Category: New Testament (Page 4 of 5)

I’m Back!!

February 17, 2008 / Ray Van Neste

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.

Commentary and Reference Survey

March 7, 2007 / perry

John Glynn’s 10^th edition of his Commentary and Reference Survey (Kregel) has just been released. This is the most thorough of such books around- though recommendations from Don Carson still carry the most weight with me!

Glynn’s book is a great resource. He has added two chapters on software in this edition.

His section on the Pastorals is well done. As before, he has a list of forthcoming commentaries which is always interesting. In addition to his listing of “Technical, Semitechnical” and “Exposition” types of commentaries he has a list of books dealing with 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and a list of “Special Studies.” I was gratified to note that Lloyd’s book and mine were included in the list, though neither were marked as best buys. J I am not sure exactly how he determined which books to list in this section since there seem to be some obvious gaps, Towner’s monograph for example. Perhaps the idea is that with Towner’s two commentaries there is no need to list his monograph.

This is a very useful- and impressive- book.

Fee’s Pauline Christology

March 2, 2007 / perry

I just received the Ryan Center’s copy of Gordon Fee’s Pauline Chrtistology. I have deeply appreciated Fee’s work on the Spirit in Paul, God’s Empowering Presence, and have therefore eagerly anticipated this new book. He follows the same basic format as the earlier book though he could not be as comprehensive for obvious reasons.

60 pages are devoted to the Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (with each letter treated individually). I have not had the chance yet to work through it, but Fee had already described to me his argument that Paul does not call Jesus God in Titus 2:11-14. It is a significant argument though I have not been able to settle yet on my evaluation of it.

This will be a significant book on many levels.

Towner on the context of Titus

February 15, 2007 / Ray Van Neste

[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 / Ray Van Neste

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 / Ray Van Neste

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?

Corrections

January 9, 2007 / Ray Van Neste

Amanuensis. Paratheke.

I really need to stop trying to type while I’m asleep.

A Handful of Thoughts on Authorship

January 5, 2007 / Ray Van Neste

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:

a free amenuensis;
“someone may have edited and published several of Paul’s writings after his death” (emphasis added)
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.

Reflections on Requiring My Own Book

December 24, 2006 / Ray Van Neste

In the previous post, I wrote that last Spring semester, I required my undergrad Pastoral Epistles class to purchase and write book reports on my book, Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle. I want to unpack my comment.

I came to KCU in fall 2003. I have taught the Pastoral Epistles to undergrads (300-level) every spring since then. I have also taught these letters in an online graduate seminar.

The graduate seminar students had few problems with my book. They understood it, were able to summarize the contents, and even offered a few helpful criticisms.

The Spring 2006 class: half the class was completely lost. One of the problems was that I had several second-semester Freshmen in the class. Freshmen should not take 300- or 400-level Bible classes. (Of course, ONE of the Freshmen actually did handle the book pretty well.)

I did not require the book in Spring 2004 or 2005, because it had not been released yet. But my impression of my students in those semesters was that they would have been able to handle the book, and would have benefitted from it even as they struggled with it.

My observations:

The quality of students in a given class can fluctuate wildly from
semester to semester. This is frustrating for those of us professors
who really want our students to understand and benefit from the
material we try to teach them.
This is also one of the attendant joys of trying to teach serious Biblical studies classes in a Liberal Arts setting. In some of my Bible classes, I’ll have 30-40% of the students who are ministry majors. I may teach the same class the next year, but have only 10% of the students majoring in Bible or ministry.
I tried to aim the book so that educated ministers, church leaders, etc., could benefit from it. It was not just written for eggheads like me. Most semesters, my Pastoral Epistles classes would have gotten it.
I should quit beating myself up for requiring the book, and just chalk it up to experience.
Will I require future undergraduate classes to purchase and use my book? Yes, but I’ll check the majors of preregistered students, etc., to determine ahead of time if they can handle the book.

What I’m Doing with My Christmas Vacation

December 23, 2006 / Ray Van Neste

So what am I doing over my Christmas break?

BIG TASK #1: generating syllabi for not one but TWO Pastoral Epistles-related classes for the spring.

FIRST is a 300-level class in the Pastorals. I’ve taught this class every spring since I’ve been at KCU and have NOT been happy with it, ever. Previously, I’ve taught it where the students had to write several small research papers on issues like authorship, women in the PE, etc. I’ve also done it with other types of projects and papers. THIS SEMESTER, I’m going to have students make group presentation on the hot topics (women in the church, church discipline, etc.)
SECOND is a class in expository preaching, which I’m teaching because our preaching professor left and hasn’t been replaced. I’m going to focus on exegesis and sermon development, and the Pastorals will be our primary text.

What books are we using? Towner’s new commentary; Luke Johnson’s offering from the Knox Preaching Guides, which I’ve had reprinted; Mark Harding’s What Are They Saying about the Pastoral Epistles?; I think that’s it.

Last spring, I required students in the undergrad class to purchase and write a book report on my book, Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle. It was a disaster. I felt guilty about requiring my students to spend $85 on my book, and it was WAY too far over their heads.

So now I only require it for my graduate seminar in the Pastorals.

Other things I’m doing, non-Pastorals related:

BIG TASK #2: Installing Pergo on the top floor of our house. It’s a
Christmas present for both me and my wife. Honestly, it’s more a
present for my wife, but I’ve always wanted it too!
Doing all kinds of church and ministry related stuff;
Doing all kinds of family stuff–Christmas concerts, basketball practice, daddy’s taxi service, shopping and cleaning up;
Teaching an online class (200-level Gospel of Luke) from 15 December through the end of January. I’ve got a ton of emails and online discussion posts to read every day. (We’re using SAKAI, btw, and it ain’t great.)
And (of course) watching football and eating way too much.