I have previously mentioned the excellent paper by Dillon Thornton presented at our meeting of the Pastoral Epistles group at ETS last year. The paper, titled ” ‘Saying What They Should Not Say’: Reassessing the Gravity of the Problem of the Younger Widows (1 Tim 5:9-16
)” has just been published in the most recent issue of JETS. You can see the paper here.
Category: Pastoral Epistles|1 Timothy|1 Timothy 5 (Page 2 of 3)
The Pastoral Epistles were given significant attention at this year’s Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. First, we had an excellent session in the Pastoral Epistles Group.
Chuck Bumgardner began our session with a paper titled, “Kinship, Fictive Kinship, and the Letters to Timothy and Titus.” Bumgardner compared what these letters say about family relationships and relationships within the body of Christ (Bumgardner used the phrase “fictive kinship” because it is the standard phrase used to refer to social relationships which are seen or described as familial though there is no blood relation ). He argued that Paul’s use of such language in the PE is not incompatible with his use of it in his other letters, and it does not necessarily indicate that the church is moving from an egalitarian stage to a hierarchical one. His paper also provided an initial sounding of the intersection between Christian family and social family roles in the PE, suggesting that Paul navigates such intersections with a missionary concern for outsiders.
Dillon Thornton was snowed in and, therefore, unable to attend. However, he emailed me his paper, and I was able to read it. The paper,“’Saying What They Should Not Say’: Reassessing the Gravity of the Problem of the Younger Widows (1 Tim 5:9-16),” argued that the younger widows were aligned with the false teachers. Paul’s instruction left them three possibilities: 1) to remain with the false teachers and thus under judgment, 2) to marry unbelievers, thus parting ways with the false teachers (who forbid marriage), and still remaining under judgment, or 3) to remarry in the faith, thus parting ways with the false teachers and realigning with the Pauline church. This answers some of the knotty issues of this passage and gives more attention to many of the specifics than I have seen elsewhere.
Greg Couser’s paper, “The Church as Family: The Nature of the Household of God in 1 Timothy,” argued that the relationships within the church are not merely “fictive” but are in fact more real than blood relations, as Jesus himself said (Matt 12:46-49). Couser provided a robust argument that the ethics of 1 Timothy are not based in cultural accommodation but in the gospel itself. This is a crucial point for understanding the PE since their ethics are so often dismissed or overturned because they are seen as culturally bound.
Peter Walker closed the session with his paper, “1 Timothy & Titus Relocated: Reimagining the Connections.” Walker argued for placing the PE within the framework of the book of Acts. He has made this argument in print previously, but in this paper he discussed implications of this view including connections between these letters and 1-2 Corinthians and Romans. He also argued this would remove several common critiques of the PE. While, in the end, I was not convinced, Walker made many good challenging points which helped me think more clearly about the dating of the letters.
In addition to our session, several other papers related to the Pastorals were presented. Thanks to Chuck Bumgardner for gathering this list.
Bryan Blazosky (Central Baptist Theological Seminary) “Why 1 Timothy 1:8-11 Ought to be Used in Paul and the Law Studies”
Christopher R. Bruno (Cedarville University) “One God, One People, One Mediator: The Use of the One God Formula in the Disputed Pauline Epistles”
Jamin Hübner (John Witherspoon College) “The Evolution of Complementarian Exegesis” (This is equivalent to Jamin Hübner, “The Evolution of Complementarian Exegesis,” Priscilla Papers 29/1 (Winter 2015), 11-13.
Chris S. Stevens (McMaster Divinity College) “Titus in P32 and Sinaiticus: Textual Reliability and Scribal Design”
Gregory J. Stiekes (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) “Paul’s Family of God: What Familial Language in the Pastorals Can and Cannot Tell Us about the Church”
Also, the book this panel discussed had a chapter on the PE:
Panel Discussion: Review of Margaret Y. MacDonald, The Power of Children: The Construction of Christian Families in the Greco-Roman World
Reviewers: Lynn Cohick (Wheaton College); E. Randolph Richards (Palm Beach Atlantic University); Karelynne Ayayo (Palm Beach Atlantic University); F. Alan Tomlinson (Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary).
Response Margaret Y. MacDonald
This is a guest post from Chuck Bumgardner, who is currently working on a PhD in New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
At the time of his passing in 2012, Abraham Malherbe was working on a commentary on the Pastoral Epistles that was to replace Dibelius/Conzelmann in the Hermeneia series (as of last August when I checked, Fortress had not chosen a new author). His contribution to the literature would have been most welcome, given his scholarly acumen and his previous Pastorals research. I wanted to note here that most of his already-published engagement with the Pastorals, which was scattered rather widely, has been gathered into the first volume of a just-published collection of his essays:
Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity. Collected Essays, 1959-2012, by Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by Carl R. Holladay, John T. Fitzgerald, Gregory E. Sterling, and James W. Thompson. 2 volumes. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 150. Leiden: Brill, 2014. (ISBN 978-90-04-25339-1)
The following essays are in Light from the Gentiles. I’ve provided original publication data.
“‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology in the Pastoral Epistles.” Pages 331-58 in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. Novum Testamentum Supplements 121. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
“Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of Wealth. 1 Timothy 6:3-19: Part I.” Novum Testamentum 52 (2010): 376-405.
“Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of Wealth. 1 Timothy 6:3-19: Part II.” Novum Testamentum 53 (2011): 73-96.
“How to Treat Old Women and Old Men: The Use of Philosophical Traditions and Scripture in 1 Timothy 5.” Pages 263-90 in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 129. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
“‘In Season and Out of Season’: 2 Timothy 4:2.” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1982): 23-41.
“Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles.” Pages 19-35 in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers. Edited by W. E. March. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980.
“Overseers as Household Managers in the Pastoral Epistles.” Pages 72-88 in Text, Image, and Christians in the Graeco-Roman World: A Festschrift in Honor of David Lee Balch. Edited by Aliou Cissé Niang and Carolyn Osiek. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 176. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012.
“Paraenesis in the Epistle to Titus.” Pages 297-317 in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Edited by James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pederson. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 125. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.
“Paulus Senex.” Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 197-207.
“The Virtus Feminarum in 1 Timothy 2:9-15.” Pages 45-65 in Renewing Tradition: Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James W. Thompson. Edited by Mark W. Hamilton, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Jeffrey Peterson. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 65. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2007.
I am currently reading Tim Swinson’s dissertation “GRAFH in the Letters to Timothy” recently passed at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I was eager to read it after hearing a number of good papers from Tim at ETS meetings along the way. I am only into the second chapter but already find this to be a well done, useful work. Swinson is more conversant with French, German, and Spanish sources than is common in American PhD’s. His writing is clear and forthright. His brief argument for Pauline authorship is well done and gathers a lot of helpful information.
I am eager to finish the reading. If you are working on the Pastorals concerning authorship or the references to scripture (1 Tim 5:18; 2 Tim 3:16), you would do well to check with the library at TEDS for this dissertation.
I have been very quiet on the PE front as I am now working on a project on the Bible and Spirituality. However, I’d just like to mention a couple of news items. First, my article “Women as Gossips and Busybodies? Another Look at 1 Timothy 5:13” will be published shortly in the Lexington Theological Quarterly. Second, I shall shortly be returning to the PE as I shall be working on the notion of ‘the good life’ in the PE for the project.
Congratulations to my fellow contributors for news on projects they are engaged in.
Lloyd Pietersen
The manuscript for my commentary, Reading Paul’s Letters to Individuals: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Letters to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy, is officially in the mail to Smyth and Helwys.
S&H expects the commentary to be available in October, just in time for SBL. Maybe I’ll need to go to Boston after all.
This is the commentary that Glenn Hinson was supposed to write, then Marty Soards. Both ended up not filling the contract. Then Hulitt Gloer wrote a manuscript, but was not able to finish it for health reasons.
So in January–you may recall–the editor of the series, Charles Talbert (who was my doctorfather at Baylor) asked if I could finish Gloer’s manuscript. And I’ve spent the last few months doing so.
I’d originally hoped to have 300 – 325 double spaced pages, and ended up with 425: OUCH! Did I type all that stuff?
What’s innovative or fresh about the commentary? Two things, off the top of my head:
First, it is a scholarly commentary, interacting extensively with primary sources (Philo and Josephus, especially) and cutting-edge secondary sources (e.g., Bruce Winter’s work on the new Roman woman), BUT the exposition is aimed at preachers and teachers. This would be the first commentary I would recommend for people who want to preach these letters.
Second, this is the first commentary on the Pastorals to take into account the role that succession plays in these letters.
I’ve had the question of how 1Ti 4.3 and 1Ti 3.2 fit together rolling around in my head for awhile.
1Ti 4.3 is in the context of a description of the false teachers of Ephesus, noting things they (unjustly) forbid. Below is 1Ti 4.1-3:
4.1 Τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως προσέχοντες πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων, 2 ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων, κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν, 3 κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς μετάλημψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. (1Ti 4.1-3, NA27)
4.1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (1Ti 4.1-3, ESV)
1Ti 3.2 (along with 1Ti 3.12 and 1Ti 5.9) specify a marriage relationship for those in leadership positions in the fellowship.
3.2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν, (1Ti 3.2, NA27)
3.12 διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων. (1Ti 3.12, NA27)
5.9 Χήρα καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, (1Ti 5.9, NA27)3.2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (1Ti 3.2, ESV)
3.12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (1Ti 3.12, ESV)
5.9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, (1Ti 5.9, ESV)
So, how does all of this fit together? The false teachers say that marriage is forbidden, but Paul says that those in positions in the church (Overseer, Deacons, and Widows) should be or have been married.
This popped in my head again as I’ve been reading Lloyd K. Pietersen’s $amz(0567081834 The Polemic of the Pastorals), where he mentions the "status degradation" aspect of the whole thing:
Finally, Garfinkel draws attention to the fact that, in any successful status degradation ceremony, the typical, negative characteristics of those being denounced must be appreciated by the witnesses by means of a ‘dialectical counterpart’. In this way the community cannot conceive of those denounced without reference to this positive counter conception. In the Pastorals, the qualities of bishops, elders and deacons serve as dialectical counterparts to the deeds of the opponents. Thus, for example, the injunction in 1 Tim 1.2 [sic] that the bishop should be μιας γυναικος ανδρα serves as the dialectical counterpart to the opponents who, among other things, κωλυοντων γαμειν (1 Tim 4.3). Goulder is thus right to argue that the qualifications of leadership function polemically. (Pietersen 111)
I don’t buy all of what Lloyd mentions here (specifically that the Pastorals may be "a literary version of a status degradation ceremony" (Pietersen 111)), but I do think there is significant value to noting that what the false teachers forbid (marriage) is prominent in the descriptions of those in positions of leadership and influence in the church.
Whatever your view of the polemic/paraenesis of the Pastorals, this disparity between the what the false teachers espouse (no marriage) and what Paul espouses for those in prominence in the church (marriage is not just OK, it is expected) needs to be noted.
A few items that may be of interest.
First, the Review of Biblical Literature (RBL) reviews two Pastoral Epistles commentaries:
- I. Howard Marshall reviews Terrence Keegan’s slim volume on $amz(0814628680 1&2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon). I’m not familiar with this one, so can’t say much about it. This is a part of the “New Collegeville Bible Commentary” series. As I recall, Liturgical Press (the publisher) is geared toward the Catholic audience, so this could be a good little volume to get a glimpse at any uniquely Catholic views on the Pastorals.
- Raymond F. Collins reviews Phillip Towner’s $amz(0802825133 NICNT volume on the Pastorals). I’ve read the intros and select other parts of this one and highly recommend it. I like Towner’s approach, particularly his emphasis on un-grouping the Pastoral Epistles. The letters should first be read as letters; they should not be read as a three-part corpus. Collins doesn’t quite agree with that, though. I’m not really a fan of $amz(0664222471 Collins’ commentary on the Pastorals), so you can guess I’m not really a fan of his review of Towner either.
Second, Michael Pahl talks about possibilities of Paul citing Luke’s gospel as Scripture. This is interesting because one of the possibilities is 1Ti 5.18. Michael writes
“The scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves to be paid.'” The first quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4, and the second is word for word the same as Luke 10:7 (and not the same as the Matt 10:10 parallel).
This even has the citation formula that many think is a key to scripture citation. But it isn’t so easy, and Michael explains why. He is actually responding to a post from Richard Anderson on the same topic, which is worth checking out.
[This post is part of a series on The Pastoral Epistles in the Apostolic Fathers. RWB]
The discussion of the Didache in The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers lists only one potential reference to the Pastoral Epistles. The reading has ‘d’ rating. This means the editors see some affinity between the two books in this instance, but no clear case for dependence can be made.
In this instance, one passage in the Didache is linked to three somewhat similar NT passages.
Did 13.1-2 || Matt 10.10; Lu 10.7; 1Ti 5.18
13.1 Πᾶς δὲ προφήτης ἀληθινός θέλων καθῆσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἄξιός ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ. (2) ὡσαύτως διδάσκαλος ἀληθινός ἐστιν ἄξιος καὶ αὐτὸς, ὥσπερ ὁ ἐργάτης, τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ. (Did 13.1-2)
13. But every genuine prophet who wishes to settle among you “is worthy of his food.” (2) Likewise, every genuine teacher is, like “the worker, worthy of his food.” (Did 13.1-2)
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (266, 267). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
10 μὴ πήραν εἰς ὁδὸν μηδὲ δύο χιτῶνας μηδὲ ὑποδήματα μηδὲ ῥάβδον· ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ. (Mt 10.10, NA27)
10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food. (Mt 10.10, ESV)
7 ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ μένετε ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρʼ αὐτῶν· ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. μὴ μεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν. (Lu 10.7, NA27)
7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. (Lu 10.7, ESV)
18 λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή· βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις, καί· ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. (1Ti 5.18, NA27)
18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle a threshing ox” and “The worker is worthy of his wages.” (1Ti 5.18, my own translation)
The Didache text is most like that of Matthew, with “food” (τροφή) the common point. The NT instances of the phrase vary between τροφή (“food”, Mt) and μισθός (“wages”, Lu/1Ti).* Given the Didache’s strong affinity with Mt in other areas, it seems best to consider the primary linkage that of Matthew.
However, the First Timothy reference is interesting because of its use of the citation formula, λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή (“For the Scripture says”). This is interesting because the citation formula is typically used to refer to LXX/Hebrew Bible citations. But it doesn’t appear that the quoted text (“The worker is worthy of his wages”) appears in that form in the OT,** at least based on quick keyword searches and examination of cross-references. The previous quote (“You shall not muzzle a threshing ox”) does occur in the OT (De 25.4; though 1Co 9.9 also quotes the same text).
But the quoted wisdom saying does occur in Matthew and Luke, in the words of Jesus. This means there are two possibilities. Either 1Ti 5.18 is quoting Jesus (and perhaps even Paul!) as Scripture (what does that mean for 2Ti 3.16?) or 1Ti 5.18 is quoting a commonly known bit of wisdom as Scripture. Sort of like one at times catches a Shakespearean proverb attributed to the Bible. The underlying sentiment is there, but the form is not found in the attributed source.
Of course, a third possibility (though this is nit-picking and I don’t think it probable) is that the ‘scripture’ is the first saying, and the second saying is merely tacked on the end as extra information and not intended to be a quotation of Scripture. This seems improbable because of the continuative/connective nature of καί. The sayings are connected, it is logical to assume that the introduction applies to both. After all, if the introduction were instead something like, “you have heard it said [saying] καί [saying]”, we’d have no problem with the linkage of the sayings.
Whatever is going on in 1Ti 5.18, the Didache likely knew nothing of it; if anything it is better to attribute influence to Matthew.
Next up: First Clement
* Again, Luke and 1Ti sharing phrasing and perhaps a source saying. Maybe there is something to the thought of a Lukan influence on the Pastorals …
** I recently examined the use of the quotation formula in James 4.5 on the Logos Bible Software blog. James 4.5 is somewhat similar because the formula is used to introduce a quotation that doesn’t exist in the LXX/Hebrew Bible, but rather a summation of Scripture’s teaching in an area.
This is the title of my paper which has just been accepted for the Disputed Paulines Consultation at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in November 2007. The abstract of the paper is below and no doubt I shall be musing on this here as my thoughts develop.
Nearly all English translations translate the
phrase flu&aroi kai\
peri/ergoi in 1 Tim 5:13 as “gossips and
busybodies” (ESV, GNT, NAB, NIV, NKJV and NRSV, for example), and the
concluding phrase lalou~sai
ta_ mh_ de/onta as some variation of “saying what they should not
say”. This paper revisits the suggestion
by Spicq, Hanson, Kelly and others in their commentaries on this passage that the
former phrase has to do with working magic and the latter with the actual
formulae used. I argue that the phrase
“gossips and busybodies” has, therefore, been consistently mistranslated and
that the apparent misogyny of this passage has to be seen in the context of
very real opposition arising from what the writer views as false teaching and
magical practices within the community.