Corpus-Paul

["Errol Smith & Colleen Loo" <ERROL.COLLEEN AT bigpond.com>]

On the topic of the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles allow me to
elaborate on my initial breif comments which some rightly found lacking
substantiation in their brevity.

Jack Kilmon wrote: 
----------
> From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon AT historian.net>
> To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Pauline Pastorals
> Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 10:58 AM
> .........
> Given that Tim I & II and Titus reflect church structures not in place
> till long after Paul's death...and used by Theophilus of Antioch,
> Irenaeus of Lyon, and the Muratorian list..I have always suspected
> Polycarp.
> 

What structures are you referring to Jack ? 

In Acts ch 20 Luke, writing in the early 60's and looking back to the
previous decade says that in Ephesian church there were Overseers and
Elders and Pastors whose function is very similar to the situation that
1st Timothy, (also at Ephesus). 

The dating of Luke's Gospel and Acts of the Apostles is a crucial issue.
Firstly one must determine if Luke is the author of both works, and which
was written first. I take it that "In my former book O Theolophilus" (Acts
1:1 cf Luke 1:1-4) is adequate reason to state that the Gospel was written
first and by the same person, Luke. This Luke, the friend of Paul, was
present with Paul during the events narrated in the later "we" chapters of
the book of Acts 20:6 f. It is likely that Luke as well as Timothy,
Tichychus et al joined Paul as he passed through Troas in about AD 56.

Secondly one must determine why Acts ch.28 ends as it does. It seems to me
that the story stops because the writer has brought the reader up to the
date of 'publication'. This pattern of history writing has many precedents
in the writing of histories at that time. Although Paul's arrival in Rome
under house arrest, perhaps has some minor theological significance in the
Gospel going to the ends of the earth, it does not seem to me adequate
reason in itself for concluding the history at that point. If Luke knew
more of Paul's life, the details of which have dominated the later portion
of Acts, then why did not Luke tell his readers more ? 

The date of Paul's house arrest in Rome is about 61 AD. Since Luke could
have been researching and writing for some time before the last events
recounted then it is not unreasonable to argue that he finished writing in
about 62 AD. This is discussed well in the introduction of the late Prof
F.F.Bruce's commentary: "The Acts of the Apostles, the Greek Text with
Introduction and Commentary" 1951, reprinted Eerdmans, 491 pp.

The main objection to this dating of Acts to circa 62 AD relates to the
date of Luke's first volume, his gospel, which uses Mark ( according to
the two source, "Q" hypothesis), or Matthew (according to the Greisbach
hypthesis). (The theory of Luke being written first, as advocated by
Robert Lindsay et al, has major problems which I will not discuss now.) In
other words, dating Luke/Acts in the early 60's requires either Mark or
Matthew being written earlier, the late 50's or even earlier. 

Interestingly, Irenaeus in the second half of the 2nd century, reports
that the two gospels which contain genealogies, ie Matthhew & Luke, were
written at the time when both Peter and Paul were in Rome. Such external
evidence is usually dismissed by scholars who give more weight to lines of
the reasoning like : since Jesus alludes to the future destruction of
Jerusalem (as even O.T. prophets were also wont to do), that this means
that the gospel were written after the destruction of 70 AD. That Jesus
was not merely recalling an O.T. refrain, or that he could see the writing
on the wall with even human insight, let alone divine wisdom, is giving to
much weight to only one possible solution to the texts in question. One
can with profit consult the recent 2 volume commentary on Matthew of Prof
Don Carson on this matter.

This relatively early dating of Matthew or Mark sounds like utter heresy
to the mind or many N.T. scholars influenced by earlier generations of
"critics", however the issue of the dating of  the Greek Gospels is still
in a state of flux as the published literature and email discussion lists
on this topic testify.

Returning to the issue of the Pastoral Epistle's authorship and Church
roles described therein, namely,             
Deacons/ Servants.  The setting aside of particularly equipped and
appropriate people with the role of Servant has a very good precedent
in the Jerusalem church of Acts ch.6. 
Within the Pauline coprus Servant as a role/title has precedent in Paul's
 uncontested earlier letters, most notably in Php 1:1, 
"To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi with the Overseers and 
Servants.."

Also in Romans ch.16:1-2 Phoebe is called a "Servant of the Church at
Cenchraea". This is porbably a formal honorific title of her role in that
congregation. (It is worth noting that the second declension diakonos is
used here rather that a (later) feminine diakonissa - it is nor
unreasonable to suggest that Phoebe as a woman did not have a highly
repected (cf Rom 16:2) if not formal role of Servant iof the Church at
Cenchrae - Paul seems to be more open to women holding formally recognised
roles than traditional male biased interpretations have recognised, - but
that is another topic indeed. 

For evidence of Elders and Pastors and Overseers one should consult a
Greek N.T. concordance to see that such roles were not limited to the
alleged late or pseudoepigraphal letters of the N.T. 
 
The setting apart of people to serve in particular ways is not a late
phenomenon in N.T. history, indeed the chosing of disciples and apostles
(with particular qualifications in Acts 1), is also in keeping with the
particular qualification of deacons and elder listed in the Patorals. That
is not to say that every thing that later centuries have read into the
qualifications is legitimate, (Bishops, Archbishops, Archdeacons,
Subdeacons, Cardinals, Popes etc.), or that modern tradtions and
restrictions re ordination etc are warranted - but that is also another
topic...
  
With regard to the supposed "order" of widows ? I *suspect* that Paul is
*not* describing a formal role/title but rather encouraging a responsible
attitude to the needs of the destitute by placing them on a "list of
widows"- again there is plenty of precedent with Paul's careful
administatration of the collection of money for the poor of Jerusalem from
all the gentile churches - one can read about in Romans 15, 1 Cor 16, 
2Cor 8 etc. However it is possible that "widows" were a role that
had developed in Ephesus by the time of the writing of the Pastoral
Epistles, but we need to be careful not to read in tenuous verbal
parallels with other ancient Jewish literature.   

The view that for the pastoral epistles Luke was the emanuensis for an
aging and probably nearly blind Paul deserves serious consideration.
Firstly we observe that Paul frequently co-authored his letters with other
Christians working with him at the time. This element of team-work is an
important element of the ministry philosophy of the apostle. However Paul,
rather than Timothy, Titus, Silas, Sosthenes et al  is doubtless the
senior partner in the theology and wording of most if not all of these earlier
letters. 

The role of emanuensis although related is distinct from co-authorship.
Explicit acknowledgement of Paul using an emanuensis is indicated in
Romans 16:22 "I, Tertius who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord." 

A number of other interesting verses deserve reflection:
2 Thes 3:17 "I, Paul write this greeting in my own hand, which is the
distinguishing mark in all my letters. this is how I write. The grace if
the Lord Jesus Christ be with you."

Gal 6:11 "See what large letters I use when I write with my own hand.." 

Coming at the conclusion of the Galatian letter one can reasonably propose
that the earlier bulk of the pen-manship had been done by another,
although the name of the emanuensis is in given the text. More
interestingly one asks why Paul had to write such large letters when
writing for himself, is it merely that he was not a professional scribe,
or it it a hint of some other characteristic or disabilty ? ...

Gal 4:13-15 "As you know it was because of an infirmity of the flesh that
I first preached the gospel to you. Even though my illness was a trial to
you you did not treat me with scorn..... I can testify that, if you could
have done so you would have torn out your *eyes* and given them to me.

Acts 9:3 f  "As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a bright light
from heaven flashed around him, he fell to the ground... Saul got up from
the ground but he could see nothiong. ... For three days he was blind.
..... Immediately something like scales fell from Paul's eyes and he could
see again..."

Paul's Damascus road experience resulted among other things, in physical
blindness from the bright light. This blindness was quickly removed
when something like scales were removed from his eyes. Luke, seems to be
giving a physical not metaphoric description, perhaps of scar-tissue or a
superficial cataract had formed due to the burning intensity of the light.
Such tissue indeed looks like scales. Although the removal of such tissue
could give instant improvement there may still have been residual damage,
leading to an early deterioration of vision, probably via the formation of
cataract etc over subsequent years. This is a theory that fits the
fragments mentioned above and is quite plausible.   

Given for argument's sake, that if the Pastoral Epistles are Pauline,
written in the mid 60's - then Paul may have been about 55-65 years old
and his eyesight which had been a problem for some 30 years may now have
deteriorated to virtual blindness. In other areas his health may still
have been average(!) for a person whio had been through the beatings and
imprisonments that we learn about from Acts and his letters. 
In 2nd Timothy 4:11 we read how much he appreciated the friendship of Luke, 
who was probably his almost constant colleague since AD 56-57 in Acts 20:6
(the beginning of the "we" section in Acts). (Cf also Col 4:14) 
2 Tim 4:11 "Luke alone is with me"

Given the pattern, firstly of co-authorship with trusted Christian
colleagues, secondly of  Paul's documented use of emanuensis on occassions,
thirdly the likelihood of decreasing visual acuity, & forthly "Luke alone is 
with me"
it is not unreasonable to suggest that Luke was emanuensis, if not
co-author of the Pastoral Epistles. Modesty, a genuine virtue actually
practised by early christians, could account for Luke not including his
name in the introductory and concluding paragraphs. Again there is
precedent for such a silent servanthood role, (not Luke in this case), in
the letter to Galatia for example. 

Luke's more elevated literary style is well documented. The style of the
pastoral epistles is also well studied. Wecwould benfit from more specifically
 directed research in order to determine the probablity that Luke has had a 
major hand in the composition of the Pastorals. 
The significance of such a study would be limited by the unknown ammount of 
what
 is verbatim Paul and what is Luke's rewording of Paul's phrases in the 
Pastoral 
Epistles. Similarly the assessment of Luke's style in Luke-Acts needs to 
account 
for the potentially varied use of written or oral sources known to Luke and 
quoted
verbatim, with minor alteration, or completely reworded.   
   
Yours sincerely, Errol Smith