Entrusted with the Gospel

Andreas J. Köstenberger, Terry L. Wilder, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Terry L. Wilder

• Publisher: B&H Academic
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780805448412
• eBook ISBN: 9781433671111
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

After a lengthy period during which scholars paid relatively little attention to the Pastoral Epistles, a spate of studies has suddenly appeared in print. However, except for a small number of commentaries, critical scholars have by and large neglected evangelical scholarship on these letters. To fill in this gap, this volume offers a collection of important essays written by evangelicals on 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. The book aims to inform readers of the history of scholarship on these letters and examine thoroughly Paul's theology in the Pastoral Epistles.

Contributors include several scholars who have done previous advanced work on these letters: I. Howard Marshall (University of Aberdeen, Scotland; Recent Study in the Pastoral Epistles), Andreas Köstenberger (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary[SEBTS]; Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges), Terry L. Wilder (B&H Publishing Group; Authorship), F. Alan Tomlinson (Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary [MBTS]; Purpose/Stewardship), Greg Couser (Cedarville University; Doctrine of God), Daniel L. Akin (SEBTS; Christology), Ray van Neste (Union University; Cohesion and Structure of the PE), B. Paul Wolfe (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Use of Scripture), Ben Merkle (SEBTS; Ecclesiology), George Wieland (Carey Baptist College, New Zealand; Soteriology), Thor Madsen (MBTS; Ethics), and Chiao Ek Ho (East Asia School of Theology, Singapore; Missiology).

---

Chapter One

HERMENEUTICAL AND EXEGETICAL CHALLENGES IN INTERPRETING THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

Andreas J. Köstenberger

---

INTRODUCTION

Recent years have seen the publication of several major commentaries and monographs on the Pastoral Epistles.¹ This is a sign of the reinvigorated study of this body of writings that is of great practical significance for the church today. Interpreters of Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus are faced with several important hermeneutical and exegetical challenges. Hermeneutical challenges include the Pastorals’ authorship, genre, and matters related to their historical background. Relevant exegetical issues pertain to the question of proper church leadership and other matters related to the two major ecclesiastical offices of elder or overseer and deacon, respectively. The following treatment is intended as a survey of recent scholarship on these significant issues.²

HERMENEUTICAL CHALLENGES

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PASTORALS

PATRISTIC EVIDENCE

The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles continues to be a major topic of scholarly debate. The authenticity of Paul’s correspondence with Timothy and Titus went largely unchallenged until the nineteenth century.³ In all probability, Paul’s letters to Timothy were known to Polycarp (c. AD 117; 1 Tim 6:7,10 is cited in Philippians 4.1).⁴ The first unmistakable attestation is found in the second-century writers Athenagoras (c. AD 180; Supplication 37.1) and Theophilus (later 2nd cent. AD; To Autolycus 3.14). Both of these writers cite 1 Tim 2:1–2 and allude to other passages in the Pastorals. Irenaeus (c. AD 130–c. 200), likewise, in several passages in his work Against Heresies (e.g., 1.pref.; 1.23.4; 2.14.7; 3.1.1), cited each of the letters and identified their author as the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–c. AD 215; Stromateis 2.11) noted that some Gnostics who perceived themselves to be the targets of the denunciation of 1 Tim 6:20–21 rejected Paul’s letters to Timothy. The Muratorian Canon (later 2nd cent. AD) included all three letters in the Pauline corpus.

Marshall’s overall assessment of the patristic evidence regarding the Pastorals is noteworthy especially since, as will be further discussed below, he himself does not hold to Pauline authorship: “It can be concluded that the PE [Pastoral Epistles] were known to Christian writers from early in the second century and that there is no evidence of rejection of them by any writers except for Marcion [a mid-second-century AD heretic who excised most of the Old Testament and the New Testament from his truncated version of the canon].”⁵ Consequently, the Pastorals became part of the established New Testament canon of the church, and the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals was not seriously questioned for a millennium and a half.

RECENT CHALLENGES

It was only in the nineteenth century that an increasing number of scholars have claimed that the Pastorals are an instance of pseudonymous writing in which a later follower attributed a given piece of writing to his revered teacher in order to perpetuate that person’s teachings and influence.⁶ At first, this view may seem surprising, since all three Pastoral Epistles open with the unequivocal attribution, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus,” or a similar phrase (1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1). It seems hard to fathom how someone other than the apostle Paul could have written those letters, attributed them to the apostle, and these letters could have been accepted into the New Testament canon as Pauline while in fact having been the product of someone else, with all of this having taken place without any intent to deceive or any error on the church’s part.

Indeed, as will be seen, the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is by far the best conclusion on the basis of all the available evidence, and several major problems attach to any alternative proposals. While important doctrinal issues are at stake, the first important matter requiring adjudication is a historical matter. The following set of questions needs to be addressed:

(1) Is pseudonymous letter-writing attested in the first century AD?

(2) If so, was such a practice ethically unobjectionable and devoid of deceptive intent?⁷

(3) Could letters known to be pseudonymous have been accepted by the early church?

(4) If so, is the Pastorals’ pseudonymity more plausible than their authenticity?⁸

I. HOWARD MARSHALL’S “ALLONYMITY” PROPOSAL

I. Howard Marshall recently addressed these issues and came to the conclusion that “the way in which the thought [in the Pastorals] is expressed, both linguistically and theologically, poses great problems . . . which seems to make it unlikely that he [Paul] himself wrote in these terms to trusted colleagues.”⁹ For this reason he rejected the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. At the same time, however, Marshall found the theory of pseudonymity wanting due to the deceptive intent inevitably involved in such a practice.¹⁰

In an effort to find a via media between the (for him) Scylla of Pauline authorship and the Charybdis of pseudonymity, Marshall posited a view he called “allonymity” or “allepigraphy,” according to which “somebody close to a dead person continued to write as (they thought that) he would have done.”¹¹ According to Marshall, Timothy and Titus were only the purported, but not the real, recipients of the Pastoral Epistles, which were instead addressed to leaders of congregations in Ephesus/Asia Minor and Crete, respectively.¹² Moreover, Marshall proposed that 2 Timothy was substantially the work of Paul and formed the basis for the “allonymous” writing of 1 Timothy and Titus.¹³ This, of course, turns the traditional (and canonical) sequence on its head, since it would make 2 Timothy—not 1 Timothy or Titus—the first of the Pastoral Epistles to be written.

How plausible is this theory? Perhaps an example will help to illustrate the nature of Marshall’s proposal. If Marshall’s line of reasoning is applied to his own commentary (which Marshall acknowledges to have been written “in collaboration with” Philip Towner), perhaps several hundred years from now, some might claim that the commentary was actually not written by Marshall himself but compiled subsequent to his death by Towner based on Marshall’s notes and perhaps also based on some of his previous publications—not to mention oral interchanges and conversations or informal notes, such as e-mail messages, and so on, during Marshall’s lifetime. With the passing of time, doubtless a plausible case could be construed along those lines. While plausible, however, such a theory would obviously not square with the facts, since Howard Marshall is demonstrably still alive and did publish his commentary during his lifetime and is the person responsible for his work (the degree of collaboration by Towner is another issue). Marshall would therefore rightfully protest any such attribution of his work to a posthumous author. One wonders whether Marshall’s attribution of the Pastorals’ authorship to an “allonymous” writer similarly gives short shrift to the apostle and his role in writing these letters.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AGAINST PAULINE AUTHORSHIP

Differences in Style and Vocabulary What, then, is the evidence set forth for the pseudonymity of the Pastorals, and how should one assess it? First, attention has frequently been drawn to the differences in style and vocabulary between the Pastorals and the undisputed Pauline Epistles.¹⁴ The Pastorals feature words not used elsewhere in Paul, such as the terms “godliness”

, “self-controlled”

, or the expression

rather than

to refer to Christ’s return (but see 2 Thess 2:8 where

is used). At the same time, characteristic Pauline terminology is omitted: “freedom”

, “flesh” (versus Spirit;

), “cross”

, and “righteousness of God”

.

As scholars have increasingly recognized, however, conclusions regarding authorship based on stylistic differences are highly precarious, not the least because the sample size of the writings in question is too small for definitive conclusions on the basis of word statistics alone.¹⁵ Moreover, the difference between public letters sent to congregations (the 10 letters traditionally attributed to Paul, with the possible exception of Philemon) and personal correspondence such as the Pastoral Epistles must be taken into account.¹⁶ The fact that Paul, in the case of the Pastorals, sensed that he was nearing the end of his life...

Table of contents

• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Contributors
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2
• Chapter 3
• Chapter 4
• Chapter 5
• Chapter 6
• Chapter 7
• Chapter 8
• Chapter 9
• Chapter 10
• Chapter 11
• Chapter 12
• Name Index
• Subject Index
• Scripture Index