Corpus-Paul

[Jeff Peterson <peterson AT mail.ics.edu>]

The interesting exchange on this thread brings to mind Luke Johnson's
precise position on the question: he characterizes himself as not entirely
convinced of Pauline authorship of all three letters but "profoundly
unconvinced" by the standard arguments against genuineness. With no
particular investment in which way the question is resolved (my own
position being Pauline MWF and non-Pauline TTh, with weekends off), a few
considerations (most of them Johnson's in _Letters to Paul's Delegates_)
keep me from regarding Chris's well stated line of argument as settling the
question (I of course join others in looking forward to the publication of
his work and the chance to consider his case in full).

First, on fitting the pastorals into Paul's ministry: Johnson points out
that when it's a question of interpreting one of the seven undisputed
letters, Acts is set aside at the faintest indication of conflicting
testimony (e.g., the Jerusalem Decree of Acts 15 not being reflected in 1
Cor 8-10 means the former is Lucan invention). But when we come to the
disputed letters, the narrative of Acts 13-28 is treated as an exhaustive
travelogue of the the Pauline mission, and the data of the Pastorals must
be reconciled with it or their genuineness cannot be maintained. LTJ
suggests we rather acknowledge that regarding Paul's mission itenerary we
know in part and our reconstructions are made in a glass, darkly.

>[R]egardless of their chronological ages, the addressees of the PE are
>addressed as if they are relatively INEXPERIENCED church leaders.
>They are beginners.  No matter when you think Timothy was born, it is
>hard to see how the same Paul who writes about him so glowingly in 1
>Cor 4  and Philippians 2 could then turn around and write such
>elementary advice about how he ought to "conduct himself in the Church
>(non-Pauline usage of EKKLHSIA) of the living God."

Johnson deals with this by suggesting that 1 Timothy and Titus fit the
genre of _mandata principis_, addressed to the incoming governor of a
province by the emperor, spelling out the governor's duties and expected to
be read by the citizens as well. (The genre is treated with reference to
the Pastorals in Fiore's _Function of Personal Example_.) The upshot is
that Johnson envisions the letters being read in the hearing of the
communities where Timothy and Titus were at work; they function as an
epistolary endorsement of Paul's missionary associates and serve to enhance
their pastoral authority. On this reading the lens for the interpretation
of the Pastorals' rhetoric of youth is provided by 1 Tim 4:12; Paul's use
of TEKNON for Timothy in 1 Cor 4:17, while not fully parallel to the
Pastorals' characterization of him and Titus as junior, is still congruent
with this portrait. Indeed, Paul's recommendation of Timothy in 1 Cor 4 and
16:10-11 looks like a precis of the endorsement offered in 1 Timothy, on
Johnson's reading: Timothy is Paul's child and enjoys his full confidence
and affection, and his pastoral efforts on Paul's behalf are not to be
despised (EXOUTHENEIN, 1 Cor 16:11; KATAFRONEIN, 1 Tim 4:12).

Viewed in that light, all that the letters suggest concerning the ages of
their named recipients (real or fictive) is that they are younger than
leaders of a voluntary cultic association were expected to be. If Timothy
was 17 when he joined Paul and Silas as hYPHRETHS c. 49 (assuming that Acts
is trusted for this information), Timothy would have been 31 in 63 -- and
as Johnson well argues, nothing binds us to the late stages of Paul's
career for dating a genuine 1 Timothy and Titus. Perhaps I'm sensitive from
having been told after a sermon in my early 30s that I would "grow up into
a fine preacher," but it doesn't seem implausible to imagine similar
attitudes obtaining in a culture that prized age and wisdom more than ours.

Nor is it
>possible to see why the historical Paul would insist to the historical
>Timothy that he is "not lying" when he says he was appointed a herald
>and an apostle.  Is it possible that the historical Timothy would
>doubt that, after so many years of difficult labor with Paul and on
>Paul's behalf?

If Johnson's "over the shoulder" understanding of the address is accepted
(so that the rhetorical situation of 1 Timothy and Titus is somewhat
similar to that of Philemon), then 1 Tim 2:7 can be compared to the
asseverations to churches in Rom 9:1; 2 Cor 11:31; Gal 1:20. It's still not
at first glance clear why the point is underscored so (just as it isn't
entirely perspicuous in Galatians), but the difficulty isn't as great on
Johnson's exegesis as on Chris's.

Thanks to all participants in this stimulating discussion.

Jeff



------------------------------------
Jeffrey Peterson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament
Institute for Christian Studies
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------------