Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

1 Timothy 2:11

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Splendour said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    My fault for not being clearer. I did not mean this was an example of a church meeting; only that it shows women are permitted to teach men in a non-church setting, contrary to your claim, It catergorically states a woman can't preach to a man,so this means that any female written books should be chucked out the window by men!
    This...
    does not equate itself with this...

    1 Timothy 2:11-12

    11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


    This passage makes no mention at all of church setting or otherwise.

    You could say then that Priscilla went against the teaching of Paul or it could be argued that Acts was written before the book of Timothy. However, given that Pricilla and Aquilla were friends of Pauls', I imagine they'd know the score.

    I still reckon Paul said what he did to keep in with the law but yet had no problem with women preaching at all.
    You have used an invalid hermeneutic here. A text cannot be used in isolation - all the author says on the subject has be be taken into account.

    Otherwise we have Jesus guaranteeing me and my wife a new red Posche each if we pray for one:
    John 14:13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.

    It is to ignore the necessity of our requests being proper:
    James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.

    So all that Paul and the rest of Scripture tells us about the role of women has to be reconciled with our understanding of their conduct in the church.

    That holds true only if we believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, as it claims to be. If it is the fallible opinions of men, with God's word mixed in somewhere, then we can pick and choose as we please.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    From your posts wolfsbane, I gather it's the actual church building that women are forbidden to teach in?

    So a preacher like Joyce Meyer who preaches daily to thousands of people who are 'the church' is not a problem then...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Splendour wrote: »
    From your posts wolfsbane, I gather it's the actual church building that women are forbidden to teach in?

    So a preacher like Joyce Meyer who preaches daily to thousands of people who are 'the church' is not a problem then...
    No, it's not the building. It is the gathered body of believers, the local church, she is forbidden to teach in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭postcynical


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No, it's not the building. It is the gathered body of believers, the local church, she is forbidden to teach in.

    This is a bit strange, given the earlier example of Apollus where a woman can effectively advise the male preacher and teach him the meaning behind his preachings.

    Do you understand this gathered body of believers to be at some official church ceremony or would it apply in informal settings too? For instance could a mother 'preach' to her family at evening prayer?

    In a non-sacred setting, say in a university or an evening talk for example, is it proper that a female theologian should lecture a faithful audience on matters of faith?

    What exactly do you understand by 'preaching'? Is it teaching, or leading a prayer group, or even giving public witness to Christ's love?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    postcynical said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    No, it's not the building. It is the gathered body of believers, the local church, she is forbidden to teach in.

    This is a bit strange, given the earlier example of Apollus where a woman can effectively advise the male preacher and teach him the meaning behind his preachings.

    Do you understand this gathered body of believers to be at some official church ceremony or would it apply in informal settings too? For instance could a mother 'preach' to her family at evening prayer?

    In a non-sacred setting, say in a university or an evening talk for example, is it proper that a female theologian should lecture a faithful audience on matters of faith?
    Yes, a mother can preach to her children.

    In a non-gathered body situation, I see no problem in a woman instructing men in the truth. But it must not become a quasi-church thing, where her teaching becomes the effective ministry of the word for a local church, eg. where we don't have a Bible class but we all go to Ms. X's lectures on the New Testament.
    What exactly do you understand by 'preaching'? Is it teaching, or leading a prayer group, or even giving public witness to Christ's love?
    I think I'm right in saying preaching refers to gospel proclamation, teaching to instructing in doctrine. But the latter also has a quality of authority when it occurs in the gathered body setting.

    Should a woman lead a mixed prayer meeting? No, if leading becomes an exercise of spiritual authority.

    So a sister may bring preach the gospel to sinners, and instruct brethren in a non-body setting (hence not exercising spiritual authority).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    I dunno wolfbane, I think you're splitting hairs here with preaching and teaching. As we can see from the Apollos story, Priscilla and her husband 'taught' Apollos in the ways of Christianity. He was already a Christian so Priscilla wasn't 'preaching' to him she was 'teaching' him.


    Acts 18
    24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.


    Can I ask for your comments on the slave trade in biblical times. Paul never spoke out against slaves per se. So do you think it would be acceptable in the 21st century to have slaves albeit treat them in a Christian manner?
    Why would Christian thinking change with regards to this but not to female preachers/teachers?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Splendour said:
    I dunno wolfbane, I think you're splitting hairs here with preaching and teaching. As we can see from the Apollos story, Priscilla and her husband 'taught' Apollos in the ways of Christianity. He was already a Christian so Priscilla wasn't 'preaching' to him she was 'teaching' him.
    I agree. That's why I said, So a sister may bring preach the gospel to sinners, and instruct brethren in a non-body setting (hence not exercising spiritual authority).
    Acts 18
    24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

    Can I ask for your comments on the slave trade in biblical times. Paul never spoke out against slaves per se. So do you think it would be acceptable in the 21st century to have slaves albeit treat them in a Christian manner?
    Why would Christian thinking change with regards to this but not to female preachers/teachers?
    The Bible - OT and NT - makes it clear that slavery is not the ideal. At best it was a means of survival for the destitute. Sometimes it was a judicial sanction. Like divorce, God tolerated and regulated it. In the NT Christ made the original standard of God our rule.

    But the Christians were not the rulers of the world. The world had slavery as a big part of its institution. There were countless slaves. The choice for the slave was not slavery or freedom, but decent employment as a slave or miserable employment as a slave. The Christian rich enough to buy one could choose not to - but that would not help any slave. It would not cause the Roman empire to collapse under moral disapproval. Buying a slave would make it possible for the slave to know real kindness and the prospect of eventual freedom.

    Only when Christianity had enough influence to stop slavery was it immoral to have a slave.

    Slavery in its judicial form was used by 'Christian' nations at the time of the spread of European empires, and it can be argued that modern prisons have used for this. But the real moral objection is to the enslavement of innocent people, their transportation from their countries and harsh treatment.

    That was the slavery which Wilberforce and his fellow-Christians rose up against.

    So would it be acceptable to have a slave if the Roman slave system were imposed on our society today? Yes. If we have no democratic say, we must accept what society delivers.

    Would it be moral to impose such a system? No. Any society which freely chooses oppression or even a reduction in man's rights is a society under God's wrath.

    As you see, I'm saying Christian teaching has not changed regards slavery, nor should it regards the role of women.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭postcynical


    Thank you for your replies.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    So a sister may bring preach the gospel to sinners, and instruct brethren in a non-body setting (hence not exercising spiritual authority).

    Can I ask you what you mean here by spiritual authority? Can any man of faith preach with spiritual authority or is it restricted to 'holy' men? Also would it be accurate to say that a sister can possess this spiritual authority, yet only employ it in a more humble manner (like Priscilla in the above story) rather than preaching?

    Finally, what do you mean by a non-body setting? I understand you to mean a gathering of the faithful to pray and worship and listen to God's word, like at a Sunday service. Might such a setting also include a group of believers working with the poor or sick in the name of God?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 192 ✭✭Gingganggooley


    There is a verse which confirms the entire absence of any females in heaven. :eek: Problem solved eh?

    Rev. 8:1 " And.... there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour". icon7.gif


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Simon.d wrote: »
    1 Timothy 2:11
    "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

    What do the members of this forum make of St. Paul's New Testament verse above?

    That it wasn't written by Saul of Tarsus and nor indeed were any of the pastoral epistles. The Syrian/Antioch Chuch always said they were forgeries.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 192 ✭✭Gingganggooley


    If you are so keen to omit passages as readily as that, then maybe I could do the same with the portions I have difficulty with, and then, in quick time, we wouldn't have any more Bible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    If you are so keen to omit passages as readily as that, then maybe I could do the same with the portions I have difficulty with, and then, in quick time, we wouldn't have any more Bible.

    I don't dismiss them readily there is reams of historical research on the matter. What do you have difficulty with? Chances are if it sounds wrong and you look into the history you'll see why it sounds wrong. The Bible wasn't put together until around 400AD IIRC. None of the early Christians had any Bible at all.

    Beware of the Scribes was the advice.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    [But the Christians were not the rulers of the world.

    This is my exactly my point! The Christians didn't rule the world and the law at the time said it was acceptable to keep a slave-so Christians went along with this and didn't dispute it, as we are taught to do in the bible.
    That same world held a law which stated that women could not have authority over a man and therefore couldn't speak in public and Christians had to go along with this too, as we are taught in the bible.
    When Paul made that statement, he was keeping in with the law of the land, as he was taught to do.
    The laws of the land have changed considerably both with regards to slaves and women, therefore it is ok for Christians to accept slavery as wrong and women preachers as biblically ok.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Splendour wrote: »
    The laws of the land have changed considerably both with regards to slaves and women, therefore it is ok for Christians to accept slavery as wrong and women preachers as biblically ok.
    So, do you believe that the law of the land is what decides what's right and wrong, and not yourself, and not your religion?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    robindch wrote: »
    So, do you believe that the law of the land is what decides what's right and wrong, and not yourself, and not your religion?

    Many things decide what is right and wrong. For example, the law of the land, your upbringing, society at large. The real question is if there are immutable truths out there. For the Christian, I would think the answer is yes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    postcynical said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    So a sister may bring preach the gospel to sinners, and instruct brethren in a non-body setting (hence not exercising spiritual authority).

    Can I ask you what you mean here by spiritual authority? Can any man of faith preach with spiritual authority or is it restricted to 'holy' men?
    Any man may bring the word by the leading of the Spirit. It is the word that is authoritive, but only a man may exercise it over men. Spiritual authority also includes pastoral care of the church - a task commited to the pastors/elders/overseers. We are to listen to them with due diligence, in respect for their office. Again, that is a role barred to women.
    Also would it be accurate to say that a sister can possess this spiritual authority, yet only employ it in a more humble manner (like Priscilla in the above story) rather than preaching?
    Yes, that seems a good way to put it.
    Finally, what do you mean by a non-body setting? I understand you to mean a gathering of the faithful to pray and worship and listen to God's word, like at a Sunday service. Might such a setting also include a group of believers working with the poor or sick in the name of God?
    Where they gather to worship, that is where the restrictions apply. I think that includes a group from different local churches who meet together after they minister to the poor/sick, etc. If they are gathered in His name, He is in the midst, and a body experience exists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Splendour wrote: »
    This is my exactly my point! The Christians didn't rule the world and the law at the time said it was acceptable to keep a slave-so Christians went along with this and didn't dispute it, as we are taught to do in the bible.
    That same world held a law which stated that women could not have authority over a man and therefore couldn't speak in public and Christians had to go along with this too, as we are taught in the bible.
    When Paul made that statement, he was keeping in with the law of the land, as he was taught to do.
    The laws of the land have changed considerably both with regards to slaves and women, therefore it is ok for Christians to accept slavery as wrong and women preachers as biblically ok.
    If that was Paul's argument for women regarding silence/authority, then you would be right. But it is not - his argument is from the creation order:
    1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

    And when Paul appeals to the law, he does not mean civil law. He means the OT law.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 192 ✭✭Gingganggooley


    It is ludicrous to suggest that all females are totally prohibited from teaching within the church. This passage does not go anywhere near making such a blanket taboo.

    The verse in question refers to the women, with the definite article. This means the subjects were a known and identifiable subset within this church. This verse is not referring to all women in general. These women were part of this particular church, that was expressly under the charge of an individual whose name was Timothy. It is probable that Paul could have named them if he wanted to.

    Should the entire church be deprived, on account of a reprimand that was handed down to a local church in order to deal with the misbehaviour of, at most, a few?

    We must also take into consideration the cultural setting in which these words were first written. Their societal conventions stand in stark contrast to our own, especially inter-sexual relations. The vast majority of women would have been married at a very early age and would not have been allowed to participate in many of the front line activities of society such as politics or business.

    It is quite possible that all we have here, are married woman who are inappropiately usurping their husbands' position in a publically humiliating fashion. She, or they, are being properly rebuked for their behaviour.

    Given that we are dealing with married women, reference is made to the original couple to show how God's order is being disrupted both in marriage and, consequently, within the church. This reference could not be introduced if we were dealing with singletons. After all, what right does any individual have to exercise authority over another, when they are not joined by some prior arrangement, with mutual consent?

    This verse is primarily concerned about keeping order in the church. Married women should conduct themselves in a manner that is commensurate with the commitments they have already willingly made. This however, is a far cry from saying that all women, at all times and in all ages can never utter an exhortation to edify the body of Christ.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    It is probable that Paul could have named them if he wanted to.

    Not really, the chances of him ever having actually written that are pretty slim, the Greek it's written in just isn't his style. Amongst Biblical scholars the notion that the pastoral epistles are genuinely Pauline is a definite minority view.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 192 ✭✭Gingganggooley


    In this case, I will gladly side with the minority.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    It is ludicrous to suggest that all females are totally prohibited from teaching within the church. This passage does not go anywhere near making such a blanket taboo.

    The verse in question refers to women. Who exactly are these women? They are a specific and confined coterie. These women were part of this particular church that was expressly under the charge of an individual whose name was Timothy. It is probable that Paul could have named them if he wanted to.

    Should the entire church be deprived on account of a reprimand that was handed down to a local church in order to deal with the misbehaviour of, at most, a few?

    We must also take into consideration the cultural setting in which these words were first written. Their societal conventions stand in stark contrast to our own, especially inter-sexual relations. The vast majority of women would have been married at a very early age and would not have been allowed to participate in many of the front line activities of society such as politics or business.

    It is quite possible that all we have here is a married woman who is inappropiately usurping her husbands position in a publically humiliating fashion. She, or they, are being properly sanctioned here. However this is a far cry from saying that all women, at all times and in all ages can never utter an exhortation to edify the body of Christ.
    Paul's appeal is to the creation order, not contempory society. His prohitition applies to all churches in all times. And it is in line with his teaching to other churches on the role of women:
    1 Corinthians 14:34Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    That it wasn't written by Saul of Tarsus and nor indeed were any of the pastoral epistles. The Syrian/Antioch Chuch always said they were forgeries.
    Really? As far as I can determine, such a position was held only by the Gnostic heretics of the early days, and revived by liberal heretics in modern days. The Church has always accepted them as genuine letters of Paul the apostle.

    Perhaps you would provide some references?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Really? As far as I can determine, such a position was held only by the Gnostic heretics of the early days, and revived by liberal heretics in modern days. The Church has always accepted them as genuine letters of Paul the apostle.

    Perhaps you would provide some references?

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html

    1 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.
    Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):
    Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.
    Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
    The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
    The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.
    The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel adds a few more considerations.
    Concerning the struggle against the false teachers, Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 379-80):
    . . . in addition to the predictions concerning the appearance of the false teachers 'in the last days' (I Tim 4:1 ff; II Tim 3:1 ff, 13; 4:3 f), there are references to the present activity of the false teachers and instructions about combating them (I Tim 1:3 ff, 19 f; 6:20 f; II Tim 2:16 ff; 3:8; Tit 1:10 ff; 3:9 ff), so that there is no perceptible distinction between the teaching of the predicted false teachers and the present ones. But since nowhere in the Pastorals is there to be found any consciousness of living 'in the last days,' in the prediction of the End-time which evidently describes present phenomena it is clear that we are dealing only with a traditional literary motif (vaticinium ex eventu) which is now being employed by 'Paul.' Still more striking, however, is the matter of how the false teachers are opposed. Completely otherwise than in Col, the viewpoints of the false teachers are not contradicted by being confronted with the preaching about Christ, but they are countered simply by reference to the traditional teaching, from which the false teachers have erred and which is to be held fast (I Tim 4:1; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2 Tit 3:10 f). The lack of any substantive debate cannot be explained on the ground that Paul did not regard the prattle of false teachers as being worth contradicting and assumed that Timothy and Titus themselves knew what should be said in refutation of the false teachers. In that case there would be no necessity to make those addressed aware of the dangers of the false teaching in detail. This lack is much more readily explained by the fact that Paul is not writing these letters.
    In the pastorals, there is an emphasis on the preservation of tradition, and the community situation seems to be that of the sub-apostolic age. The pastorals evince a level of church organization that most likely would not have existed in the lifetime of Paul. The requirements particular to bishops and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 381-2):
    The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders of office in the congregations - not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a community which, in contrast to Paul's expectation of a near end of the age, is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through ordanted presbyters (πρεσβυτεροσ is not meant in Paul as an indication of an office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the community.
    And Kummel goes on to amass further evidence that the theological expressions used are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp. 382-84). All these arguments establish that the pastoral epistles are second century products.


    If you bear with me I'm trying to find where it was that I learned that the Antioch Church considered them apocrypha. I digest things and then forget where I found them :o


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html

    1 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.
    Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):
    Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.
    Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
    The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
    The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.
    The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel adds a few more considerations.
    Concerning the struggle against the false teachers, Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 379-80):
    . . . in addition to the predictions concerning the appearance of the false teachers 'in the last days' (I Tim 4:1 ff; II Tim 3:1 ff, 13; 4:3 f), there are references to the present activity of the false teachers and instructions about combating them (I Tim 1:3 ff, 19 f; 6:20 f; II Tim 2:16 ff; 3:8; Tit 1:10 ff; 3:9 ff), so that there is no perceptible distinction between the teaching of the predicted false teachers and the present ones. But since nowhere in the Pastorals is there to be found any consciousness of living 'in the last days,' in the prediction of the End-time which evidently describes present phenomena it is clear that we are dealing only with a traditional literary motif (vaticinium ex eventu) which is now being employed by 'Paul.' Still more striking, however, is the matter of how the false teachers are opposed. Completely otherwise than in Col, the viewpoints of the false teachers are not contradicted by being confronted with the preaching about Christ, but they are countered simply by reference to the traditional teaching, from which the false teachers have erred and which is to be held fast (I Tim 4:1; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2 Tit 3:10 f). The lack of any substantive debate cannot be explained on the ground that Paul did not regard the prattle of false teachers as being worth contradicting and assumed that Timothy and Titus themselves knew what should be said in refutation of the false teachers. In that case there would be no necessity to make those addressed aware of the dangers of the false teaching in detail. This lack is much more readily explained by the fact that Paul is not writing these letters.
    In the pastorals, there is an emphasis on the preservation of tradition, and the community situation seems to be that of the sub-apostolic age. The pastorals evince a level of church organization that most likely would not have existed in the lifetime of Paul. The requirements particular to bishops and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 381-2):
    The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders of office in the congregations - not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a community which, in contrast to Paul's expectation of a near end of the age, is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through ordanted presbyters (πρεσβυτεροσ is not meant in Paul as an indication of an office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the community.
    And Kummel goes on to amass further evidence that the theological expressions used are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp. 382-84). All these arguments establish that the pastoral epistles are second century products.


    If you bear with me I'm trying to find where it was that I learned that the Antioch Church considered them apocrypha. I digest things and then forget where I found them :o
    These arguments against Pauline authorship have been rebutted by conservative scholars, eg. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Tyndale Press, London 1970.

    Good cases for and against exist, and are of interest to scholars; but the issue is settled for ordinary Christians by the total support for Pauline authorship which the Church has held from the beginning.

    An example: Marcion was a heretic and blatantly rejected any book that did not support his theology. He would have had problems with Paul's treatment of the Law as 'good'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    the issue is settled for ordinary Christians by the total support for Pauline authorship which the Church has held from the beginning.

    An example: Marcion was a heretic and blatantly rejected any book that did not support his theology. He would have had problems with Paul's treatment of the Law as 'good'.

    I have seen no evidence of the support of which you talk just assumptions. The first mention of 1 Tim is by Irenaeus in about 170AD AFAIK. Marcion heretic though he was, was the first to collate any kind of Gospel and he did include Pauline epistles. It's kind of hard to say really what the earliest Christians held to be true because there were so many different types and congregations of early Christians. The orthodoxy didn't really crystalise until Constantine got a hand to the helm and the NT wasn't collated until some good period after this. I do have it in my head for some reason that the Church at Antioch from fairly far back did not accept the pastoral epistles as genuine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭hivizman


    Some other views on the authorship of I Timothy (and II Timothy and Titus - collectively the Pastoral Letters).

    1. A Roman Catholic view is provided by Professor Raymond E Brown in An Introduction to the New Testament (Doubleday: 1997, p. 668 - original in italics):
    About 80 to 90 percent of modern scholars would agree that the Pastorals were written after Paul's lifetime, and of those the majority would accept the period between 80 and 100 as the most plausible context for their composition.

    2. In The Oxford Companion to the Bible (OUP, 1993, pp. 573-576), Robert J. Karris writes:
    While the Pastoral Letters have a noticeable Pauline character, there are five major areas in which they differ from the indisputedly genuine Pauline letters: vocabulary, theological concepts, church order, reliance on traditions, and inconsistencies with Paul's career as set out in Acts and Romans. . . . While the Pastoral Letters were not written by Paul, there is no doubt of their Pauline character.

    3. John Bowker, in The Complete Bible Handbook (Dorling Kindersley: 1998, p. 447):
    There is a case for Paul writing II Timothy and for I Timothy being based on it. . . . The letters are not mentioned by Christian writers until the second half of the second century CE, supporting the view that they were written after Paul died.

    4. Bishop Tom Wright, a fairly conservative but highly rigorous scholar, notes in his Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters (SPCK, 2003, p. x):
    Many have wondered whether Paul himself could have written these letters, which are very different in some respects from the others. This book isn't the place to discuss such matters; what concerns us here is what the letters say and how they relate to us today.

    I tend to come down on Tom Wright's side here - given that I Timothy is accepted as part of the canonical New Testament, academic debates about whether or not Paul, as opposed to a follower or disciple of Paul, was the actual author are only secondary to what the book says and how its message should be understood today. Wright translates I Timothy 2:11-12 as:
    They [i.e. women] must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. I'm not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; rather, that they should be left undisturbed.

    Wright interprets verse 11 as an instruction that women should be permitted to study and learn, rather than being kept in a position of subordination, ignorance and drudgery. He argues that verse 12 is a way of saying "I don't mean to imply that I'm now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women."

    I think that Wright is embarrassed by the traditional interpretations of these verses, and his reinterpretation seems somewhat forced, but at least it's an attempt to reconcile the statements in I Timothy with those more clearly favourable to women in some of the undisputed Pauline epistles.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Good post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    hivizman wrote: »
    I tend to come down on Tom Wright's side here - given that I Timothy is accepted as part of the canonical New Testament, academic debates about whether or not Paul, as opposed to a follower or disciple of Paul, was the actual author are only secondary to what the book says

    I disagree somewhat, if the epistles were offered under false pretence then it invalidates the authenticity of what they have to say. You may as well go and write your own epistle and claim it to be Pauls. Indeed, you seem to be saying that anybody at all could have written whatever they liked on whatever matter of theology and so long as it was included in the orthodox canon that's fine by you, it's the word of God. If I have you right this attitude seems a little odd to me on account of the very many admonitions that were given against Scribes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    An example: Marcion was a heretic and blatantly rejected any book that did not support his theology. He would have had problems with Paul's treatment of the Law as 'good'.

    Marcion actually didn't blatantly reject any book that didn't support his theology, for example he used the Gospel of Luke and that provides a birth narrative for Jesus even though Marcion was a docetist and didn't believe Jesus was actually born. However he did not reject Luke, instead he ommitted the first two chapters as he believed these to be later additions to the Gospel and he was just returning Luke to its pristine original.

    Similarly Marcion did not reject Pauline epistles in which Paul quoted the Old Testament as scripture or where he claimed the Law to be good, instead he just ommitted the offending passages to remove, what he claimed, was later forged additions to Paul's true message.

    That Marcion did not include the pastoral epistles cannot be easily written off as just that they were contrary to his theology, this problem did not stop him with any of the other books of his canon.

    The fact is that of the 13 letters supposedly written by Paul that made it into the NT there are three which stand out for numerous reasons as being very different from the other ten and it just so happens that it is these very three which did not make it into the very earliest Christian canon which was composed by a man whose very theology hinged on Paul and his writings.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    I disagree somewhat, if the epistles were offered under false pretence then it invalidates the authenticity of what they have to say. You may as well go and write your own epistle and claim it to be Pauls. Indeed, you seem to be saying that anybody at all could have written whatever they liked on whatever matter of theology and so long as it was included in the orthodox canon that's fine by you, it's the word of God. If I have you right this attitude seems a little odd to me on account of the very many admonitions that were given against Scribes.
    Yes, this is the only honest response if Paul is not the author. The letter is a lie and not Scripture. Those commentators who deny Paul's authorship but claim to be Christians show the nature of their faith.


Advertisement