THE
PASTORAL EPISTLES. L.H.Brough.
Introduction:
Their authorship :
E.Earle Ellis. From Evangelical
Quaterly. Vol.32. No.3.
The consensus of opinion has been that, in the question of
the genuineness, the three epistles stand or fall together. Marcion's abbreviated canon (A.D.140) did
omit them. But, on the whole, the
witness of the Patristic period is as strongly for the Pastorals as for the
other Paulines with the exception of Romans and 1st Corinthians. Modern criticism has rested its case almost
together upon other grounds. If evidence
external to the letters were the only criterion, no serious question ever would
have been lodged against them.
The genuineness of the Pastorals was first questioned by
Schmidt (1805), Schliermacher (1807), and Eichhorn (1812) for stylistic and
linguistic reasons. The spread through Germany and Holland of this type of criticism, which
sought to determine authenticity on philological grounds, resulted in the
rejection of most of the Pauline letters in the succeeding decades. Some scholars, discounting all them, regarded
even Paul himself as a figment of second-century imagination.
The argument against the Pastorals was definitely in a
German Commentary by H.J.Holtgmann (1880) and this continues to be the standard
of reference for the non-Pauline point of view.
During this period most Anglo-American scholars, guided perhaps by
Lightfoot’s essay, regarded the Epistles as Pauline. Not until Harrison's
critique (1921) of the language and style did the pendulum swing the other
way. In the receding tide of radical
criticism since the turn of the century, only the Pastorals - the first to be
questioned - are still held to be spurious by most students; and even here
there are signs of a growing dissatisfaction with the methods and conclusions
of the older criticism.
On the present scene four positions have a significant
following:-
1. Some continue to
view the Pastorals as second-century writings with no Pauline content, except
that which has filtered through the mind of an unknown disciple imitating his
master.
2. In more favour,
and probably the most popular viewpoint, are those who consider a number of
verses to be genuine Pauline fragments, but conclude that the major content is
from the hand of a second-century Paulinist.
3.Still closer to the traditional estimate, a number of writers who account for the stylistic
differences in the Pastorals by positing Paul's use of secretary; the content
of the letters, however, is genuinely Pauline.
4. Finally, a small
group argue anew that any changes in style and content may be adequately
accounted for within the framework of a direct dictation by the apostle.
Objections to the Paulinity of the Pastorals have focussed
upon: The historical situation, the type of false teaching condemned, the stage
of Church Organization, the vocabulary and style, and the theological viewpoint
of the letters.
Two factors in the historical situation weighed against the
authenticity of the Epistles in the minds of the earlier critics: They despaired
of fitting the experiences into the narrative of the Acts and some events
appeared actually to be in conflict with or an imitation of the Lukan material.
In the positive criticism of the Tubingen School
the heresies condemned in the Pastorals were identified with second-century
Gnosticism and their true historical setting was thereby to be obtained. The Church organization too was thought to
reflect a type of monarchical episcopate which could not have been developed in
the apostolic age.
The criticism which have been most effective in recent years
relate to the language and style of the letters and their theological
concepts. For example; "faith"
elsewhere in the Pauline corpus signifies "trust," but in the
Pastorals means a body of doctrine. 1 Tim 4:6; Tit 1:13. Good works are given a centrality unlike the
writer of Galatians and Romans. Dibelius
regards it as a Christianity of orthodoxy and good works.
James Denny said, "Paul was inspired, but the writer of
these Epistle is sometimes only orthodox."
Harrison's
word statistics, "long in a pillar in the case against genuineness, have
been subjected by Professor Metzger to sharp and telling criticism."
It is not impossible to place 1 Timothy and Titus in the
period following Paul's final departure from Ephesus
(Acts 20:1), as G.S. Duncan
tentatively suggests. But the
traditional post-Acts dating of all three letters is more probable. That Paul journeyed East after his release
from Rome, Harrison
writes: "impossible repetition," but Guthrie relies; "more surprising
if otherwise."
Baur's identification of the heresy with second-century
Gnosticism is now generally recognized to be mistaken.
Harrison whose "Problem of the Pastoral Epistles"
has been most influential in Anglo-American scholarship, based his case against
genuineness quite squarely upon language and style. Of some 484 words in the
three letters, 306 are not elsewhere found in the Pauline literature. 175 in other New Testament writings. The many words and phrases characteristic of
the apostle are missing, e.g. the righteousness of God, the body of
Christ. The grammar and style of the
letters varies considerably from the other Paulines.
Moreover, some sixty of the 175 Hapaxes (words found only in
the Pastorals) occur in the second-century Fathers.
Although Harrison's
arguments were for the most part favourably received in the English-speaking,
they found a different reception on the Continent. Dibelius, no friend of the Pauline
authorship, questioned the adequacy of the statistical method as an argument
against authenticity. Michaels in a
well-reasoned critique, argued that Harrison
produced the results he did simply because his faulty and arbitrary methodology
demanded these results. For example,
Harrison found an excessively high number of "Hapaxes per page" in
the Pastorals: but he neglected to mention that these letters have a high total
number of "words per page" and that in proportion to "words per
book" the percentage of Harpaxes in the Pastorals was not greatly
different from other Pauline letters.
In Britain,
Montgomery Hitchcock made the rather embarrassing discovery that the vocabulary
of second-century writings shows a closer relationship to 1 Corinthians (and to
Colossians and Ephesians for that matter) than to the Pastorals. More recently Donald Guthrie, in a
penetrating critique of Harrison's linguistic
argument, sums up the letter's grammatical and stylistic conclusions: "The
same arguments could equally well prove the non-Pauline character of the undisputed
Pauline Epistles and secondly....these statistics take no account of mood and
purpose.
Professor Bruce Metzgar, has called attention to a volume by
a professional statistician which if its results are accepted, has serious
consequences for Harrison's whole
hypothesis.
G.U. Yule, the Cambridge
professor, after careful investigation into the use of the vocabulary-style
comparisons to determine authorship, concludes that “to obtain reliable data
the treatise under study must be at least 10,000 words long. The Pastoral fall short of this minimum.”
About 1935 Otto Roller investigated the nature and practice
of letter-writing in the Roman World, and gave birth to a new hypothesis. He found that an author often employed an
amanuensis who was given a variable degree of freedom in composing the final
document from dictated notes. The author
then corrected it and added a closing greeting. (Gal.6:16).
The major theological concepts of the letters are recognized
by all `Pauline' and those rejecting genuineness posit a devoted disciples as
the author. Certainly, good works are
viewed not as in the later `merit' theology, but as in Paul, to show forth the
genuineness of one's faith. Among
scholars favouring their genuineness are :
Zahn, 1906. Behn, 1948.
Torm, 1932. de
Zwaan, 1948.
Theornell,
1933. Jeremiah, 1953.
Schlatter,
1936. Simpson, 1954.
Michaelis,
1946. Guthrie, 1947.
Spicq, 1947.
- By Prof. E. Earle Ellis. (We might add J.N.D. Kelly. Also
the author on the Pastorals in the Layman's Series and, I understand, Metzgar
and C.F.D.Moule.).
Important
Hypothesis Reconsidered.
Expository Times. Dec.1955.
P.N. Harrison writes again on the Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.
"In all its main features I believe the hypothesis
advocated in my book (1921) to be the true solution of the problem. I still hold that, in their present form
these epistles, cannot possibly have been written by Paul but are, like so many
other ancient writings including some of the most truly inspired books in the
Bible itself, pseudonymous. This is, as
every student knows or ought to know, a very different thing from calling them
forgeries."
"I do not for a moment believe that he intended to
deceive those for whom he wrote, or that they were deceived by him. He was, in my view, a devout sincere and
earnest Paulinist who set out to express in this familiar form what he and his
readers really believed the apostle would have said had he been alive. The mistaken idea that Paul himself wrote
these Epistles arose later in the century, when their author was no longer
there to correct it."
He had before him a collection of ten Pauline letters made
at Ephesus about the turn of the century and had steeped his mind in them to
such an extent that he could and did embody in each of his three Epistles a
number of phrases taken from each of those ten Paulines. Incidently this proves the existence of that
collection at the time and place at which he wrote - Ephesus towards the end of Trajan's reign and
the beginning of Hadrian's.
He also had before him either the originals or good copies
of several brief personal notes sent by the real Paul to the real Timothy and
Titus. 1 Timothy, the last of the three
to be written, has the same abundance of Pauline phrases, but no such personal
notes, as the other two. In these two
respects, and to this extent, the language of the Pastorals is indeed Paul's
own. But for the rest they are written
in the Hellenistic Greek of the first half of the second-century and include a
number of words and phrases certainly current then, but not, so far as we know,
current in Paul's day.
We know that the author of the Pastorals had studied the Septuagint. I am strongly inclined to think he had read
Philo, but I am doubtful that Paul had read Philo.
In 1921 I said that five genuine Pauline notes were to be
found in Titus and 2 Timothy and one in Titus.
Now, in 1955, I think there are three, one in Titus, but only two to be
found in 2 Timothy as before, but distributed somewhat differently. (Titus
3:12-15; 2.Tim.1:16-18; 4:9,15).
In 1921 I still believed as most New Testament scholars did
then, that our `prison letters" were all written during the Roman
imprisonment recorded in Acts. From this
it followed inevitably that 2 Timothy 4:9-12, reporting the defection of Demas,
must belong to a note written from Rome some-time after the despatch of
Colossians and Philemon, in both of which Demas is still with the apostle and
sends his greetings to the recipients. This
must, therefore, be a different note from 4:13-15 in which Paul has recently
been at Troas and Timothy needs to be told of the harm done to Paul at Ephesus by Alexander the
Coppersmith and warned against this dangerous person.
But during the last 26 years thanks largely to Duncan,
"St. Paul's Ephesian Ministry" (1929), the idea that our `prison
letters' may have been written during one, two or even three imprisonments at
Ephesus, or in that region, has been widely discussed, and is now held in one
form or another by a large and growing body of experts, though it is not yet
generally accepted.
Harrison
holds that Philemon, most of Colossians and a letter to the Laodiceans
(Col.4:16) were written by Paul as a prisoner towards the end of his Ephesian
ministry. Harrison
thinks that on this assumption there is no longer any need to regard
2.Tim.4:9-12 and verses 13-15 as different notes. - P.N.Harrison in Expository
Times. Dec.1955.
Pastoral
Epistles discussed in Interpretation.
Oct. 1955 by Laurence F. Kinney.
The Pastoral Epistles have marked differences from the other
writings ascribed to Paul. It clearly
emerges that the survival of the Christian faith is the common theme of the
Pastoral Epistles. The author never
loses sight of his problem. These
writings are united no less by the solution proposed than by the problem
faced. Heresy in thought and behaviour
is to be met by sound men.
The language usage and theological viewpoint serve also to
suggest common authorship for the Pastorals.
Harrison presents his linguistic
arguments in two parts:
Part one: Harrison reasons
that the language of the Pastorals is not the vocabulary of Paul.
Part two: In the second and linguistic part of his
linguistic argument Harrison points out the
common elements existing in the Pastorals and the Apostolic Fathers and
Apologists in the second century.
Moffatt held that in 2nd Timothy the author had some of
Paul's private notes at his disposal; that for the composition of Titus there
was available a genuine note or fragments of Paul's correspondence and 1st
Timothy seems to rest on no fragment from Paul.
The emphasis place upon church office here is a step which developed in
post-Biblical into an elaborate hierarchy.
How far the Pastorals pointed in that direction or constituted a check
to such development is a subject of controversy. - Kinney.
Duncan is
quite sure that Paul wrote Philippians at Ephesus
in the summer of A.D.54. But Harrison is
convinced Paul wrote Philippians during his one and only imprisonment at Rome.
Miss Mossingbird Ford writes: "It is commonly suggested that the
incipient heresy which the Pastoral Epistles seek to combat was
Proto-Jewish-Gnosticism. This paper
would like to present a few points towards the consideration of another
candidate, namely, what the writer could term, "Proto-Montanism.”
Montanism was a charismatic and apocalyptic movement at
first within the Catholic church, but later breaking away from her. Its origins are very obscure. It seems to have arisen somewhere between
A.D.126 and 172 - the earliest date suggested being A.D.56, but this is
probably impossible. It was named from
one, Montanus, from whom it was thought to originate, but it had many other
names, of which the most common was the Cataphrygian or Phrygian heresy, that
is, after the Asiatic region over which it spread so rapidly.
Two of the outstanding `features' of the `cataphrygian
heresy' were prophecy, both through men and women, and asceticism: only later
did its doctrine diverge from the Catholic rule of faith. If the cataphrygian date preceded Montanus
himself, a first century date would be possible. This heresy was Jewish-Christian. Now both Eastern and Western Montanism did
show characteristics of a Jewish-Christian heresy. Miss Ford outlines:-
1. The destination
and `heresy' of the Pastorals.
2. The nature of the
`heresy'.
3. Ecstatic prophecy
as a possible background to the element of sobriety in the Epistle.
4. The place of
women.
5. The hierarchy.
First clue to heresy, 1 Tim 1:3, where it is said that the
recipient of the epistle was charged to remain at Ephesus with the purpose of refuting
heterodoxy. The charismatic element of
the Jewish Church had almost certainly entered Ephesus.
Many persons associated with Ephesus had
been at Corinth - Aquila
and Prisca, Alexander, Apollos, Hermogenes, Hymeneus, Timothy, Trophimus,
Tychicus.
The works of the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6) was probably a kind
of false prophecy. See too the letter to
Thyatira. There was trouble in the church
and the heresy was in the Christian community.
This heresy was Jewish-Christian and perhaps prophetical. There were false prophetesses. Perhaps immorality was tending to creep
in. The nature of the heresy is seen
most clearly from 1 Tim 4:1-. The author
avers that the `Spirit expressly says' - this was perhaps a deliberate thrust
against those who claim the inspiration of, or for, their own ideas. Miss Ford
seems to accept the Pauline authorship of Ephesians and probably of the
Pastorals.
The three points mentioned are characteristic of the
cataphrygian heresy: Montanus and the women, Maximilla and Priscilla, were
accused of paying heed to deceitful spirits, and being inspired by the
devil. Exorcism was tried on the
prophetesses. The Montanists dissolved marriage. They introduced new fasts and festivals, and
the practice of eating dry things.
The Pastorals stress self-control, Sobriety and intelligence
and sound or healthy teaching. One may
suggest, then, that these words were directed not against immorality but
against a "holy roller" type of spirituality, that is, ecstatic and
frenzied prophecy. Recent exegesis has
confirmed the view that tongues and prophecy at Corinth was not ecstatic and that the
community was fairly controlled. The gift
of tongues and prophecy was placed under the same regulations; both could be
commenced or discontinued at will.
Quite different was the Montanist view. Montanus became obsessed and suddenly fell
into a frenzy and convulsions. The
Montanist ecstacy was uncontrolled and violent, and the words were
unintelligent. The author of the
Pastorals insisted upon fill consciousness and full control for any, including
the prophetic ministry, just as Paul did in 1st Corinthians. What the Pastorals oppose is the abuse, not
the use, of charismatic gifts.
The question of women is more prominent in the Pastorals
than anywhere else in the New Testament.
The view of women held by the `heretics' is not gnostic. Now we know that it
was one of the enlightened points about Montanism: that it
reverenced the charaimatic gifts in women and permitted them to serve the
community. The Montanist women
apparently taught in the community, prophesied false prophecies, left their
husbands, indulged in costly attire, and perhaps also in immorality. Some sources report they became bishops. Is it towards the beginning of these
excesses that the Pastorals are directed?
The hierarchy. The Montanists were the first to have
salaried preachers. Note the warnings
about money in the Pastorals.
There is only one reference to a prophet in the Pastorals,
and he is a heretic, Titus 1:12. But
prophecy is brought into association with Timothy's `ordination' 1 Tim 1:18;
4:14.
Miss Ford is not dogmatic, but suggests the Pastorals were
an attempt to quell Proto-Monatism. This was a prophetical movement within the
church before the rise of Montanus and his women. It was not a prohibition of the charismatic
movement within the church, but it resisted the dangers of the new charismatic
movement.
1 Timothy 2:15. S Jebb. Man should
normally take the precedence. When Eve
`taught' Adam she led him astray. She
was deceived by the serpent and transgressed.
However she may be saved from falling into this error of usurping
authority, and thus being deceived by Satan, by keeping to the proper function
for which she was made. Bearing children
will save her from being tempted to `Lord it over' the men. In this interpretation, `sozo' means being
saved from falling into error just spoken about and child-bearing has its usual
sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment