I’m a little late in mentioning this, but I wanted to point folks to John Hobbins’ blog Ancient Hebrew Poetry. John is an amazing guy. He posted this rather lengthy article on Literary Translation using 1Ti 6.8-10 as an example.
So do check it out.
Author: Rick Brannan (Page 7 of 13)
Since Perry has been giving some updates on his writing endeavors, I figured I’d update too since I recently hit a milestone.
If you know me, you know I’ve been working on my writing project, in my free time, for (I think) five years now. The working title, as of right now, is Word Studies in Context: First Timothy.
Basically, I’ve been working through First Timothy, phrase by phrase, looking at similar-sense word usage (as indicated by lexicons like BDAG, LSJ, Louw-Nida, TDNT) in the Pastorals, in the Epistles, and in the NT; but also in the LXX, Apostolic Fathers, Josephus, Philo, Pseudepigrapha and some other stuff (Papyri, Corpus Hermiticum, even stuff like the third century "Life of Polycarp" in a few instances) to determine/further understand how words and concepts are used in First Timothy.
The idea has always been to lay the groundwork for further study, likely a discourse analysis of First Timothy. I’m not done with the word level portion (I have much revision to do, I need to rewrite the intro and first chapter, and I have literally hundreds of handwritten notes in a kinkos-bound draft of chapters 1-5 to review and integrate).
But it is a big step. The PDF is 464 pages — not double spaced but with wide margins for notes and edits (if/when I print it out). The paper is 8.5×11, but the text would fit in a relatively standard sized book page. An earlier sample (10 pages covering 1Ti 5.17-19) is available if you’re interested in peeking.
When will I finish? I don’t know. But getting through the first pass (some portions are much more polished than other portions) is a big deal, at least to me. Chances are I’ll start digging into discourse issues before I completely finish tweaking/rewriting the word studies portion.
Why does it take so long? Well, since I’ve started I’ve met, courted and married the woman I love; and we’ve started a family (our daughter is nine months old!). These things take time and rightly upstage the writing project. But my wife is a saint and, by the grace of God, understands and encourages me in the writing project, so it will continue. And hopefully, sometime in the next few years, it’ll be at a state where it can be further shared or perhaps even self-published. If the sample interests you, let me know!
I’ve blogged about this a few times previously (here and here).
In working through the end of 1Ti 6, one comes across vv. 17-19. These are instructions to Timothy about those who are "rich in this present age":
17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. (1Ti 6.17-19, ESV)
If Paul is generally writing to the Ephesian community, why is he instructing Timothy to instruct those "rich in this present age"? If the letter is intended to be read to the community at large, wouldn’t these people be present at the reading?
On my way back from Nepal I finally read Ben Merkle’s book, $amz(0820462349 The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church) (Peter Lang, 2003). It is a revision of his doctoral dissertation. Merkle provides a good overview of the scholarly discussion and of the relevant background material. He makes a good case for the use of the term ‘elder’ referring to an office and not simply to age. I agree with his thesis—that elder and overseer refer to the same office—and thought he did a good job defending it. He also deals with the idea that Paul’s churches had no structure/authority but were loosely led by ‘charismatics.’ This view shows up not only in more critical schools of thought but can be found in evangelical settings as well. Merkle clearly shows that concern for official leadership is clear in Paul and Acts. There is no aversion to ‘office’ in Paul and there is more concern with authority than is sometimes acknowledged (for example see Robert Banks, “Church Order and Government” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters). Merkle rightly demonstrates that this view is rooted in an approach which prioritizes 1 Corinthians to the exclusion of Paul’s other letters.
I had been thinking for some time that a rebuttal of these ‘no structure, no authority’ views need to be written. Now I know Merkle has done it and done it well.
So, I’ve been reading Second Clement lately. Today, while looking at 2Cl 3 in $amz(080103468X Holmes’ Apostolic Fathers), and I noticed an interesting—in light of 1Ti 2.4—variant. Convienently, we only have Second Clement extant in two Greek editions (and one Syriac). So I’m assuming that Holmes has been exhaustive in his variants (outside of orthographical issues) between Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and Codex Heirosolymitanus (9th century).
Here’s Holmes’ text (with interesting section in bold):
Τοσοῦτον οὖν ἔλεος ποιήσαντος αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς—πρῶτον μέν, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες τοῖς νεκροῖς θεοῖς οὐ θύομεν καὶ οὐ προσκυνοῦμεν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ ἔγνωμεν διʼ αὐτοῦ τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας—τίς ἡ γνῶσις ἡ πρὸς αὐτόν, ἢ τὸ μὴ ἀρνεῖσθαι διʼ οὗ ἔγνωμεν αὐτόν; (2Cl 3.1, Holmes Greek)
Seeing, then, that he has shown us such mercy—first of all, that we who are living do not sacrifice to dead gods, nor do we worship them, but through him have come to know the Father of truth—what else is knowledge with respect to him if it is not refusing to deny him through whom we have come to know him? (2Cl 3.1, Holmes English)
Holmes follows Alexandrinus (which is usually, apart from orthography, a smart idea, according to none other than J.B. Lightfoot). But note Heirosolymitanus’ reading:
Τοσοῦτον οὖν ἔλεος ποιήσαντος αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς—πρῶτον μέν, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες τοῖς νεκροῖς θεοῖς οὐ θύομεν καὶ οὐ προσκυνοῦμεν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ ἔγνωμεν διʼ αὐτοῦ τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας—τίς ἡ γνῶσις της αληθειας, ἢ τὸ μὴ αὐτόν διʼ οὗ ἔγνωμεν; (2Cl 3.1, Heirosolymitanus)
Haven’t thought much about the deletion/pronoun shift at the end of the verse, but note how “knowledge concerning him” in Alexandrinus is “knowledge concerning the truth” in Heirosolymitanus. That evokes 1Ti 2.4:
ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. (1Ti 2.4, NA27)
who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.(1 Ti 2:4, ESV)
Of course, there are some explanations for the Heirosolymitanus reading. της αληθειας echoes the earlier phrase, “father of the truth”; it could be a scribe’s errant duplication of that phrase. But that doesn’t necessarily account for the balance of changes, does it? The balance of the changes in this verse, I’d guess, force consideration of a deliberate change, not an errant one. That is, it seems to me the balance of the changes make the first change work. In that light, who knows which one is the better reading? In this case, we have the “majority rules” trump card — the Syriac witness supports Holmes’ reading.
I scanned the rest of the variants to see if there might be some gnostic vibe to the differences in Greek editions, but didn’t see any. My guess is that Holmes (and Lake, and Lightfoot) is right.
But still interesting to think about nonetheless. It also goes to show why familiarity with period texts (in this case, Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament) helps so much when thinking about text-critical issues.
I blogged about this now nearly a month ago; in the end of the post I wrote:
I’d thought I would have to instead find the 1933 Tebtunis volume in a library somewhere, but this is so much better. I had to blog it quick; first so I could find the reference easily when I really want it later on; and secondly so y’all could be aware of it.
In the meantime, a friend went up to the library at Trinity Western, and he retrieved the information on P.Tebt 703 from the printed edition for me. I thought it would be 10 pages at most, consisting mainly of transcription and translation.
I was wrong.
The information on P.Tebt 703 runs for 36 pages. There are seven pages of background and discussion, followed by a six-part table of contents (!) before the transcription begins. Following the transcription is the standard translation/notes section that runs for 20 pages!
While there are some similarities in content between P.Tebt 703 and First Timothy and Titus, I think the jury is still out on them sharing genre. But if you’re looking to study this, the information in the Tebtunis Papyri, Vol 3 Part 1, for P.Tebt 703, is well worth looking up and studying.
If you read many recent commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles (particularly Witherington, though Johnson and probably Towner and Marshall), and if you have read the section on First Timothy in Carson’s New Testament Introduction and also in Frank Theilman’s New Testament Theology, you’ve heard of P.Tebt. 703.
P.Tebt. 703 is one of the Tebtunis Papyri. It is a letter dated “after 208 BC”. It is described as:
Copy of an official memorandum probably from the dioiketes to probably the oikonomos, giving instructions concerning agriculture, transport, royal revenues and monopolies, official correspondence, and behavior of royal officials.
Many folks look to P.Tebt. 703 as an example of a superior writing instructions to his lieutenant concerning administration of an area/group and see similarities with what Paul is writing to Timothy in First Timothy (and, similarly what Paul writes to Titus in the epistle to Titus).
I’ve been looking for a full translation of P.Tebt. 703 for a few days (well, thinking about looking) and this morning I finally remembered that I could hit APIS (Advanced Papyrological Information System) and probably find it pretty quickly. It’s better than I’d thought. The APIS entry has images, verso and recto, of all the extant leaves of the letter along with summary description and translation.
I’d thought I would have to instead find the 1933 Tebtunis volume in a library somewhere, but this is so much better. I had to blog it quick; first so I could find the reference easily when I really want it later on; and secondly so y’all could be aware of it.
I happened across a book titled Epictetus and the New Testament by one Douglas Simmonds Sharp, published in 1914. The only copy I found was in Logos Bible Software’s SeminaryLibrary.com. Actually, there is a copy in Google Books, but for some unknown reason it has restricted access (even though it was published in 1914). Anyway, on pp. 74-75, the following like word usages are listed: εμπλεκω and επιπλησσω. Here’s the image I cropped from the book; I don’t really have time to retype it (apologies for that):
Sharp, Douglas Simmonds. Epictetus and the New Testament. London: C. H. Kelly, 1914. pp. 74-75.
I include it here because I thought it might be interesting to some; also because it serves as a mental note to evaluate at a later point when I do further work on similarities between the Pastorals and other contemporary literature (e.g. the Apostolic Fathers)
I was perusing the printed ETS 2007 program the other day and noted the following sessions having to do with the Pastoral Epistles. If you’re going to be at the ETS meeting in San Diego this November, maybe you should try to catch one of these papers.
Wednesday Morning (Nov 14)
Garden Salon Two
New Testament
Theme: Paul
9:20-10:00 AM
Greg MaGee (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
Paul’s Response to the Shame and Pain of Imprisonment in 2 Timothy
11:00-11:40 AM
L. Timothy Swinson (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
“Faithful Sayings” or One Faithful Word? Another View of πιστος ο λογος in the Pastoral Epistles
Thursday Morning (Nov 15)
Hampton
Literature of the Bible Study Group
Theme: Familiar Biblical Texts Through a Literary Lens
8:30-11:40 AM
[note that there are three papers plus a planning meeting in this time frame, Ray’s paper is second]
Ray Van Neste (Union University)
Looking Through a Literary Lens at a Pastoral Epistle
Thursday Afternoon (Nov 15)
Garden Salon Two
Patristics Study Group
Theme: Early Christianity in Africa
2:10-5:20 PM
[note that there are four papers in this time frame, the below paper is listed fourth]
Francis X. Gumerlock (Providence Theological Seminary)
When ‘All’ meant ‘Some’: Fulgentius of Ruspe on $esv(1Ti 2.4)
Respondent: Paul Hartog (Faith Baptist Theological Seminary)
Friday Morning (Nov 16)
Royal Palm Salon Three
New Testament
11:30AM-12:10PM
[this isn’t specifically on the Pastorals, but 1Co 14.33 always comes up when you’re discussing $esv(1Ti 2.11-15)]
William Warren (New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary)
Orderly Worship or Silent Women: A Study of $esv(1 Corinthians 14.33)
Unfortunately, I’ll have to miss most of these sessions. I don’t arrive until early Wednesday afternoon so I’ll miss the Wednesday AM papers (Swinson’s sounds good; I heard him present on a text-critical issue in the Pastorals last year). I present a non-Pastoral-Epistles paper on Wednesday afternoon (at 4:10 in Garden Salon Two). On Friday morning, I moderate a section on the Gospel of John (from 9:00 to 12:10 in Royal Palm Salon Five, do stop by and say ‘hello’ if you’d like).
In studying $esv(1Ti 6.12), I was looking further into the phrase “eternal life” (here ‘τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς‘). I’m sure this is noted in commentaries (which I haven’t checked yet) but has anyone else noticed that there may be inclusios using ‘eternal life’ in both First Timothy and Titus?
First Timothy:
1.16 ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο ἠλεήθην, ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ ἐνδείξηται Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς τὴν ἅπασαν μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν ἐπʼ αὐτῷ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. (1Ti 1.16, NA27)
1.16 But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. (1Ti 1.16, ESV)
6.12 ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως, ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, εἰς ἣν ἐκλήθης καὶ ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρτύρων. (1Ti 6.12, NA27)
6.12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. (1Ti 6.12, ESV)
Titus:
1.2 ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου, ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεὸς πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, (Tt 1.2, NA27)
1.2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began (Tt 1.2, ESV)
3.7 ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν κατʼ ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου.
3.7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
The phrase is not super-frequent in the Pastorals. And, at least in First Timothy, I’ve noticed a few other things that seem to tie the benediction at the end of chapter 1 and the end of chapter 6 together, perhaps as an inclusio for the whole thing (which would speak toward the unity and cohesion of the whole letter). The most obvious is the shared metaphor “wage the good warfare” (1Ti 1.18) and “fight the good fight” (1Ti 6.11), but there may be others.
I know inclusios should have more going for them than shared words, but has anyone else noticed this going on? I’ll have to check some commentaries later and see if they say anything.
Bonus Question: For you word order / discourse grammar folks out there, is there any significance to the change in word order for the phrase “eternal life” between 1Ti 1.16 (πιστεύειν ἐπʼ αὐτῷ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον) and 6.12 (ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς)? The 1Ti 6.12 instance seems to be the only time in the NT that αιωνιος occurs first in the phrase.