Corpus-Paul

[Christopher Hutson <crhutson AT salisbury.net>]

Jeff,

Thanks for your comments.  Although Johnson's commentary on the PE
annoys me with its constant "David vs. Goliath" rhetoric against a
supposed bloc of academics who march in lock step on their uncritical
assumption of pseudonymity, nevertheless, I think his commentary is a
good, concise treatment of the PE.  You are right that he gives an
intelligent reading of the letters.

>>[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...

This does account for the apparent aim of the PE to address a
secondary audience beyond the named addressees.  The assumed secondary
audience in this case would follow the traditional assumption that the
letters are aimed at specific Christian communities in Ephesus and
Crete.  I certainly agree that the PE have a secondary audience in
view, but I understand the nature of that audience differently.  The
trouble I have with the _mandata principis_ analogy is that it is
political.  I would prefer to find some analogy in literature that is
philosophical and/or educational.  The thing is, "Timothy" and "Titus"
are not political leaders but teachers and leaders in a community
built around a certain body of doctrine that informs their view of
themselves and of their world.  I think a closer analogy would be
Seneca's Moral Epistles, which are ostensibly addressed to Lucilius
but really have in view a secondary audience of (presumably youthful)
beginning philosophy students.  The letters work together as a
collection to bring a beginner from elementary tenets toward advanced
understanding of the philosophical school with a view, I think, toward
preparing the next generation of teachers of that school.  Likewise, I
argue that the PE have in mind a secondary audience of youthful
teachers/leaders in Christian communities who are being trained for
leadership.  So my approach is similar to that of Johnson (following
Fiore) but I think more sharply focused.

>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.

and 

>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.


I appreciate your sensitivity. I suppose we all chafed at similar
remarks along the way. 

I don't accept the explanation that "youth" in the PE is only a matter
of relative youth in comparison with the expected age of a typical
leader.  The reason is that I see throughout the PE an engagement with
the stock stereotypes of youth in antiquity, that is, the sorts of
concerns that would normally apply to the sterotypical youth in his
late teens/early twenties.  The stereotype is well developed and
wide-spread in Greco-Roman antiquity.  A good statement is found in
Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.12 (1388b-1389b), but my study offers numerous
examples of all the different elements of the stereotype, showing how
it continues well into the Imperial era and cuts across cultural
boundaries.  The quintessential "youth" in Greek culture would be
Alcibiades; in Jewish culture, Joseph (and perhaps Daniel).  It is
interesting to see how the stories of these figures are told and
retold over the centuries and how they become vehicles for directing
moral exhortation at youth.  I argue that the PE use the figures of
"Timothy" and "Titus" as vehicles for addressing youthful Christian
leaders of the third or fourth generation.  


Thanks, Jeff, for pushing the argument.  Johnson's points are well
taken, and he is almost right.  :-)

XPIC

------------------------------------
Christopher R. Hutson
          Hood Theological Seminary
          Salisbury, NC  28144
crhutson AT salisbury.net
------------------------------------