv(1Ti 1.4) and attributing it to Paul (the “Apostle”). So Irenaeus is mid/late 2nd century, he knew of First Timothy (as did Polycarp, who in Poly. Phil. 4.1 may have quoted $esv(1Ti 6.10)) and he had this view of Eve being restored in Mary.


Realizing all of this —  how does Irenaeus in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching square with 1Ti 2.13-15? Most commentaries these days discount the ‘childbearing’ in v. 15 as having anything to do with the arrival of Christ through being born to Mary. But isn’t that pretty much what Irenaeus is saying here?


Postscript: Please note, this is all just me “thinking out loud” (i.e. blogging). I read the passage in Irenaeus last night and it’s been simmering on the back burners of my brain since. I checked Marshall’s ICC volume, Knight’s NIGTC volume, and Dibelius & Conzelmann in Hermeneia. No mention of this reference, though D&C refer to Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 1.24.2 (which attributes marriage and childbirth to Satan). I’d check Towner’s NICNT and Witherington, but I’ve loaned the volumes to a friend and don’t have them handy. I haven’t checked elsewhere to see if this passage of Irenaeus has ever been associated with these verses.

J.K. Elliott’s Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus

March 10, 2007 /

A recent trip up north brought me to the very excellent library of the Vancouver School of Theology on the University of British Columbia campus.


Whilst browsing the shelves, I ran across a book I’ve been looking for for years: J.K. Elliott’s The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. This is vol 36 in the University of Utah’s Studies and Documents series. It was published in 1968.


I’ve seen this title referred to in footnotes in several commentaries, studies and other monographs, but have been unable to track it down. Now that I have, I’m glad I did. The monograph is a portion of Elliott’s doctoral work. He uses his own “eclectic” methodology to establish his own text of the Pastoral Epistles. He interacts with a number of MSS, and what one ends up with is a textual commentary (from his eclectic point of view) on the Pastorals. Additionally, the introduction is a short but very well written guide to his methodology.


And the appendices are fairly fun too. Appendix 6 has several lists that show where Elliott’s readings are in agreement and at variance with published editions (Westcott/Hort, TR, Tischendorf, Tregelles, etc.) and is concluded with a list of all of his unique readings (against the editions he checked) along with the MSS that provide the textual evidence for the unique reading. For example, in $wh(1Ti 1.4), he accepts οἰκοδομην over οἰκονομιαν. No other edition (at least in 1968) took that reading. But he does, and he explains why.


An interesting follow-up will be to examine his unique readings with UBS4/NA27 and see if the UBS/NA has taken up any of his readings.



Update: I just scanned the 67 listed unique readings against NA27; nary a one of them is used in NA27. Most of Elliott’s readings have to do with word order, orthography, adding/deleting a conjunction or adding/deleting an article. Very few would actually change the sense of the text, and those only slightly.


I hope to blog on his ‘eclectic’ approach over at my personal blog (ricoblog) at some point. (Update [2007-03-26]: I’ve begun this series, see the bottom of the post for further links) One unique aspect is that MS ‘quality’ is only one of a number of factors. Readings supported in as little as one MS or even one early version, in Elliott’s methodology, may be considered as ‘original’ if other factors look good. In other words, there is no automatic veto if a reading is poorly attested — especially if that reading scores well in other areas examined.


Just to say: If you’re examining the Greek text of the Pastorals in any depth, you may consider locating Elliott’s work. Best to check a well-stocked theological library!

What’s an “Elder”, Anyway?

March 9, 2007 /

In early February, Ray posted on $esv(Titus 1.6) and “believing/faithful children”. In that post, Ray linked to an article in the 9 Marks newsletter.


Regarding that link, an anonymous commenter asked me:



Rico: Have you read the book in footnote 2?: Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, revised & expanded (Littleton, Col.: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995), 229.


Please consider the concept of “elders” he presents in his research through the Acts and Epistles uses of the Greek words used.


I’ve not read Strauch’s book. But I have read with interest R. Alastair Campbell’s The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity. Campbell gives a more complete view than just centering on practice in Acts and the Epistles; he traces the concept of “eldership” through through the Hebrew Bible, into the New Testament, and then through Apostolic Fathers (particularly Ignatius). I don’t agree with some of his presuppositions (he thinks the Pastorals are psuedepigraphal and contemporary with or immediately preceding Ignatius’ writings and this colors some of his conclusions regarding the role of elders in the Pastorals) but nonetheless he approaches the topic diachronically and does a good job of it.


Anyone else have thoughts on “eldership” as it is discussed in the Pastorals? Or on the topic of “church leadership” in general within the Pastorals?

First Timothy 5.3-6.2: Honoring Means What?

March 8, 2007 /

This whole passage has been in the back of my mind for some time. In it are the following three premises:



  • Honor widows who are truly widows ($esv(1Ti 5.3-16))
  • Double honor for elders who “lead well” ($esv(1Ti 5.17-25)); those in error are to be corrected
  • Slaves are to honor their masters ($esv(1Ti 6.1-2))

Sure, that’s all fine and dandy — until you ask the question, “What does it mean to honor?” In the case of widows and elders, the text makes it fairly clear this means taking care of them materially. Widows are to be provided for, and elders who rule well are to be doubly provided for (5.18, with its OT quotes, makes this fairly plain).


And slaves are to “honor” their masters. But surely this doesn’t mean that slaves are to provide materially for their masters, does it? What really does 6.1-2 say?



1 All who are under a yoke as slaves, let them consider their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and our teaching might not be maligned. 2 But those having believers as masters must not be disrespectful because they are brothers, rather they must serve more, because the ones who benefit from their good work are believers and beloved. (my own translation)


This all comes down to “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” which, as some of my co-workers will tell you, pervades my very being. I suppose my basic problem is that the same terminology is used for “honor” throughout the passage whether it is discussing widows, elders or slaves/masters. But in context it doesn’t mean exactly the same thing in each instance, even though all three exist in close succession and in an overall similar context. But can it mean such different things in such close succession? Why wouldn’t the third instance of “honor” carry similar meaning to the first two?


Is the difference because the “honor” explained in detail in the first two (widows/elders), and left unmodified/specified in the last? That is, the method of honor itself is not fully explicated, though the effects of having the honor are?


(gotta go, but that sums up my basic thoughts as I’ve mulled over this text for the past months) 


Update (2007-03-08): Of course, if slaves submit to their masters and do what they are told, then the master will benefit materially (assuming the master is acting in his own interest and has some sensibility … perhaps too much to assume?). The end of 6.2 alludes to this, ” …  the ones who benefit [masters] from [the slaves’] good work are believers and beloved”. And by “serving more” if their master is Christian, then the master benefits more. So maybe there is some sort of connection with material gain here?

Statistics and Biblical Studies

March 1, 2007 /

Anybody else notice how, in this recent Jesus Tomb hullabaloo, biblical scholars are all of a sudden willing to enter the arena of statistics and note seemingly obvious problems with statistical studies?


Yet in the area of authorship of the Pastorals, where statistics play a central part in the case for pseudepigraphy, most biblical scholars turn their heads and say, “I’m not a statistician, but the statisticians say … ” as a positive case?


Why are P.N. Harrison’s numbers and approach still being used as groundwork for pseudepigraphy when problems with his methodology have been thoroughly documented? (e.g. Donald Guthrie here and here) And why don’t more people engage the statistics as they are in this Jesus tomb crud? Why do most just say “yup” and move on?

Titus 1:6, believing/faithful children

February 6, 2007 /

[NB: Ray Van Neste is the author of this post; the name changed in the database when Rick cleared up some link issues]


I had thought for sometime about writing something on the interpretation of Titus 1:6. In stating the qualifications for serving as an elder/pastor the text states that “his children are believers.” It could also be translated “his children are faithful.” The standard commentaries do not wrestle much with this issue, but it is huge in considering who should serve in this important role. In dialogue with Justin Taylor I discovered he had written a paper on this very topic. I am very pleased to see it is now available in the most recent 9 Marks newsletter. This is a well written piece and I commend it to you. I agree wholeheartedly with Justin that the text is not requiring that a pastor’s children be Christians but that they be submissive and obedient.

A.Q. Morton, Stylometric Analysis, Pastoral Epistles, and C.S. Lewis?

February 5, 2007 /

Christianity Today’s website has an article titled “Shedding Light on The Dark Tower: A C.S. Lewis Mystery Solved“. (h/t Targuman. Thanks, Chris!)


The backstory: There is a somewhat questionable work attributed to C.S. Lewis titled The Dark Tower. Katherine Lindskoog has disputed Lewis’ authorship of this work (and some other writings attributed to Lewis after his death). She published a book with her case.


In 1994, with the release of the Lewis bio-pic Shadowlands, an updated and revised version of her book was released. And the re-release included stylometric analysis to “prove” Lewis wasn’t the author. Here’s the paragraph from the CT story:



With the 1994 release of the movie Shadowlands, Lindskoog reissued her book as Light in the Shadowlands, adding two new chapters. In this edition, she reported on a new study by the Rev. A. Q. Morton, which employed cusum (cumulative sum) statistical analysis of the first 23 sentences of chapter one of The Dark Tower, the first 24 sentences of chapter four, and the first 25 sentences of chapter seven, comparing them with similar passages from Out of the Silent Planet and That Hideous Strength. This type of style analysis has been used to prove that Shakespeare did not write his plays, that Paul did not write some epistles attributed to him, and that Jesus did not speak some sayings attributed to him. It assumes that a person’s use of language remains constant over one’s lifetime and in all situations. Morton concluded that Lewis could not have written chapters one and four, but that he did write chapter seven. Therefore, The Dark Tower was “a composite work.“


The Point: A.Q. Morton’s work has been cited numerous times to support the argument that lexically, linguistically and stylistically, Paul couldn’t have written any of the Pastoral Epistles. Any discussion of authorhship of Pauline material usually cites a number of articles and a few books by Morton. He did, I would guess, use the same style of analysis here in examining Lewis’ work.


Note also that Morton’s analysis sounds sort of like P.N. Harrison’s “fragmentary” hypothesis of the Paulines. Could The Dark Tower be Walter Hooper’s pseudeipigraphic paean to Lewis? Tha’s what the stylometrist would have us believe.


Most of Lindskoog’s case (from what I can tell by the CT article) rests on her internalized read of what Lewis’ authorial tone should sound like; and The Dark Tower doesn’t sound like Lewis to her. That, plus she contends that there was no one living to confirm Hooper’s attribution of the work to Lewis — the only name he could muster has long since passed away. Because it couldn’t be proven directly, it was suspect. And the stylometric analysis proved it, at least from her perspective.


However, in this case we have a smoking gun. Lindskoog and Morton are wrong. The CT article continues (which I quote at length):



In 2003, Fowler wrote an essay for the Yale Review about Lewis as a doctoral supervisor. (I included his article in C. S. Lewis Remembered, a collection of essays by former students of Lewis.) Fowler began studies with Lewis in 1952. In describing how Lewis lectured, read, and supervised, Fowler also discussed how Lewis wrote.


In the Yale Review article, he mentioned that their relationship went to a different level when Lewis discovered that Fowler had writer’s block with a piece of fantasy he was attempting. Lewis helped Fowler through his block and continued to ask how Fowler’s fiction was coming. Fowler then added this about Lewis’s writing habits:


Not that he always wrote without difficulty; sometimes he had to set a project aside for a long period. He showed me several unfinished or abandoned pieces (his notion of supervision included exchanging work in progress); these included “After Ten Years,” The Dark Tower, and Till We Have Faces. Another fragment, a time-travel story, had been aborted after only a few pages.

Lewis told Fowler that getting to another world was a particular problem that had forced him to give up on several stories.


“Lewis certainly talked about TDT [The Dark Tower],” Fowler wrote to me. “He said he had been unable to carry it further. He didn’t say when he had written the fragment. I got the impression that tdt had been meant as a sequel, but I have no idea at what stage in the development of the published trilogy.”


“Like many fantasy writers,” Fowler wrote, “Lewis wasn’t much interested in the question of the literary quality of his writing.”


And there you have it. Stylometric analysis can be wrong. In this case, very likely using the same techniques, carried out by the same man (A.Q. Morton) responsible for the primary cited sources that conclude Paul couldn’t have written some of the epistles attributed to him, made the wrong conclusion.


Realize that even if one limits Lewis’ writing to his fantasy writings (even just to one volume of his Space Trilogy), that’s more material by far than we have for Paul. In other words, stylometry would be much more likely to get the C.S. Lewis case correct! But it didn’t work. Stylometrists have even less material upon which to base their conclusions regarding Paul and the NT. So in what esteem should we hold their conclusions? (Note I say conclusions, not the underlying work — stylometry need not only be marshalled in the argument about authorship!)


The lesson: Stylometry can be interesting, but it can tell us nothing definite regarding authorship of the letters within the Pauline corpus.


Thanks, Christianity Today!

Ben Witherington III on the Pastoral Epistles

February 1, 2007 /


One of the books I purchased at the 2006 SBL national meeting in DC was Ben Witherington’s new socio-rhetorical commentary on the Pastorals (and 1-3 John), Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians.


I’ve been slowly working my way through the introduction to the whole book. I’ve also read his intros to Titus and First Timothy.


Some notables, in no particular order:



  • Witherington posits Pauline authorship with Luke as his amanuensis. He sees a lot of similarities with Lucan tendencies in Acts (vocabulary, LXX influence, style, etc.) but also recognizes the key ideas are Pauline. He says that Luke had a freer hand in the composition of Titus and First Timothy, but Second Timothy has more direct influence from Paul. This summary doesn’t do Witherington justice, you should really read it.
  • Witherington thinks the order of composition is Titus, then First Timothy, then Second Timothy. I believe PastoralEpistles.com’s own Perry Stepp orders them in this way too, though, as I’ve gathered from papers of his I’ve heard at SBL, he sees the composition history a bit differently.
  • Witherington (as does Towner) also strongly recommends considering each epistle on its own merits, and only thinking about material overlapping in subject matter after this. For example, the tendency to describe the opponents mentioned in both Titus and Timothy is often conflated. Witherington advocates keeping the opponents in Ephesus separate from the opponents in Crete and not discussing opposition generally by picking and choosing references from all over the Pastorals.
  • I’m always vascillating on what I think regarding the intended audiences of these letters. I’ve thought that while addressed to Timothy & Titus, the believers in Ephesus and Crete would’ve heard the content as well. Witherington, however, sees these as private exhortatory letters. His argument is strong and is causing me to rethink my own perspective on intended scope of readership.

The introductory matter is very readable and well composed. He also has more than a standard bibliography, he actually recommends specific commentaries and monographs and explains why he does so. Very helpful, and it’s made me think more seriously about getting the Anchor Bible volumes on Titus (Quinn) and 1&2 Timothy (Luke Timothy Johnson).


That’s it for now. I’ll likely have more later on this one.

Actively-editing Amanuensis vs. Pseudepigraphy?

January 22, 2007 /

How would an actively-editing amanuensis be different from a pseudepigraphist?


Say, for instance, the notion of Paul discussing and working through the epistle with an amanuensis and then trusting the amanuensis to write down the result (based, of course, on notes and discussion). Paul retains veto/final edit power.


How is that different from the claims of benign pseudepigraphy or even allonymity by a Pauline disciple (apart from the specific and active involvement by Paul in the amanuensis scenario)?


I guess I’m asking: are the two really that far apart? I know what I think (er … conceptually yes, they’re different) but I’m asking not about the terminology but about the mechanism.


In the realm of mechanics of composition, would a pseudepigraphist working within “Pauline tradition” really be that much different than an epistle composed with the active help, intervention and feedback from an amanuensis?


(Really, I’ll post about non-authorship stuff in the future. Really I will!)


Update (2007-01-23): Why did I write this post? It’s because I’ve been reading Paul and First Century Letter Writing by E. Randolph Richards. And, based on some of the information presented in that book, I’m wondering how the use of an active amanuensis would differ from the “devoted Paulinist” as author of the PE apart from the direct, active and approving role of Paul in the first scenario.


Check out the very last footnote in Richards’ book:



For example, the ideas in this book contribute one more straw on the back of an apparently collapsing camel carrying the theories that some of Paul’s letters were written by disciples after Paul’s death. We have seen that many of the arguments used to support htis iew (pseudonymous authorship) can be explained by common procedures in first-century letter writing. Any discussion must seriously consider the role of coauthors and secretaries, as well as the heavy use of preformed traditional material in the Pastorals. … I further question the usual assertions that pseudonymous letters were (a) common, (b) written as a compliment to the author and (c) usually composed by his friends/followers. I see no evidence to support this. These assumptions about psuedonymity have led to a myth of innocent apostolic Psuedepigrapha; see E.E. Ellis, “Traditions”, pp. 237-53. A letter should be termed “Pauline” or “Psuedo-Pauline”. The euphesimistic or conciliatory “Deutero-Pauline” label seems unsubstantiated. In fact, the term “pseudonymity” needs more clarification as demonstrated by Kent Clarke, “The Problem of Psuedonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Implications for Canon Formation,” The Canon Debate, pp. 440-68 and Terry Wilder, Psuedonymity. (Richards, 232, note 1)


Richards also deals with interpolations and makes the helpful note that one must consider if such proposed textual interruptions are post-Pauline. That is, such textual interruptions could have arisen in the editing process before the letter was dispatched. He concludes “Without external evidence (manuscript attestation), material injected by a coauthor into a letter would be indistinguishable from a post-Pauline interpolation.” (Richards 231). Earlier, Richards suggested that perhaps Sosthenes (the cosender of 1 Corinthians) was responsible for 1Co 14.33b-35, a passage so many scholars have trouble with (Richards 111-115).


Anyway, Richards’ book helped focus my mind on some questions I’d been mulling over regarding the Pastorals. I’d long wondered about how letters were composed in the first century, and how that composition process (role of amanuensis, solo vs. group writing, role of coauthors, editing/revision process) might reflect the sorts of things that stylometrists and other scholars tend to focus on as non-Pauline characteristics. If you have some questions along those lines, I’d recommend Paul and First Century Letter Writing.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Pastoral Epistles

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑