Category: Article Links (Page 5 of 6)

Bible Study Magazine on the Pastorals and Philemon

The September-October 2012 issue of Bible Study Magazine has a special section on the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon.

I was happy to be able to write two of the articles in the special section, in addition to my normal “Thoughts from the Early Church” column. Here are some more details on some articles in the special section:

Special Section on the Pastoral Letters: In Transition

Fighter, Writer, More than a Conqueror

When authors use illustrations, they invite us to draw parallels between what we know and what they want us to learn. Their examples help us understand their ideas. And the illustrations they choose give us insights into how they see the world and what frames of reference they expect to have in common with their audience. —Eli T. Evans

The First-Century Abolitionist

Today, an estimated 27 million people are enslaved globally, and human trafficking is a $32 billion industry. Modern-day slavery is built on greed, fear and a disregard for human life, and it’s an issue we take very seriously. So when Paul writes in 1 Timothy 6:1, “All those who are under the yoke as slaves must regard their own masters as worthy of all honor,” it seems surprising to us that he doesn’t denounce the practice. Instead, he addresses the attitude Christian slaves should have toward unbelieving masters. Why does Paul seem so nonchalant about slavery? Has he cowered under the pressure of Graeco-Roman culture and embraced it? —John D. Barry and Craig A. Smith

You Owe Me Your Very Soul

“And I won’t mention that you owe me your very soul,” Paul says in his letter to Philemon (Phlm 19). At first glance, Paul’s comment seems like a threat—a rhetorical hand grenade he tosses to pressure Philemon, a church leader in Colossae, to do what he wants. But is that what’s going on? —Perry L. Stepp and Rebecca Kruyswijk

See the Bible Study Magazine web site for more information (including subscription info).

The PE at SBL

There were a number of papers on the Pastorals at SBL this year including a full session of the Disputed Paulines study group being devoted to them.

The best paper on the Pastorals which I heard came from Jens Herzer of Leipzig. His paper was titled, “Language and Ideas of the Pastoral Epistles in Light of the Papyri.” Herzer, while not affirming Pauline authorship, has a positive view of these letters and presented solid work on the papyri. He argued for maintaining the individuality of the three letters (rather than simply lumping them together, as is too common), supported the idea of 1 Timothy as mandata principis, and made several other suggestions. Herzer seems to be working on a larger project on the Pastorals, so I will be watching for more from him.

The papers from the Disputed Paulines Section were less constructive and less helpful. The Monday morning session of this group had the theme, “New Methods and the Pastoral Epistles.” I will list each presenter and paper title with a brief interaction.

Ilaria Ramelli, Catholic University of Milan, “Tit 2:1-4, Women Presbyters, and a Patristic Interpretation”

Ramelli essentially argued that Origen affirmed women “elders.” However, even the evidence cited had Origen stating clearly that these women were neither to teach men nor to teach publicly in church. It was not clear to me that “elders” were clearly in view, rather than Origen simply affirming the role of women teaching and encouraging younger women as stated in Titus 2. AS the paper progressed it was not really rooted in Titus 2 but referred to wide ranging sources which alluded to women in ordained ministries. These references were primarily cited but not explained or defended. This paper was similar to her article “Theosebia: A Presbyter of the Catholic Church,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 26.2 (2010): 79-102.

Elsa Tamez, United Bible Society, “The Rhetorical Strategy in 1 Tim 2:8-3:1”

Tamez’s paper followed a similar approach as that found in her book on 1 Timothy. She cited some verbal parallels in this text, though her point was not entirely clear to me. She argued for a basic A, B. A’ structure in various places- some of which has been commonly noted in the literature. She did argue that this text prohibits women from certain ministry but suggested it is not necessarily binding, stating, “There have been men and women who have refused to heed this text.”. She stated, in what may have been an off hand comment, “So the only way out for women is rebellion.”

Marianna Kartzow, University of Oslo, “An Intersectional Approach to the Pastoral Epistles”

Kartzow, author of the recent Gossip and Gender: Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles, essentially approached the Pastorals on the assumption that they are written as late as three generations after Paul and asked “Who needed this memory of Paul?” She was concerned with how different groups- particularly marginalized or oppressed groups- would have “remembered” the ideas contained in the letter. She stated that she did not think the Pastorals were reflections of reality and said we ought to pay as little attention to the Pastoral Epistles as possible because they contain dangerous hierarchies and are texts of terror. She noted, with apparent disappointment that she found little destabilizing ideas in the Pastoral Epistles, i.e. they were socially conventional.

Gail Streete, Rhodes College, “The Pastorals in Rehab; Why They Are Important to Feminism (And It’s Now What You Think)”

Streete is the author of several books, including The Strange Woman: Power and Sex in the Bible. I did not catch why, in her opinion, the Pastorals are important to feminism, though that failure is probably mine due to having listened to too many academic papers in a row. 🙂 She was pessimistic about the possibility of discovering meaning in these letters. She confessed, “I have never learned to love the Pastoral Epistles,” and referred to Deborah Krause’s portrayal of the Pastorals as the “grumpy old uncle” whom you learn to tolerate. She also affirmed the statement of Linda Maloney (in Fiorenza’s Feminist Commentary) that the author of the Pastorals was “a frightened would-be authority on the defensive.”

Ken Myers on Titus and Cultural Engagement

In the recent issue of Touchstone Magazine Ken Myers’ article “Waiting for Epimenides” draws from the letter to Titus lessons for cultural engagement.  Myers’ article is a good example in a non-technical article of drawing proper applications.


This is a good article both in its handling of Titus and in its observations of the current church scene.  Here si one quote:



“St. Paul’s letter to Titus is a bracing rebuke to much of the vague talk about cultural engagement one hears in so many Christian settings. … It recognizes that cultural moods and styles can be enemies of faithfulness.” (11)


If you are not a subscriber to Touchstone, I would encourage you to try out the magazine.


New Article on the Structure of Titus

 

Google is amazing!  Yesterday I was completing a writing project and using “Google books” to track down a few stray references.  On one page Google linked to an article by Kevin Gary Smith titled “The Structure of Titus: Criss-cross Chiasmus as Structural Marker.”  I had never heard of this article so I followed the link.  I discovered that this article is from volume 3 (March 2007): 99-110, of Conspectus the online, refereed journal of South African Theological Seminary.

 

 Smith interacts with my article and monograph on the structure of Titus as well as an article by Clark.[1]  Smith accepts the chiastic structural suggestions made by Banker[2] and myself but wants to press them further.  There is little point in me here summarizing the argument when the article is readily available and only 12 pages in length.

 

 I am pleased to see ongoing reflection on the structure of the Pastorals, and I agree with Smith that Titus “may well be the most delicately structured of all Paul’s letters” (99).  In the end Smith says his argument “confirms, with minor adjustments” my own proposal (109).  I think this is true, though I am not convinced by the adjustments. He mentions his intention to publish a follow up article with supporting linguistic evidence.  I will be eager to see that article as well.

 

I would be quite interested to hear from others what they think of Smith’s argument.  It is good to see this conversation continue.

UPDATE: Elias Fairfield has kindly pointed me to the link for Smith’s dissertation online:

https://www.sats.edu.za/content/bible-translation-and-relevance-theory-translation-titus

Thanks, Elias!


[1] Ray Van Neste, ‘Structure and Cohesion in Titus,’ Bible Translator  53.1 (January 2002): 118-33; Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (London: T&T Clark, 2005); D. J. Clark, “Discourse Structure in Titus,” Bible Translator  53.1 (January 2002): 101-17.

 

[2] John Banker, Semantic Structure Analysis of Titus (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1987).

 

 

 

Titus 3.10 and αιρετικον ανθρωπον

Roger Pearse (whose blog you really should be reading) has some questions on how αιρετικον ανθρωπον should be translated in Titus 3.10.

He lists a number of English translations (plus the Vulgate) and has some other discussion; but the meat of his question is:

The most natural English usage would appear to be ‘heretic’ or ‘heretical man’.  Why don’t we say so?  How would we translate this in a patristic text? The Vulgate does not hesitate to say “haereticum hominem” – “heretic man”.

A heretic is not necessarily a “divisive person”, after all.  The Greek word, surely, will relate more to the variety of belief in the philosophical schools (haereses) than to modern ecumenism, or indeed even to 4th and 5th century doctrinal debates?

It’s been awhile since I’ve worked through the text of Titus, but I consulted my notes on this word instance from a few years back; here’s what I wrote:

While the typical literal translation of αἱρετικός (hairetikos) seems to be factious, this word is somewhat difficult in that it is not a common word, and its meaning is not readily at hand for many readers. Thus I’ve translated as division-causing instead of the other seeming option, heretical. This is one who not only believes contrary to the sound teaching of Paul, but causes problems in the community by advancing his own heretical agenda (hence factious or division-causing).

Anyone else have ideas? If so, feel free to comment here or (better) head to Roger’s blog and interact there.

Previous Journals on the Pastorals

In the Fall 2003 the Midwestern Journal of Theology (inaugural issue) and the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology devoted their articles to the Pastoral Epistles.  Sadly the Midwestern Journal’s table of contents is no longer available online.  The issue contained an article by Howard Marshall surveying recent work on the Pastoral Epistles.  The one article from that issue available online is Terry Wilder’s “A Brief Defense of the Pastoral Epistles’ Authenticity.”


 


The full table of contents from the SBJT issue can be viewed online.  Here are the titles devoted to the Pastorals along with links for those available online:


The Pastoral Epistles
Vol. 7, No. 3, Fall 2003


 


Editorial: Stephen J. Wellum
Guard the Gospel of Truth


 


Andreas J. Köstenberger
Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles


 


Ray Van Neste
The Message of Titus: An Overview


 


Benjamin L. Merkle
Hierarchy in the Church? Instruction from the Pastoral Epistles concerning Elders and Overseers


 


Philip H. Towner
The Function of the Public Reading of Scripture in 1 Timothy 4:13 and in the Biblical Tradition


 


 


Perhaps this will be of interest even if for some articles you have to track down hard copies.


First Timothy Was Written To Timothy

[[NB: I blogged briefly about this in December 2006 with Who were the Pastoral Epistles written to? though I made no conclusions there.]]


That may not seem like much of a headline, but it’s the conclusion I’ve come to after reading three articles by Jeffrey T. Reed:



Reed, Jeffrey T. “Cohesive Ties in 1 Timothy: In Defense of the Epistle’s Unity”, Neotestamentica 26/1: 192-213. 1992.


—– “To Timothy or Not? A Discourse Analysis of 1 Timothy” in S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.) Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (JSNTSup 80; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 90-118. 1993.


—– “Discourse Features in New Testament Letters, with Special Reference to the structure of 1 Timothy”, Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 6: 228-52. 1993.


There are two basic options when one considers intended audience of First Timothy: Timothy (as the letter states) or the Ephesian church. If you would’ve asked me two or three years ago, I’d have told you that I thought that First Timothy, though explicitly addressed to Timothy, was really intended for the Ephesian church and was primarily a way for Paul to disseminate information about church structure and the like. This is the same way that Dibelius and Conzelmann (Hermeneia) approach First Timothy; as well as Barrett, Hanson, and Spicq (If I’m understanding Reed 1993a, p. 91 note 2 properly).


But in reading Reed’s stuff (particularly 1993a, though the others have things to say about it) I’m convinced otherwise. Why? The short list:



  • There are no second person plural verbs in First Timothy.

  • There is only one second person plural pronoun in First Timothy, and that is Paul’s somewhat formulaic end of “Grace be with you (pl.)”

  • The Ephesian church is not a named participant within the text of the letter.

  • The second person singular verbs logically resolve to Timothy as subject.

  • The first person singular verbs logically resolve to Paul as subject, and typically occur in exhortations to the addressee (Timothy).

In other words, I really do think that First Timothy is a personal letter, both in structure/address and in reality. Paul wrote the letter to Timothy to tell him to do things, and provided some background for those things. Would others have benefitted from reading the letter? Sure; there is stuff in there that would benefit, say, elders of the church. But the only one who would benefit or receive instruction from the whole of the letter is Timothy.


If you’re wondering about all of this, or if you’re unconvinced, I’d recommend Reed 1993a above (“To Timothy or Not?”).

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Pastoral Epistles

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑