4 Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting

Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles Andreas J. Köstenberger 6 Andreas J. Köstenberger is Pro- In the last few years, several major com- the Pastorals? fessor of New Testament and Greek and mentaries and monographs on the Pasto- Director of Ph.D. and Th.M. Studies at ral Epistles have been published.1 It seems I. H. Marshall has recently addressed Southeastern Baptist Theological Semi- appropriate to ask what light these recent these issues and come to the conclusion nary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He works have shed on the study of this group that “the way in which the thought [in the is the editor of the Journal of the Evan- of writings. Owing to space limitations Pastorals] is expressed, both linguistically gelical Theological Society and the we will limit our discussion to several of and theologically, poses great problems author of the forthcoming commentary the major hermeneutical and exegetical . which seems to make it unlikely that on the Pastoral Epistles in the New challenges with which the modern inter- he [Paul] himself wrote in these terms to 7 Expositor’s Bible Commentary series. preter is confronted in his or her study of trusted colleagues.” For this reason Mar- the Pastoral Epistles.2 shall rejects the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. At the same time, however, Hermeneutical Challenges Marshall finds the theory of pseudonym- Authorship ity wanting owing to the deceptive intent 8 The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles inevitably involved in such a practice. In continues to be a major topic of scholarly an effort to find a middle way between the debate. The authenticity of Paul’s corre- (for him) Scylla of Pauline authorship and spondence with Timothy and Titus went Charybdis of pseudonymity, Marshall has largely unchallenged until the nineteenth coined a view he labels “allonymity” or century.3 Since then, an increasing number “allepigraphy,” according to which “some- of scholars have claimed that the Pastorals body close to a dead person continued to are an instance of pseudonymous writing write as (they thought that) he would have 9 in which a later follower attributes his own done.” According to Marshall, Timothy work to his revered teacher in order to per- and Titus are only the purported, but not petrate that person’s teachings and influ- the real, recipients of the Pastoral epistles, ence.4 The issue is primarily a historical which were rather addressed to leaders of one. The following interrelated questions congregations in Ephesus/Asia Minor and 10 require adjudication: Crete respectively. Moreover, Marshall thinks that 2 Timothy is substantially the 1. Is pseudonymous letter-writing work of Paul and formed the basis for the attested in the first century? “allonymous” writing of 1 Timothy and 2. If so, was such a practice ethically 11 unobjectionable and devoid of Titus. This turns the traditional—and deceptive intent or not?5 canonical—sequence on its head, since it 3. Could pseudonymous letters have would make 2 Timothy—not 1 Timothy or been acceptable to the early church? 4. If so, is pseudonymity more plau- Titus—the first of the Pastoral Epistles to sible than authenticity in the case of be written.12 4 However, if one applies Marshall’s line “flesh” (vs. Spirit; sarx), “cross” (stauros), of reasoning to his own commentary and “righteousness of God” (dikaiosyne (which Marshall acknowledges to have theou). As scholars have increasingly rec- been written “in collaboration with” Philip ognized, however, conclusions regarding Towner), perhaps several hundred years authorship based on stylistic differences from now some might claim that the are highly precarious, not the least because commentary was actually not written by the sample size of the writings in question Marshall himself but compiled subsequent is too small for definitive conclusions on to his death by Towner based on Mar- the basis of word statistics alone.15 More- shall’s notes and perhaps also on some of over, the difference between public letters his previous publications (not to mention sent to congregations (the ten letters com- oral interchanges and conversations or monly attributed to Paul by conservative informal notes, such as e-mail messages, evangelical scholars) and personal corre- etc., during Marshall’s lifetime). With the spondence such as the Pastoral Epistles passing of time, doubtless a plausible case must be taken into account.16 The fact that could be construed along those lines. Paul, in the case of the Pastorals, sensed While plausible, however, such a theory that he was nearing the end of his life and would obviously not square with the facts, that there was an urgent need to ensure since Howard Marshall is demonstrably the preservation of sound doctrine for the still alive and did publish his commentary post-apostolic period would appear to during his lifetime and as the person account adequately for the Pastorals’ responsible for his work (the degree of col- emphasis on qualifications for leadership, laboration by Towner is another issue). church organization, and the faithful pass- Marshall therefore rightfully would protest ing on of apostolic tradition. any such attribution of his own work to a But what about the claim that pseud- posthumous student collaborator. One onymous writing was a common and com- wonders whether Marshall’s crediting of monly accepted ancient literary device? A the authorship of the Pastorals to an careful screening of the relevant evidence “allonymous” writer similarly gives short yields the conclusion that while pseud- shrift to the apostle and his role in writing onymity was not uncommon for apocalyp- these epistles. tic writings, gospels, or even acts, pseud- What, then, is the evidence set forth for onymous letters were exceedingly rare:17 the pseudonymity of the Pastorals, and how are we to assess it?13 Attention has 1. Of the two extant Jewish sources, the “Epistle” of Jeremy and the “Let- frequently been drawn to the differences in ter” of Aristeas are really misnomers, style and vocabulary between the Pastorals for neither can properly be classified and the undisputed Pauline Epistles.14 The as epistle: the former is a homily, the latter an account of the circum- Pastorals feature words not used else- stances of the translation of the where in Paul, such as “godliness” Hebrew Scriptures into Greek;18 (eusebeia), “self-controlled” (sophron), and 2. In the apostolic era, far from an acceptance of pseudonymous epiphaneia rather than parousia to refer to epistles, there was actually consid- Christ’s return (but see 2 Thess 2:8). At the erable concern that letters be forged; thus Paul referred to the “distin- same time, characteristic Pauline terminol- guishing mark” in all his letters (Gal ogy is omitted: “freedom” (eleutheria), 6:11; 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Cor 16:21; Col 4:18; Phlm 19) and makes perturbed 5 reference to the circulation of “a let- seers and deacons” at Philippi (Phil 1:1), ter as if from us” (2 Thess 2:2); 3. In the second century, (a) which coheres with the two-tiered struc- Tertullian reports that an Asian pres- ture presupposed in the Pastorals (e.g., byter was removed from office for 1 Timothy 3). The emphasis on qualifica- forging a letter in Paul’s name (On Baptism 17); (b) both 3 Corinthians tions for overseers and deacons in the and the Epistle to the Laodiceans are Pastorals also supports a first-century date, transparent attempts, in customary because a second-century writer would apocryphal fashion, to fill in a per- ceived gap in canonical revelation have expected his readers already to know (cf. 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:4; 7:8; Col this information.23 4:16);19 and (c) the end-of-second- An important issue that is often not century bishop of Antioch, Serapion (d. AD 211), sharply distinguished given adequate weight in the discussion is between apostolic writings and the significant number of historical particu- those that “falsely bear their names” (pseudepigrapha; cited in Eusebius, larities featured in the Pastorals. While it is H. E. 6.12.3). just possible that a later imitator of Paul fabricated these pieces of information to On the basis of this evidence it seems lend greater verisimilitude to his epistle, doubtful that the early church would have it seems much more credible to see these been prepared to knowingly accept pseud- references as authentic instances in Paul’s onymous letters into the Christian canon.20 life and ministry.24 Why would a later Another common argument presented pseudonymous writer go through the in favor of the pseudonymity of the trouble of inventing numerous details such Pastorals is that the church structure found as the following for no other reason than in these letters reflects, not the first-, but to add verisimilitude to his writing? the second-century church. This pattern can most clearly be seen in Ignatius of Do your best to come to me quickly, for Demas, because he loved this Antioch (c. AD 35–107), who advocated a world, has deserted me and has monarchical episcopate and a three-tiered gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has ecclesiastical hierarchy (e.g., Eph. 2.2; gone to Galatia, and Titus to 21 Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Magn. 3.1; Trall. 2.2; 3.1). However, it can Mark and bring him with you, be shown that in the Pastorals the terms because he is helpful to me in my “overseer” (episkopos) and “elder” (presby- ministry. I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. When you come, bring the cloak that teros) refer to one and the same office (Titus I left with Carpus at Troas, and my 1:5, 7; cf.

Load more