The Reliability Of The New Testament 4A - Pastoral Epistles

Front 1

What are the 3 basic critical issues raised by scholarship regarding the authenticity of the PE?

Back 1

"(1) Historical: The PE do not fit into the historical framework of Acts. (2) Theological: The PE omit some themes that are central to Paul's theology and develop some in ways unlike Paul, or, it is argued, in ways that contradict Pauline thinking. (3) Literary style: The vocabulary and style of writing in the PE are different from the 'acknowledged' Paulines" (Mounce, lxxiv.3)

Front 2

Cite 4 reasons that Mounce gives (related to the historical framework of Acts) to refute the claim that "the PE do not fit into the time frame of Acts and are therefore fictitious" (lxxxiv.4)

Back 2

1. "This argument has significance only if Acts must tell the entire story. Acts does not claim to be exhaustive."
2. "[Acts] implicity suggests that Paul was innocent and should have been released, and leaves his fate an open question."
3. "It seems...unlikely that a pseuepigrapher, a person writing under Paul's name, would have created a fictitious historical setting that did not fit into Acts, especially an entire missionary journey to Crete."
4. It is very difficult to place the PE within the events recorded in Acts. (Mounce, lxxxvi-lxxxviii)

Front 3

Cite 4 reasons that Mounce gives to refute the claim that "the developed church structure of overseers and deacons...in 1 Timothy and Titus belongs to a time later than the life of Paul, closer to the time of Ignatius (A.D. 116)" (lxxxvi.2).

Back 3

1. "...at the end of his life, with the encroaching death of the eyewitnesses and apostles, Paul would be expected to place more emphasis on the structure of the church, a structure hitherto primarily supplied by the apostles and eyewitnesses."
2. "The organizational structure evident in the PE would not have taken a long time to evolve (cf. the relative quickness of the development in Acts 6), and in fact the structure in the PE is at an early stage of development." For example, "The terminology of leadership is not used consistently (Titus 1:5, 7), and the duties are not defined. Paul even has to defend the right of church officers to be paid (1 Tim 5:17). There is no mention of a deacon moving up the hierarchical ladder to the office of overseer...there is no concept of succession of office and no concept of an episcopate. There is only a two-tiered structure of overseers and deacons, and not the later three-tiered structure that included the monarchical bishop."
3. "Timothy and Titus stand outside the church structure. They are not bishops or elders, and are not members of the local church. They are itinerant, apostolic delegates sent with Paul’s authority to deal with local problems...just as they do in Acts. Timothy and Titus are never told to rely on their institutional position in the local church for authority; rather they rely on the authority of Paul and the gospel. If Timothy were a monarchical bishop, there would have been no reason for Paul’s encouragement; Timothy could simply have relied on his ecclesiastical authority and have enforced compliance..."
4. "Issues of church structure are minimal in Titus (five of forty-one verses) and are nonexistent in 2 Timothy (expect perhaps in 2 Tim 2:2). To speak of an emphasis on church structure in the Pastorals requires viewing them as a single corpus and setting aside the significant differences among the three letters" (lxxxvi-lxxxviii).

Front 4

Name and describe the 4 major hypothesis given by Mounce which seek to explain the authorship and style of the PE

Back 4

1. "The Fiction Hypothesis sees the corpus as a total fabrication, usually placing its writing date in the second century as an attempt to make Paul’s message relevant or to oppose second-century heresy." (Mounce, cxviii)
2. "The Fragment Hypothesis proposes that after Paul’s death a person collected a few genuine fragments of Paul’s writing and wove them into three fabricated letters in an attempt to preserve the fragments and make Paul’s message relevant to a later church."
3. The Pseudepigraphy Hypothesis states that "the writing of a book or letter under someone else’s name...was an accepted practice...[and] that the pseudepigraphical nature of the PE would have been recognized and accepted by the church" (Mounce, cxxiii)
4. "The Amanuensis Hypothesis views the letters as Pauline but allows for the influence of an amanuensis, especially in the areas of vocabulary and style."

Front 5

State and briefly describe the 3 major refutations of the fiction hypothesis given by Mounce

Back 5

1. "Internal problems. If the PE were a second-century corpus designed to fight the battles of that age, one would have to conclude that they failed miserably. In all aspects it can be argued that the PE are closer to Paul than to the second century. They do not combat full-blown Gnosticism, the dominant heresy of the second century, but at most deal with early forms."
2. "External problems. The Fiction Hypothesis stumbles against the external evidence as well. The canonical acceptance of the PE is extremely strong, both early and widespread. The Fiction Hypothesis requires us to dismiss in totality the witness of the early church solely on the basis of internal arguments."
3. "Why three?...If a forger were writing in the second century, using the name of the apostle Paul to add validity, why would this person write three forgeries, tripling the possibility of detection? Why write three documents that are significantly different in content and, in the case of Titus and 2 Timothy, add so little to the forger’s argument" (Mounce, cxviii-cxx)?

Front 6

State and briefly describe the 4 major refutations of the fragment hypothesis given by Mounce

Back 6

1. "[R.P.] Martin uses the phrase “let us imagine,” and the major critique of this position is that it requires too much imagination. Not one point in the hypothetical reconstruction is based on fact. There is only supposition; there are no textual indications (Spicq, 1:201–2). From the manner of writing notes and their content, to their combination with traditional material, no evidence is given that this actually ever happened."
2. "...when the supposed fragments are placed in a time frame, they contradict each other (Introduction, 639–41)...[and] the methodology, which requires a large dose of subjectivity and suffers from a lack of verifiable criteria as one attempts to reconstruct the historical setting into which these fragments can be placed..."
3. "Most of the passages identified as authentic are inserted at the end of Titus and scattered throughout 2 Timothy. Why are there no fragments in 1 Timothy? It contains most of the theology that is supposedly relevant to the second century. On the other hand, 2 Timothy contains almost none of the relevant theology but the majority of the allegedly authentic historical fragments."
4. "Is the proposed motive credible?...Does a person preserve authentic fragments by mingling them among personal writings, so hidden that they are virtually undetectable? If the fragments were known to be Pauline, would someone mix them with his own? If the fragments were not known as Pauline, why would their inclusion lend authenticity? If the compiler’s goal was to preserve Pauline fragments and make Paul’s instruction relevant to a later time, one is overwhelmed by his degree of failure. There is no anti-Marcionite polemic, no anti-Gnostic emphasis, no advance from Paul’s day" (Mounce, cxxi-cxxii).

Front 7

State and briefly describe 5 major refutations of the pseudepigraphy hypothesis given by Mounce

Back 7

1. "why [would've] Paul ever identified himself as an author if identity was secondary or irrelevant"?
2. There is no question that pseudepigraphy existed in the ancient world...The real question is whether the church recognized and accepted false letters that they knew to be pseudepigraphical."
3. "...the external evidence shows that the church did not accept epistolary pseudepigraphy...The Muratorian Canon states about a pseudepigraphical letter, “There is current also (an epistle) to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians, forged in Paul’s name for the sect of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received in the catholic Church; for it will not do to mix gall with honey” (in Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha 1:44)... Eusebius mentions that Serapion of Antioch (c. 190) found the Gospel of Peter being used in Cilicia. He wrote the following to the church at Rhossus in Cilicia: “We receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us” (Hist. Eccl. 6.12.2–3; LCL tr.)... 3 Corinthians was included with the Acts of Paul, was circulated independently in the Syrian church, and was actually accepted by some as canonical. As part of the Acts of Paul, it was written by a second-century bishop in Asia out of love for the apostle. When the author confessed that his work was a forgery, his actions were condemned, he was removed from office, and his forgery was not accepted. Tertullian writes, “But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim Thecla’s example as a license for women’s teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office” (De Bapt. 17; ANF 3:677)."
4. "The evidence from Paul himself shows that he did not want the church to accept a pseudepigraphical letter. He urges the Thessalonian church not to believe any false letter supposedly from him that the day of the Lord has already come (2 Thess 2:2) and goes so far as to create a mark that identifies a letter as authentic (2 Thess 3:17), a custom continued in other letters..."
5. "Despite modern objections to the contrary, is it really possible that someone would forge a personal letter of a well-known person to a well-known friend, replete with personal comments and historical asides, and at the same time emphatically condemn hypocrisy" (Mounce, cxxiii-cxxvi)?

Front 8

State and briefly describe 3 major reasons given by Mounce that Luke was Paul's amanuensis for the PE

Back 8

1. "The Amanuensis Hypothesis states that while Paul wrote the PE, he wrote them, as he always did, with the aid of an amanuensis...This hypothesis follows the suggestion of 2 Timothy that the nature of Paul’s imprisonment prohibited him from writing the letters himself...and the similarities among the three epistles suggest that the same freedom was granted to the same amanuensis in all three."
2. "Roller suggests that given the physical restriction of a small prison and the weight of the chains, an amanuensis was not only required but would of necessity be given significant freedom...Paul’s comment that only Luke was with him (2 Tim 4:11) suggests to others that Luke was the amanuensis..."
3. "...the literary similarities with Luke-Acts along with the historical picture in 2 Timothy are of sufficient strength to suggest that Luke is the most likely person to have written Paul’s last letter to Timothy, with perhaps Paul giving him a degree of latitude in terms of vocabulary, style, and theological expression. If Luke was the amanuensis of 2 Timothy, then the consistency among the PE suggests that he was the amanuensis for all three. This best explains the external evidence, the internal issues, and why there were three letters written, and it does not introduce its own set of irreconcilable problems." (Mounce, cxxvii-cxxix)

Front 9

What reason does Mounce give for the absence of the PE in the P46 codex?

Back 9

The compiler of the codex may have only intended to include the public letters of Paul.