|
Post by Josh on Nov 18, 2012 19:44:40 GMT -8
The majority of New Testament scholars question the traditionally ascribed authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus to Paul.
Here are some reasons often presented:
a) the "pastoral epistles" seem to have a different understanding of the church authority structure than Paul's other epistles.
b) the "pastoral epistles" use a lot of language unique to themselves and not found in Paul (words, phrases, and topics).
c) the author seems to emphasize "trustworthy sayings" and "theological formulae" and "the faith"* over against an earlier Paul who seemed much more liable to theologize "off the cuff" so to speak.
d) the author of the Pastorals seems more concerned with family and societal order than the earlier Paul (1 Timothy 2, Titus 2)
I don't think any of these points offer a good reason to reject Pauline authorship. I acknowledge some shifts in Paul's writing, themes, and topics, but I think that the changes in Paul's life and ministry as it drew to a close more than adequately account for them.
I'll be back to address these point by point.
*whereas Paul refers to "faith" in his earlier books, in the pastorals he refers to "the faith".
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 19, 2012 19:59:23 GMT -8
a) the "pastoral epistles" seem to have a different understanding of the church authority structure than Paul's other epistles.
It makes sense to me that toward the end of his life and ministry (especially in the period between his probable two imprisonments in Rome), Paul would have been thinking much more about posterity. As the Church lurched forward to the tribulation of the late 60's and early 70's, I'm sure Paul was very concerned about the survival of the church. In fact, we know he was, as he indicated even as far back as Acts 20:29 where he warned:
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.".
In light of this threat of increased heretical attack and living with the realization that his "race would soon be run', it makes total sense that he would feel the need to tighten up on church structure in his fledgling churches, as we see him doing in Titus and Timothy. Even though earlier in his ministry he was perhaps less inclined to install and appoint officers in the church, those were different times and he was going to be around for a while to help keep things on track. But with the uncertainty of the 60's, it isn't inconsistent of Paul to begin fortifying the authority structures of the churches.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Nov 20, 2012 19:36:55 GMT -8
I like what Richard Hays said about some scholars questioning the authorship of Paul, especially your second point:
"In a thousand years scholars will question the 'real' authorship of Bob Dylan songs because his early lyrics and later are so different."
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 24, 2012 18:28:29 GMT -8
These two go together and are probably the strongest argument against Pauline authorship, but not insurmountable imo. Sometimes these differences can be explained by the use of a scribe versus the author's own writing. Different topics necessitate different language and even one's own original thoughts become standardized or formulaic over time.
I think this stems from a realization that dawned on Paul in his later ministry: that the basic gospel should be prioritized over other causes, worthy as they might be, such as equality of the sexes or freedom of slaves. I see it as kind of an "interim ethic" where Paul advocates not pushing the bounds of societal norms/ propriety too far while the gospel is taking hold. So, for the time being, slavery shouldn't be challenged outright, but Christian slaves should look for ways to be Christlike in their slavery, etc.. Husbands and wives and masters and children should look for ways to Christlike in their typical societal roles. If this seems at odds with Paul's earlier declarations that in Christ there is no male or female or slave or master, it is simply because Paul is describing pragmatic steps toward the realization of the ultimate freedom the gospel will bring. But for Christianity to be equated with slave liberation or a sexual revolution right off the bat would have been for the fundamental message to be subverted. Only when the gospel was able to take root in the hearts and minds of the culture around them could slavery be outlawed and other boundaries in relationships be relaxed.
|
|