Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy: An Evaluation of the Apostle’s Literary, Rhetorical, and Theological Tactics 9780567661265, 9780567254900

Citation preview

To my Cheerleaders: Kayla, Jacob, Kayci, and Joseph

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Proposed Outline Structures of 1 Timothy

146

Table 2: Comparison of 1 Timothy 1.3-20; 3.14–4.16; and 6.2b-21

154

Table 3: PT Placement and Function in Primary Divisions of 1 Timothy

157

Table 4. Sub-Unit Function of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

164

Table 5: Opponents’ Ascriptions and Characteristics in 1 Timothy

181–182

Table 6: Preformed Traditions as Theological Directives against Table 6: Opponent Errors

187

PREFACE This study evolved from the question: Does traditional material contribute to the message and understanding of 1 Timothy? Underlying this question is a presupposition that New Testament authors used extant sources. This study seeks to identify ‘preformed traditions’ in 1 Timothy. The subject is approached embracing the idea that such material was formulated prior to (i.e., ‘preformed’) an epistle’s writing and was expressive of the Christian community’s conviction (i.e., ‘tradition’). Through such identification, it can be demonstrated that preformed traditions strengthen the letter’s literary cohesion as well as provide the author rhetorical leverage in stating theological directives that combat counter-mission doctrine. The study has three primary parts. The first part (Chapter 2) identifies introductory concerns directed toward historical works evaluating traditional material. Through a critique of previously submitted criteria used to identify the primary types of preformed units, eight criteria are defended as primary and proposed to identify the units. These criteria target the major areas of structure, content, and style. Each criteria category is expected to surface in the identification process. The second part (Chapter 3) evaluates nineteen potential passages in 1 Timothy. Each passage is identified according to the criteria determined in Chapter 2. The following twelve passages are embraced as preformed traditions that meet established categorical criteria: (1) 1.8-10; (2) 1.15a-b; (3) 1.17; (4) 2.5-6a; (5) 3.1; (6) 3.16; (7) 4.8; (8) 4.9, 10b; (9) 5.24-25; (10) 6.7; (11) 6.10a; and (12) 6.11-16. The third part (Chapter 4) demonstrates four functions of identified preformed traditions in 1 Timothy. First, they strengthen the literary cohesion of the letter by supporting a structural proposition of the epistle, providing connections within sub-units, and supplying thematic points throughout the epistle. Second, the traditional units afford the author rhetorical leverage. This leverage is identified in the provision of authority, the establishment of primary audience rapport, and the assistance conferred in addressing the implied audience. Third, they present theological directives that confront the character and belief of the false teachers. Fourth, preformed traditions exist as a combatant against counter-mission doctrine. This is confirmed through observation of the letter’s argument. In conclusion, this study displays that traditional material contributes to the overall message and understanding of 1 Timothy.

ADVANCED COMMENTS It is a pleasure to commend this work on preformed traditions. In New Testament study today there is a growing appreciation for the church functioning as an oral community in its teaching and for the role of the service of the church as a key place where teaching took place. The idea that there would be units of teaching has been discussed since the end of the nineteenth century. But working carefully to identify the evidence for such material has been a running discussion since Eduard Norden introduced the idea of such units in 1898, and in greater detail in 1913. While debate has swirled around whether such material existed and how to identify it, little has been done to examine the potential function of such material within the longest of the Pastoral epistles. Dr Yarbrough’s study supplies a remedy to that lack, by presenting a carefully laid out examination of the discussion about preformed traditions, the criteria by which someone can identify its presence, and then a careful look at which units likely emerged from such an origin and their function within the letter. In the process, one gets a tour of key theological ideas circulating in the church during the period of this important church letter, giving us an inside glimpse of church life and concerns from the early Christian era. Whether to teach, confess, or sing these materials showed a church concerned to teach its members core theology in a period when the documents that eventually made their way into a New Testament were still being written and recognized. Thus, these materials functioned in a role much like memory verses do for people today. Studying what these units teach and how 1 Timothy presents them is a fascinating trek into the world of the first century church. Yarbrough’s study takes us into the world that led into such collections of material and the earliest forms of such traditions before we reach this epistle. The laying out of criteria and the application of such standards both to recognize and to reject the presence of such material in 1 Timothy helps us to appreciate how we might be able to determine when such units are present, as well as to consider the particular application this letter gives this material. Written in accessible style, the study is an illuminating and useful glimpse into how one critical source of early Christian church life presented its take on keys to early church instruction. The flavor of significant early church concerns surfaces in this useful study. As well one can see how strategic wings of the church sought to teach with care the theological themes that were at the base of the early community’s faith. So

xiv

Advanced Comments

I enthusiastically commend this excellent study and its careful examination of a key way the early church taught her own. Darrell L. Bock Research Professor of New Testament Studies Professor of Spiritual Formation and Culture Dallas Theological Seminary Dallas, Texas, USA 23 March 2009

Research to enable one to distinguish an author’s use of a previous tradition inevitably includes a fair amount of subjectivity. There is always also a certain circularity in the process of choosing passages to evaluate for ‘preformed traditions’ and the results themselves. Nevertheless, Mark Yarbrough has provided us with about as comprehensive and useful a set of criteria possible for identifying such traditions in the epistles and has applied it meticulously to 1 Timothy as an illustration. The conclusions about the functions of such traditions offer an added bonus. This is a fine study deserving warm commendation. Craig L. Blomberg Distinguished Professor of New Testament Denver Seminary Denver, Colorado, USA 1 June 2009

In Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy, Mark M. Yarbrough describes the contribution of traditional material to the message of the first of the Pastoral Epistles. Building upon the works of others, including Eduard Norden, Oscar Cullman, Vernon Neufeld and E. Earle Ellis, Yarbrough clarifies the criteria used in the process of identifying preformed traditions and with these criteria identifies in 1 Timothy twelve such texts. What sets his study apart is his careful and thorough demonstration of a fourfold function of these texts as a significant part of the literary and rhetorical strategy of 1 Timothy. Clay Alan Ham Vice President of Academics Professor of New Testament Lincoln Christian University Lincoln, Illinois, USA 9 April 2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Publishing a book is a community endeavor, and I am indebted to a host of friends and family. With this in mind, this book is a presentation, with revisions and updates, of a PhD dissertation accepted by the Faculty of the Department of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary in 2008. I am indebted to my committee, Drs Pond (chair), Bramer, and Smith, for insightful direction and academic rigor which helped shape the structure and content. I am also grateful for the original editing expertise supplied by Dr Roy Zuck and Kelley Mathews. My colleagues at Dallas Seminary were a source of encouragement. Specifically, Robert Riggs carried my assignments during my ‘writing’ absence, and Mary Nell Pettitt provided a constant smile. Bob Abegg granted insight into 1 Timothy, and also ‘listened’ and rejoiced when something solidified. Dr Mark Bailey’s support was humbling. Not only is he my ‘boss’, but his special assistance was an act of grace. I am also appreciative of long-time friends Dr Clay Ham and Chuck Gilbert, who lifted my spirit in down times. Also, I could not have attempted this undertaking without the prayer coverage of Centerpoint Church. The kind ‘leave of absence’, granted by my fellow elders, made this less painful. In my absence at church Marty Mckee carried my load and did so through faith and friendship. Countless revisions went through the hands of my gracious parents, Bob and Janet Yarbrough. My father was a great sounding board. We spent many hours talking through ideas. That alone made the journey worth it. The entirety of the project was only possible because of the patience and commitment from the love of my life, Jennifer. Her presence was an anchor throughout the endeavor, and her love is unmatched. Our children, Kayla, Jacob, Kayci, and Joseph, kept me laughing each step of the way. Thankfully, they may now cease their prayers for ‘more complete pages’. To that end we all say ‘Amen!’ Mark M. Yarbrough 2009

ABBREVIATIONS BDAG

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 CBQ CJT GNT JB JBL JJS JSNT JSNTSup NA27 NASB NEB NET NIV NKJV NT OT PE PPS PT RSV TDNT

UBS4 WBC ZNW ZTK

Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 Criterion 1: Formulaic Introduction or Conclusion Criterion 2: Texts Largely Self-Contained or Contextually Dislocated Criterion 3: Emphasis on Early Orthodoxy or Central Theological Concepts Criterion 4: Emphasis on Orthopraxy and Paraenetic Content Criterion 5: Identifiable External Parallel Passages Criterion 6: Poetic Nuances Criterion 7: Abnormal Vocabulary Criterion 8: Unusual Syntactical Structure Catholic Biblical Quarterly Canadian Journal of Theology Greek New Testament Jerusalem Bible Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 27th ed. New American Standard Bible New English Bible New English Translation New International Version New King James Version New Testament Old Testament Pastoral Epistles Popular Patristic Series Preformed Tradition Revised Standard Version Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976 The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 4th ed. Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Scope of the Study Paul’s1 utilization of extant material in his writings2 is extensive. Foremost in this recognition is the apostle’s frequent use of the OT through either explicit or 2

1. Research on the Apostle Paul and the corpus Paulinum is immense. Three areas surround the compilation of Paul’s writings: (1) process and formation, (2) historical citations regarding inclusion, and (3) comparative linguistic analysis. 2. Church history identifies Pauline authorship of thirteen letters. In the modern era many writers have embraced nineteenth-century propositions by scholars such as F. E. D. Schleiermacher (1807), J. G. Eichhorn (1812), and F. C. Baur (1835), who questioned the genuineness of various books. A succinct work produced by Adolf von Harnack, Die Briefsammlung des Apostels Paulus (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1926), 5, proposed that Paul’s letters were valued upon first reception and revered upon each transmission. He concludes this is true because of Paul’s epistolary skill, recorded attacks from opponents (2 Cor. 10.10), churches produced from preaching and organization (1 Cor. 7.17), and the undermining of his work from external foes (2 Thess. 2.2; 3.17). Harnack’s presentation laid groundwork for scholars such as B. H. Streeter and Kirsopp Lake who espoused a stage-development of the corpus in which the central letters (Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians) extended to ten (2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philemon) and finally to thirteen (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus). This, it is proposed, follows the historical, second-century notations demonstrating a progression of acceptance. Thus, many questioned the Pauline authenticity of the texts embraced in the later part of the canonical process. Historical citations regarding inclusion focus on second-century notations. Appeal is made to Marcion’s accepted NT writings (ca. CE 130–160; in Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.9-11) and P46 (ca. CE 200), neither of which specifies 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, or Titus. (See Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 1992], 37–38, for a detailed summary.) Alternative to such a notation is the Muratorian Canon (ca. CE 175–200), in which all thirteen epistles are identified. (For the text of the Muratorian Canon, see Henry Scowcroft Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 1963], 28–29.) Likewise the historical epistles are identified by early church fathers such as Irenaeus (ca. CE 130–200). He cites each letter except Philemon in Against Heresies. (See E. Aleith, Paulusverständnis in der alten Kirche [Berlin: Töpelmann, 1937], 70, for Irenaeus’s use of Paul’s letters.) With the emergence of statistical assessment, research presents detailed analysis concerning the Pauline corpus. As this relates to the current study of the Pastoral Epistles, and in particular to the study of 1 Timothy, many propose that the Pastorals are not authentic because of sheer word assessment. In The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921), 20,

2

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

implicit citations.3 While this constitutes a substantial portion of Paul’s material identifiable in his epistles,4 it does not include the totality of extant resources included in his letters.5 To identify and assess all such material one also must account for a variety of written and oral traditions,6 exclusive of OT references, incorporated by the apostle in his writings. In response to the acknowledgement that traditional material exists in the NT, great effort has transpired in critical scholarship attempting to identify the ideological and theological atmosphere from whence the literary units origi-

P. N. Harrison purports that of the 902 words in the Pastorals, 306 are not found within the other ten writings of Paul, and of those, 175 do not occur outside of the Pastorals at all. First Timothy contains 96 such hapax legomena. Such data is frequently presented concerning the Pauline corpus, especially as it pertains to the Pastoral Epistles. The present work exists in the midst of this immense backdrop. The scope of the current study narrows the evaluation to 1 Timothy under the assumption of Pauline authorship, yet in recognition and interaction with those who differ. This point is articulated as the study unfolds. 3. Stanley E. Porter, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’, in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 79–88, provides a detailed delineation of terminology and application of OT use in the NT. 4. Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds, The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 888–901, list 104 direct quotations and 392 allusions in the Pauline corpus. The quotations and allusions occur in 503 NT verses. The thirteen books attributed to Paul encapsulate 2,032 verses. According to the aforementioned sources 24.75% (i.e., one quarter) of Paul’s NT writings are OT quotations and allusions. 5. Adolf Deissman and Lionel R. M. Strachan’s landmark documentation of Egyptian papyri, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Greco-Roman World (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), led to an early distinction between letters and epistles. A letter, as Deissman and Strachan define it, is a ‘confidential, personal conversation between two persons separated by distance’ (p. 228). Likewise they distinguished an epistle as a writing that is formed by a writer as he is conscious of literary style and public readership. This delineation has been challenged by William G. Doty (Letters in Primitive Christianity [Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1973]) and Stanley K. Stowers (Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity [Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1986]). Their primary contention with Deissman and Strachan’s conclusion was that their work oversimplified the nature of Paul’s correspondence and the ‘informal’ Egyptian papyri which they evaluated. Regardless of one’s position the discussion is beneficial in that it lays groundwork for an assessment of rhetorical formation. For the sake of variety and because the author does not embrace a great distinction between the two, the terms ‘letter’ and ‘epistle’ will be used synonymously throughout. 6. For a discussion of the traditioning process and the implications concerning apostolic mission see Oscar Cullmann, ‘The Tradition’, in idem, The Early Church: Studies in Early Church History and Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1956), 55–59; and B. Gerhardsson and E. J. Sharpe, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 288–323.

1. Introduction

3

nated. This quest for the Sitz im Leben has brought forth a sundry of options as to the tradition’s origins and purposes. Obviously such a focus produces methodologies for identification, discussions on key traditions, and general proposals concerning a tradition’s function. To become familiar with such propositions, it is necessary to identify briefly a few historical contributors in order to identify the progression of scholarship. At this stage a simplistic overview is sufficient, noting three figures that stand as representatives of a colossal field that has produced an unusual amount of material. In 1898 Eduard Norden surveyed literary units and identified texts that were byproducts of Greco-Roman poetry.7 He argued that the formulas originated from the classical Greek milieu and were then utilized by the early church. He concluded that these formulas were thereby incorporated into the biblical texts and were identifiable as ‘poetry’. He also noted that some passages were short and succinct, and others rather complex and melodic. Norden’s view was quite pervasive until some forty years later. In 1943 Oscar Cullmann redirected the discussion toward an emphasis on the reconstruction of various form-critical texts identified as tradition pieces.8 Cullmann shifted scholarly thought regarding the history of these units. He proposed that the traditional texts evolved in the oral period of the early church and eventually were recognized and embedded as distinct units. In the 1960s Vernon Neufeld, building on the work of Cullman, addressed the importance of developing a detailed classification of traditional texts.9 Neufeld’s view moved toward identifying what he called the ‘isolating pericopai’ of creedlike traditions. Like his predecessors, he also argued that such units resulted from pre-literary Christianity.10 However, Neufeld focused primarily on the discussion on the delineation of form. As he states, ‘There is need for the careful definition of the sharp distinction among such forms as the confession, kerygma, catechism, paradosis, liturgy, etc., all of which names are variously given to the early tradition’.11 Like most studies, the names and progression of academic movement within this field of study is fascinating. In particular, discussion concerning the origin of the traditions proves beneficial for the current study.

7. Eduard Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert vor Christus bis in die Zeit der Renaissance, 2 vols (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1898; reprint, Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1983). Norden’s most beneficial work for this study, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1913), 260–308, expounds the principles of confessional identification. For an excellent historical survey and an extended bibliography, see Richard Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 6–23. 8. Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J. K. S. Reid (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949). 9. Vernon H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963). 10. Ibid., 6–7. 11. Ibid., 7.

4

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

In spite of acknowledged ambiguity, a solid premise is that the primary Sitz im Leben of the traditional texts is the worship of the early church.12 As the firstgeneration believers entrusted the heritage of this faith to the next, the traditions were embraced and transmitted. That seems to be one of Luke’s reminders in his opening statement. Luke reminds his readers (Lk. 1.2) that he sought to compile an account of the things that had been fulfilled ‘like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word from the beginning’ (           ). While there are noted distinctions within discussions concerning the Gospel traditions and those of the apostolic letters,13 many agree with Ellis that ‘the same apostolic mission circles … were involved in the formation and transmission of both Gospel traditions from the earthly Jesus and of other traditions originating in the post-resurrection mission of the church – hymns, oracles, household and congregational regulations, biblical expositions – traditions that were also regarded as mediating the “mind of Christ” ’.14 Thus the use of traditional material in the NT letters is expected. This is certainly true when evaluating this literary nuance within the writings of the apostle Paul. References to embraced traditions in the Pauline Epistles abound and stand unattested in regard to their existence and prominence in Paul’s ideology. These include the ‘form of teaching’ (Rom. 6.17), the truths about Jesus that Paul received (1 Cor. 15.3), the ‘traditions’ (2 Thess. 2.15), and the commonly cited promptings to incorporate ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’ into community worship (Col. 3.16-17; Eph. 5.19-20). After all, the early church indeed confessed common convictions about the person of Jesus Christ. Thus it is safe to conclude that ‘traditions’ existed. Even a few common references, as previously stated, illustrate the pervasive existence of their inclusion; and numerous uses invite a closer evaluation and examination as to their purpose and function. The current variety of descriptive titles of the literary units is vast. This holds true in regard to the historical evaluation of the subject matter as well. An unusual number of terms are utilized in the designated field. Longenecker, in surveying the theological landscape, notes that ‘scholars have often used such terms as “creed”, “formula of faith”, “kerygma”, “paradosis” (i.e., “tradition”), “hymn”, “prayer”, “confession”, “liturgical formulation”, “ecclesial tradition”, “narrative portion”, “story” and/or “saying” when trying to establish a nomenclature for this material’.15 Why such variation? It is because a great deal of 12. Reinhard Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zur Form, Sprache, und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 132. 13. For an overview see Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1976). 14. E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), 45–46. 15. Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 24.

1. Introduction

5

overlap exists as to type, style, function, and basic platforms for identity.16 This smorgasbord of terminology attempts to emphasize or isolate specific nuances based on personal interest or needed designations. While this is not necessarily a detrimental trait within the field of study, it does present a challenge in addressing the topic with synthesis and clarity. It is appropriate to refer to such units as ‘preformed traditions’ since NT scholars commonly agree that the notations represent material previously formed, yet clearly embraced to some degree by the author and the believing community at the time of compilation. It must be stated, however, that this classification is simply a preference of some writers. Yet it does emphasize two items worth noting. First, the phrase ‘preformed traditions’ implies that something ‘preformed’ was formulated prior to the writing of the biblical letter. It is also plausible to assume that such units were possibly modified or adapted by NT authors during the formulation of their writings, while packaging familiar material that represented embraced beliefs. In that regard one can agree with Bruce Fisk when he states that many NT writers were just as much publishers as they were composers.17 Yet a composer could also be a publisher. With regard to Pauline studies, ‘preformed’ does not exclusively mean non-Pauline. It is quite plausible that some of the pericopes were ‘original’ with Paul, or at least within the Pauline tradition. It is reasonable to assume that many units developed structural autonomy and were incorporated as ‘stand-alone’ texts. However, more likely than not, the PTs are non-Pauline and thus account for the unique nuances atypical of the apostle’s grammar and style. Theoretically this principle is true regardless of author and context. Second, the word ‘traditions’ implies that there was a developing traditioning process of some kind and that material was embraced as the tradition. Again one can certainly agree with Ellis in that the term ‘tradition’ ‘in the present context means more than a prior idea or story floating in the memory of the apostles, of their co-traditioners or of the amanuensis or co-senders of their letters. It refers more specifically to a particular item in a traditioning process that was created or was in oral usage before, say, Paul or Peter incorporated it into their letters’.18 By that Ellis means that there is identifiable emphasis on familiar teachings embraced by the community of faith which is expounded on by apostolic teaching. These developed standards of doctrine and rules for governance formulate instruction to the believing community. Succinctly stated,

16. Hence the often cited comment from Ethelbert Stauffer, ‘Many confessions were hymnlike and many hymns were creed-like’ (New Testament Theology [London: SCM Press, 1955], 237). 17. Bruce Fisk, 1 Corinthians, Interpretation Bible Studies (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 2000), 48. 18. Ellis, Making of the New Testament Documents, 53.

6

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

the phrase ‘preformed traditions’ brings emphasis to the preexisting nature of the unit (preformed) as well as to the assumed belief structure (tradition) of the early church.

2. Focus of the Study This study is especially interested in the identification and use of PTs in Paul’s first letter to Timothy. The recognition of PTs is accomplished by establishing reliable criteria for identifying such traditions. Having determined the criteria for identification, the PTs are identified chapter by chapter in 1 Timothy. This process evaluates the preformed characteristics of each identified piece as well as interacting with its local structure, placement within that structure, and content. In response to the process of identification this study will demonstrate that the insertion of the preformed passages is strategic.19 This presentation argues that when Paul incorporated PTs into the text, he did not do so haphazardly. In other words it shows that the tradition units contribute to the flow of the message and substantiate the presented material. This study seeks to establish the point that the use of the traditions support and contribute to the recognition of the letter’s organization, as well as bring continuity to the theological themes presented in the text. This rhetorical device supplies a great persuasive nuance to the message of the apostle and thus provides support for the argument of the letter and the manner in which that argument is presented.20 The thesis of this study is that through the identification of preformed traditions in 1 Timothy, it can be demonstrated that preformed units strengthen literary cohesion, provide rhetorical leverage, and present theological directives that combat counter-mission doctrine in the letter.

3. Need for the Study The need for the study is fourfold. First, little research exists in regard to the establishment of criteria for identification and the assessment of the PT by a particular author in a particular letter. This again separates the discussion of preformed material from the use of the OT in the NT, which has been and continues to be researched extensively.21 While it is true that some of the more 19. It is important in this context to clarify that ‘strategic’ does not necessarily mean systematic. Systematic would imply a detailed, ordered or patterned placement. This study does not propose that the traditions are arranged in a formulaic fashion of methodical precision. Instead, it demonstrates that the preformed statements are inserted strategically in order to assist Paul in articulating the purpose of his letter. 20. The author’s interest in this subject matter stems from his master’s thesis, ‘Paul’s Hymnic Call to Godliness in 1 Timothy 3:16’ (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996). 21. For an excellent summary see Darrell L. Bock, ‘Use of Old Testament in the New’, in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools and Resources, ed. David S.

1. Introduction

7

familiar preformed texts22 have produced great dialogue, often ignored is the evaluation of the function of the PT in relationship to the meaning of the text. If a PT is identified, it is too often viewed as a literary anomaly and not addressed in terms of specific book frequency and purpose. This synthesis is often lost in detailed exegesis as focus narrows on the unit without evaluating its implication on structure and meaning. For example, Donald Guthrie spends considerable time addressing 1 Tim. 3.16, a frequently cited PT.23 While there is nothing wrong with his identity of the PT, it is treated as a text in isolation. The only transition or textual contribution Guthrie addresses is found in his concluding comment on that text: ‘Having pointed out the exaltation of Christ and the future prospects of the Church, the apostle next comes to opposing elements’.24 His conclusion is indeed true. Yet it does not identify the climactic and pivotal role the unit plays in 1 Timothy.25 When identifying a PT, the temptation is to simply evaluate it as a distinct literary unit and nothing else. Such passages must be evaluated as to their traits and form, but they must also be seen in the literary context of the letter.26 Unfortunately very few questions have been raised concerning the use of PTs in the epistolary model, let alone an author’s strategic utilization of PTs as a literary Dockery, K. A. Matthews, and Robert Bryan Sloan (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 97–107. 22. Romans 10.9, 1 Cor. 15.3b-5, and Phil. 2.5-11, traditionally embraced PTs, are presented in Chapter 2 of the current work as examples of preformed units used within the Pauline corpus. Such examples illustrate Paul’s use of traditional material and demonstrate their contribution to the message of the letter. 23. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), 88–91. A sampling of scholars identifying the traditional nature of 1 Tim. 3.16 include J. N. D. Kelly (A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus [London: A & C Black, 1963], 89–93), Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann (The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermeneia, ed. Helmut Koester [Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972], 60–61), and I. Howard Marshall (The Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999], 522–29). 24. Ibid., 91. 25. 1 Tim. 3.16 is defended as a PT in Chapter 3 of the current work. It plays a significant role in establishing the structure of the letter. The text provides a hinge with which Paul summarizes the previous context as well as sets the scene for all that he presents in the remainder of the letter. It serves as the heart of the epistle with an intense description of the mystery of ‘godliness’ (). 26. Again, 1 Tim. 3.16 provides a good example. Note the textual treatment by Walter Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999): ‘the hymnic form of this remarkable statement calls for an analysis of its structure. While that structure is obviously less important than the content, to study it helps the reader to focus carefully on content and its points of emphasis’ (p. 141). Liefeld’s point is well made and states a healthy exegetical philosophy when treating preformed texts. Evaluation of such passages must include structural analysis as well as content formation and placement.

8

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

and rhetorical tool. More often than not, a surface evaluation simply states that the pericopes do exist. The question proposed in this study is, ‘How do the pieces contribute to the whole?’ Second, the intent of the present work is to develop further the work of Ellis and others in an attempt to have a better understanding of Paul’s utilization of PTs in 1 Timothy. Ellis’s primary and most recent work on the topic, The Making of New Testament Documents, identifies the formation of the NT traditions and the resulting material and themes frequently used by the authors of a particular traditioning mission.27 One of Ellis’s contributions to the preformed-tradition discussion, as it relates to Pauline studies, and in particular to studies within the PE, focuses on the identification and frequency of Paul’s use of such material and its bearing on the discussion of authorship. As he states, ‘Preformed traditions in the Pastorals have important implications both for the question of the letters’ authenticity and for the related question of their process of composition vis-à-vis that of other Pauline letters’.28 He concludes that the frequency of preformed material in the PE models the same frequency in traditionally embraced Pauline texts and therefore, in part, confirms and substantiates Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.29 While it is apparent that this was one of the thrusts of Ellis’s endeavor, his claim of PTs in the NT is staggering. As it relates to sheer volume in the PE, Ellis proposes that roughly 33 percent of the Pastorals are preformed.30 In regard to implications on this work, he suggests that 43 percent of 1 Timothy consists of preformed material.31 However, what Ellis does not do, as that was not his intent, is to evaluate the direct contribution of such material to the message of the letter.32 His focus was to relate Paul’s frequency of PTs as a validation of his apostolic authority and thus a validation of the text’s authenticity.32 27. Ellis, Making of the New Testament Documents, 1–48; 69–142; and 143–237. Ellis’s follow-up work, History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), attempts to draw out implications of PTs as they relate to Paul’s Christology. 28. Ellis, Making of the New Testament Documents, 418. 29. Ibid., 116–17, 421. 30. That is, 1,199 words of the 3,487 that comprise the PE in the GNT. 31. Ellis, Making of the New Testament Documents, 418. Others, including Dibelius and Conzelmann (The Pastoral Epistles), imply that the high volume of preformed material substantiates the pseudepigraphal nature of the Pastorals. But they also admit that one must take ‘into consideration the way in which the kerygmatic and liturgical traditions are employed … It follows from all of this that one cannot discuss the question of authenticity without investigating the literary character of the letters’ (p. 1). Their assumption is that ‘tradition’ material is rooted in a later time period as opposed to being birthed in the early church and quickly embraced and utilized as part of the Christian confession. Taken as the latter and assuming that the traditions of 1 Timothy, for example, are primarily non-Pauline, it certainly explains the distinct vocabulary—which is a frequently appealed-to item by those who do not embrace Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy. Regardless of one’s position of authenticity, the question remains as to the function of preformed passages in a given literary presentation. 32. Ellis states, ‘The door is wide open for evaluation and assessment of Paul’s specific use

1. Introduction

9

Therefore it is important to remember that the need to identify and evaluate the use of traditional material is not exclusively bound to the authenticity debate of 1 Timothy. Many who embrace the PE as pseudepigraphical identify the frequency of PTs and ponder their purpose. J. C. O’Neill, for example, states, ‘The Pastoral Epistles are widely regarded as constructed out of traditional creeds and tracts on the duties of ministers, the ordering of families, and the moral life’.33 So, while the texts must be read afresh, and one must discern the letter from the collections of embedded traditions,34 it is also critical to read the traditions as integrated into the literary flow of the presented message. Questions remain: Why were the units included? What contribution do they make? Much work is needed to evaluate the contribution of such traditions in a particular lettered context. Unfortunately, some have stated that such a study is a fruitless endeavor; but in doing so they negate extensive scholarship that has opened new doors within Pauline studies. For instance, Morna Hooker states, ‘The search for “pre-Pauline tradition” in Paul’s own letters takes us nowhere. There had probably been little time for anything but the briefest of summaries to develop before Paul’s own conversation. If there are any quotations in his letters, they are on the whole too brief, and too close to Paul’s own beliefs, to enable us to distinguish anything’.35 This position presents the opposite extreme for those who fail to see the literary contribution of PTs and confine themselves to the unit itself. Those who approach the topic like Hooker see no rhetorical value because they approach the text assuming that such traditions do not exist. Third, a method to identify PTs is needed that reflects a contemporary synthesis of previously proposed methodologies. This assessment provides a thorough synthesis of methodologies available at the time of the study. The proposed criteria are many, and the overlap that occurs often relates to the type of preformed passage that is identified. This assessment and synthesis of criteria proves beneficial in two ways. First, the synthesis produces a framework for the identification of preformed passages in 1 Timothy. In other words it establishes the criteria with which to identify such texts. Second, the evaluation process provides a historical overview of the various proposals and interacts with key writers who have pioneered in this field of study. The overview also serves as a of preforms in a given context. It may have bearing on structure, form, and the implied meaning based upon the audience and the occasion of the writing. It would at least heighten his purpose. Unfortunately my work in this area virtually stopped with the conclusion of History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective and I’m now on to other things. I encourage you to go get ’em’ (E. Earle Ellis, telephone interview, Fort Worth, TX, 1 May 2006. Quote used by permission). 33. J. C. O’Neill, ‘Paul Wrote Some of All, but Not All of Any’, in The Pauline Canon, ed. Stanley Porter, Pauline Studies, 1 (Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2004), 184. 34. Ibid., 185. 35. Morna D. Hooker, Paul: A Short Introduction (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003), 6.

10

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

filtering system in which to synthesize the primary criteria accepted to identify such literary elements in the NT. A fourth need for the study is related to the message of 1 Timothy. As some authors fail to state the message of the book accurately and thoroughly, it is beneficial to clearly state the argument of the letter. In part the imprecise understanding of 1 Timothy occurs because of the unfortunate stereotype associated to the terminology ‘Pastoral Epistles’. D. N. Berdot used the term pastoral in 1703 as a designation for 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus; and several years later P. Anton employed the term in his commentary.36 It is certainly not inappropriate terminology. After all, a significant theme in the letters is a challenge for the leaders of the church to shepherd the flock. Paul articulates this by presenting the need for sound instruction. This instruction had been given to the apostle’s understudies and the charge is now placed on them to instill it in others. That is why he tells Timothy, ‘And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others’ (2 Tim. 2.2). Yet the unfortunate side of the ‘Pastoral’ title is that many assume that the nature of the Pastoral letters is exclusively related to rules and regulations and therefore only exists as a church manual intent on establishing leadership and presenting instructions concerning community life. It is at times surmised that 1 Timothy’s purpose is simply to qualify and quantify church order, no more and no less. 1 Timothy is often ‘viewed as a sort of handbook, laying down the discipline and regulations for the church and the qualifications for its various ministries’.37 While this is true in part, it is not the total thrust of the letter. The heart of 1 Timothy is doctrinal and theological. Mounce is correct in succinctly presenting the primary purposes: There are … several reasons that Paul wrote the first epistle to Timothy: (a) to encourage Timothy to stay on at Ephesus and deal with the significant and difficult issues that had arisen; (b) to provide authoritative instruction on how the household of God was to conduct itself in case Paul delayed in coming; and (c) to combat directly the opponents and their teaching and to remind Timothy of how he was to conduct himself and what he was to teach. The underlying purpose was then to encourage Timothy in his work but also to transfer Paul’s authority to Timothy in his fight against the opponents.38

Unfortunately the text’s opening charge is frequently overlooked: According to 1 Tim. 1.3, Timothy is to stay in Ephesus ‘in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach false doctrines’ (    ). 36. George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 3. 37. John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 407. 38. William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC, 46 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), lix.

1. Introduction

11

He is not only to remain, but to confront false teachers. ‘Instruct’ () has the connotation of passing along commands to another. Its most common meaning implies the giving of orders, to command, instruct, or direct with the understanding that what is instructed must be done.39 , as primarily utilized in its Hellenistic Jewish use,40 is ‘a military term meaning “to give strict orders” and [it] emphasizes that the commanding was to be done authoritatively’.41 In the current context, Timothy ‘is given the task of issuing a sharp prohibition against the false teachers’.42 This combative and confrontational terminology sets a tone for all that is to follow in the epistle. Readers of the text are led to anticipate that a confrontation will occur between those who embrace the doctrinal mission of the church and those who are espousing information counter to it. One also expects that those who are teaching false doctrine will be confronted. The reader expects that they will be reproved. That is why the opponents are identified in the opening scene. They are described as ‘teachers’ and identified strategically as such in the opening and closing of the letter.43 Interestingly, as it is argued, they are reproved. It is Paul’s utilization of preformed material that brings great emphasis to the doctrinal areas with which Timothy and the church leaders must contend; and those with whom they must contend are false teachers who advocate doctrine counter to that which is reiterated in the letter. The theological themes that are dispersed (and embedded as preformed material) throughout the book contribute and at times even guide the organization of the letter. This observation provides credence and emotion to the message of the letter and accentuates the theological underpinning of the orthopraxy to which the text also speaks. Thus the final need for the study is to emphasize more clearly the argument of the epistle.

4. Method and Organization of the Study The study is divided into five chapters. The current chapter introduces the topic and sets the parameters, purpose, and methodology. The intent of the present section is to establish the need as well as to set pertinent guidelines that focus the study on Paul’s use of PTs in 1 Timothy. 39. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker, 3rd ed., ‘’, 760. 40. The verb is most frequently used in reference to military orders, as in Judg. 4.10; 1 Sam. 15.4; 1 Kgs 15.22. 41. Fritz Rienecker, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, trans. and ed. Cleon L. Rogers Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 614. 42. Otto Schmitz, ‘Παραγγέλλω’, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 764. 43. Peter G. R. De Villiers, Heroes at Home: Identity, Ethos, and Ethics in 1 Timothy within the Context of the Pastoral Epistles, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 141 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 363–64.

12

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

The second chapter surveys the classifications of PTs and establishes the criteria by which to identify them. In regard to classification the chapter commences with a brief overview of the primary categories of traditional material. This naturally engages in a historical survey to trace the progression of scholarship for the purpose of seeking consensus concerning the types and kinds of existing preformed material. While not exhaustive, it does provide basic parameters in which to categorize, in the broadest sense, preformed material. The intent of this portion of the study is to provide orientation to the topic and a framework within which to explore the general uses of the tradition pieces in the NT. Chapter 2 also surveys examples of commonly accepted PTs in the Pauline corpus. Besides demonstrating the basic types of traditions, it shows Paul’s frequent use of ‘preformed’ passages and briefly demonstrates why such texts are generally accepted within critical scholarship. The chapter also displays how such PTs contribute to each letter, respectively. Thus the intent is to show the basic categories and how their existence and use is quite common as part of Paul’s literary repertoire. Another significant point of Chapter 2 relates to the evaluation of the criteria used to recognize the traditions. This portion of the study is an extensive survey that not only identifies the historical progression of proposed identification criteria, but also argues for an acceptable methodology to identify such criteria. The aim of this process is to interact with sound historical proposals and to utilize solid techniques where appropriate, and yet to deviate from them when necessary. The process evaluates and interacts with earlier procedures. For example, one methodology that provides an evaluative platform in which to build an enhanced criterion for identity is Ellis’s succinct four-step proposal.44 Ellis’s model provides a sound, working procedure for the basic identification of PTs. This procedure is beneficial in that it functions as an umbrella for many historical lists that address the topic. Yet it is proposed that Ellis’s procedure is strengthened by approaching the subject in recognition of exegetical practices useful in identifying such units. Other resources from associated fields provide a beneficial backdrop for the current endeavor.45 The reason for this

44. E. Earle Ellis, ‘Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles’, in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), 238. Also, E. Earle Ellis, ‘Pastoral Letters’, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 664. 45. For example, there is benefit in acknowledging an exegetical philosophy such as stated by Craig Evans and Richard Hays in their sevenfold assessment of OT citations and allusions, respectively: Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 6–7; Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 29–31.

1. Introduction

13

is that the process of identifying PTs is exegetical in nature,46 and not purely a mechanical procedure. As such, each criterion that is embraced is defended for value and contribution to the current endeavor of identification and recognition. The chapter concludes by narrowing the scope to the PE and demonstrating that the occurrences that exist in the Pauline corpus as a whole are only amplified in the PE because of their high frequency and the many noticeable citations. The third chapter focuses the discussion exclusively on PTs in 1 Timothy. During this process the entirety of 1 Timothy is evaluated for the purpose of identifying preformed texts. This occurs through a synthetic evaluation of each of the six chapters in 1 Timothy. Each potential PT is identified and evaluated using the parameters established in Chapter 2. While the primary focus is to recognize the traditions based on established criteria, it is also critical to identify the text in context, which means the process is much more than mere recognition. Since the process of ‘identity’ is exegetical in nature, it is important to identify traits and characteristics that demonstrate that a particular text meets the general qualities of a PT. But based on the exegetical interaction or trait recognition, the process of identity also must engage in an evaluation of a text’s basic function. All passages are interpreted in their contexts and identified in order to encapsulate their basic meaning, form, and function. Chapter 4 presents the literary, rhetorical, and theological use of the PTs and their contribution to the argument of 1 Timothy. As Paul charges Timothy to stay in Ephesus and command certain men not to teach false doctrines (1 Tim. 1.3), the message of the book reflects that charge. Literarily, it is argued that the letter is cohesive and organized. The author’s apparent outline is articulated through the identity of significant markers that hinge the movement of the text. Some of these markers exist as PTs and serve as indicators that express the literary flow and fluidity of the presentation. Rhetorically Paul utilized PTs to state his case. This device was common practice throughout the Greco-Roman period,47 and the apostle’s utilization of

46. The current chapter interacts with how to specify what constitutes a PT. It also provides guardrails for the identity of a text based on characteristics and linguistic qualities. However, larger questions of specific units must also be addressed in the identification process. That is why, for example, Evans, in regard to his own proposed evaluative OT in NT questions, states, ‘If these questions are carefully considered, one’s exegesis will be in large measure complete. Although the steps have been applied to passages where the OT is present, either explicitly or implicitly, most of these steps are relevant for exegesis of any passage’ (Evans, Ancient Texts, 7). Thus, while all of Evans’s and Hays’s questions may not apply to this study, their exegetical approach is sound. Adapted questions stemming from Evans and Hays are presented in Chapter 2. Such questions move the established identification criteria beyond simple recognition and provide a backdrop to the exegetical process in which the criteria must certainly participate. 47. For example, Aristotle taught that the use of maxims, proverbs, or generally embraced truths substantiated the speaker’s moral character and thus established good rapport with his audience (Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.21).

14

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

the technique provides a persuasive nuance that he might not otherwise evoke. Such familiar material attaches the various audiences to the message of the letter, and draws an emotive response to the material at hand. This clearly supports the initial combative charge to contend with those who have strayed from the true teachings of the faith. Theologically, the PTs weave a rich tapestry of the convictions of the early church. Various orthodox teachings are noticeable, and they flow out into the practical ramifications of the text. The preformed units flood the structure of the text with a consistent and persistent nature that demonstrates the importance of the historically embraced teachings of the church and the need for corporate affirmation regarding what is held as true and right. This presents a heightened perspective on the role of ‘tradition’ as it relates to the identified theological PTs embedded in the letter. It is ‘heightened’ in the sense that such material is not presented as preferential, but as articles of faith embraced by the believing community at large. All evaluated functions of the PTs (literary, rhetorical, and theological) should have bearing on one’s understanding of the argument of the letter. Therefore a substantial component of the fourth chapter is to evaluate the contribution of the acknowledged, preformed texts to the argument of Paul’s letter. This stands in contrast to the counter-mission (i.e., false) doctrine with which Timothy must contend. By ‘counter-mission’ is meant the espoused message of the false teachers. While the false doctrine proclaimed by such opponents is not fully revealed in the letter, the apostle at times appears to articulate doctrinal truths over and against false doctrine embraced and taught by such teachers. The message of the false teachers, which is clearly against (i.e., counter) the mission and conviction of true followers of Christ, was to be exposed by Timothy. He was to instruct them to no longer teach such things. This exposure comes in part by the proclamation of truth as revealed through preformed material. Certainly one can agree with Dibelius and Conzelmann, who write, ‘To state the correct teaching is to mark the line of separation from heresy, and conversely, the struggle against heresy leads to the formation of criteria, i.e. to the conscious establishment of orthodoxy’.48 Thus the goal of Chapter 4 is to demonstrate how the PTs are an evident tool that contributes to the message of the letter to contend against counter-mission doctrine and those who falsely proclaim what is contrary to revealed and embraced truth. The final chapter is a summary and conclusion. It reviews the previous chapters and provides a synthesis of the evaluative methodology used to identify and assess PTs in 1 Timothy. It also summarizes the ensuing results of the study and places the conclusions back into the larger arena of Pauline studies. As a response to the current endeavor, areas of future study are suggested as well. 48. Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 7.

1. Introduction

15

5. Limitations of the Study There are three main limitations to this study. The first is that this study does not intend to propose a totally new or completely unique methodology for identifying PTs in the NT. This undertaking, like the majority of the enterprises within biblical studies, is tied to historical works and the longevity of scholarship already journeyed by many in the field pertaining to the ascribed topic. This continuity provides a working platform from which to construct new wings on an already established building or, continuing with the metaphor, to strengthen a new wing on an already established building. The intent is to interact with established criteria that present working parameters on patterns used to engage in the identification of PTs. This sifting process culls out the best practices and procedures and evaluates previously defended techniques and protocols. To some degree this study interjects new ideas into the historical dialogue which Chapter 3 demonstrates. Each criterion that is embraced is defended (and adjusted if needed) in terms of accuracy and substance. The limitation, however, comes in regard to identifying PTs. This is not an exclusive study on the criteria process. The general approach is that sound, general criteria exist, and once defended, serve as the primary means by which traditional pieces are identified and evaluated in 1 Timothy. If and when new procedures are needed, they are identified clearly and argued as valuable for the current study. The second limitation relates to traditional discussion points that surround the authenticity of the PE. While Ellis’s work focuses on the Pauline/non-Pauline debate (and is therefore discussed and referenced), it is not the intent of this work to present a new treatise and defense on Paul’s epistolary career by producing additional data that support the apostle’s authorship of 1 Timothy. The working assumption of this writing is that Paul is the author of 1 Timothy and the PE as a whole.49 Without doubt, discussion concerning the originality of the Pastorals continues today and impacts the study of the Pauline corpus, the orthodoxy of the early church, and the transmission of leadership. It is therefore critical 49. The debate concerning the authorship of the PE continues within NT critical scholarship. Philip Towner (1–2 Timothy & Titus, IVP New Testament Commentary [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994]) observes: ‘The majority of modern scholars maintain that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudepigraphical – that is, written pseudonymously (in Paul’s name) sometime after Paul’s death (so Dibelius and Conzelmann, Barrett, Hanson, Houlden, Karris, Hultgren). Most today locate these three letters around the turn of the century, suggesting that the author aimed to revive Pauline teaching for his day or to compose a definitive and authoritative Pauline manual for denouncing heresy in the postapostolic church’ (p. 15). Others clearly differ, and with just cause. For a healthy synthesis of introductory concerns pertaining to Pauline authorship see Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 1–20; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1970), 607–59; and Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, lxxxiii–cxxix. Mounce argues quite convincingly that Luke serves as Paul’s amanuensis in the Pastoral Epistles. For the historical progression of this discussion as it relates to the Pauline corpus, see n. 2, above.

16

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

for the current study to focus its scope. This limitation implies that associated topics related to the ‘authorship and authenticity’ panoply, such as a detailed audience analysis, investigation of supposed Gnostic references, evaluation of a developed high-church governance, and so forth are not thoroughly addressed. While such items are valuable points, they are not the central proposal of this document. The third limitation to the study surrounds the discussion of NT epistolary models as it relates to Greco-Roman writing theory. While this is a related topic that is discussed in part as it relates to the analysis of 1 Timothy, this study does not include an exhaustive discourse on this interesting topic. Works by Mark Harding,50 William Richards,51 and Ray Van Neste52 present a thorough analysis on the subject, each with distinct areas of precision. Their material is most helpful and contributes to the current discussion, especially as it relates to literary structure and rhetorical analysis. The study argues that the use of PTs assists the apostle in connecting with his audience to better promote the meaning of the text. This phenomenon in the time of Paul and the early church must be considered when evaluating function in the text’s formative structure. Hence, while this is an important part of the discussion, the driving force of the current study is confined primarily to 1 Timothy and the utilization of preformed material in the apostle’s message as opposed to evaluating PTs as literary and rhetorical functions in the writings of Scripture and the early church. The full encapsulation of that topic is much too broad for this study and therefore is limited to the contribution of the larger field only as it pertains to identifiable practices in 1 Timothy.

50. Mark Harding, Tradition and Rhetoric in the Pastoral Epistles (New York: Peter Lang, 1998). 51. William A. Richards, Difference and Distance in the Post-Pauline Christianity (New York: Peter Lang, 2002). 52. Ray Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles, JSNTSup, 280 (New York: T&T Clark, 2004).

Chapter 2 TAXONOMY AND IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA FOR PREFORMED TRADITIONS 1. Taxonomy Prior to evaluating ‘how’ to isolate and identify existing PTs, it is advantageous to survey the primary divisions of ‘what’ subsists within the traditional material and to note differences in how certain traditions function. This survey sifts through a great deal of material to classify PTs into three broad categories.1 The problem of categorizing PTs is a knotty one. The labeled categories are far from tight, but not so loose as to make boundaries impossible. Haziness accompanies an attempt to formulate tight categories because so many preformed passages overlap in content and style and are recognizable in several patterns, but not in totality. Many preformed units have similar traits but few are identical. Commonalities reflect a familial backdrop to traditional pieces. All forms described exhibit similar position and purpose. Yet enough unique and distinct nuances exist that allow for the isolation of subcategories. In spite of the acknowledged ambiguity, three primary types of preformed traditions appear prevalent: (1) catechetical (creedal), (2) confessional (homologia), and (3) hymnic (poetic). The literature on the combined categories is monumental, and the scholars are numerous.2 Yet there are observable distinctions based on form and type, and interdependence exists among the types. While acknowledging the larger field of traditional material, by necessity most writers focus on a particular nuance in order to expand the work of another. Nonetheless it is critical to establish working parameters of the categories to understand better the

1. There is a sense in which it is not logical to identify the primary categories of traditional texts prior to the establishment of traits and patterns in which to recognize them. However, it is imperative to provide a basic synthesis of generally established perspectives on which to build the current study. Historical studies within the current field provide tremendous insight and allow the active study to develop a progression of scholarship as opposed to discussing the same items (i.e., identification) repeatedly. In this regard it seems beneficial to summarize the primary divisions as an introductory matter. It also serves as an opportunity to demonstrate rudimentary textual examples of the most basic function of traditional material. 2. For an extended bibliography with emphasis on hymnic material, see Richard Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 9–10.

18

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

primary workings of the tradition units. To evaluate the categories, it is helpful to define and provide basic textual illustrations of the standard types.

2. Catechetical (Creedal) The phrase ‘catechetical traditions’ refers to material likely used in preparing converts in their early walk of faith in Christ. While it is confessional in nature, the emphasis seems to be on material that was professed and as such expressed the basic beliefs of the community. It is material that serves as a model for catechetical expression, primarily doctrinal material in creedal form. These passages are usually more focused statements, or even single statements, that appear as formulaic in presentation. The most common item within this category would be titles ascribed to the Lord. The last of the written Gospels, the Gospel of John, is especially full of ascriptions to the Lord. From the onset John the Baptist’s words present a ‘profession’ tenor identifying Jesus as the Christ (Jn 1.15-27). This Christological phrasing is a theme throughout the book. That is why Andrew calls out to Peter, ‘We have found the Messiah, that is the Christ’ (Jn 1.41). Later Martha’s great cry proclaims, ‘Yes, Lord. I believe that you are the Christ’ (Jn 11.27). Martha progresses ‘from the affirmation of traditional eschatological expectations … to the climactic confession … tied securely to the Johannine affirmation of Jesus as the resurrection and the life (11.25)’.3 This climactic profession made by the various characters in the gospel is thematically tied to the message of the book. It is a book proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that those who believe can have life in His name (Jn 20.31). This is not just thematic in John’s writings; it permeates the NT. When Saul stayed in Damascus he proved that ‘Jesus is the Christ’ (Acts 9.22) and later John says that ‘everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God’ (1 Jn 5.1). The same is true of other statements referencing Jesus as the ‘Son of God’ or as ‘Lord’. In Matthew’s Gospel this appears to be the importance of the emphasized statement that Peter professed, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt. 16.16). This divine revelation is ascribed in a titular manner, affirming the Sonship of Christ, and is associated with the messianic role revealed in the OT. It is a succinct confession of who Jesus is and a public acknowledgement of his position. Luke affirms this in the book of Acts. Following his conversion Paul preached in the synagogues of Damascus ‘that Jesus is the Son of God’ (Acts 9.20). Luke’s recording ‘is more significant than might be supposed at first glance that the only occurrence of the title “Son of God” in Acts should be in this report of Saul’s early preaching. It was as the “Son of God” that Christ 3. R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983), 141.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

19

was revealed on the Damascus Road (Gal. 1.16; cf. Rom. 1.4; 2 Cor. 1.19)’.4 It is important in Acts because the statement develops the role of Jesus as the true representative of God. He alone has the unique relationship with the Father (cf. Mt. 11.25-30) and is worthy of following. This use enforces a profession of who He is, what He has done, and what He requires from those who follow Him. Other statements and teachings of the Lord take on a catechetical nature (cf. Acts 20.35) and even segments of larger ethical instructions for living (1 Pet. 1.13-22) and various social commands may fit this pattern. Probably such traditions, or portions of them, were repeated publicly or affirmed by new believers. The extent to which this occurred is not known. However, early references by Irenaeus imply that the rule of faith (regula fidei)5 was transmitted to the leaders of the church.6 While Irenaeus’s reference probably does not mean there was a fixed creedal catechesis, it does seem to bridge the NT statements of profession and the developing traditions that expressed standard doctrine and declarations. The church, in its post-Ascension infancy, had basic, general, fixed beliefs. Although struggling to articulate their convictions, and hence the writings of the apostles, the believing community did not exist as bumbling theologians lacking centrality of conviction. Bock lists four primary areas that best present the accepted beliefs of early Christians: 1. 2.

3.

4.

God was not to be divided in such a way that He was not the Creator. God was a Creator of all things, and that initial creation was good. A division between Jesus and the Christ in terms of His basic person and work was not acceptable. Orthodoxy was that Jesus as Son of God was sent from God, came truly in the flesh, and truly suffered. Redemption only on a spiritual plane was not the true faith. Salvation included a physical dimension of resurrection and extended into the material creation. Jesus did not come only to point the way to faith, to be prophet, merely a teacher of religious wisdom, or to be a mere example of religious faith. Rather, His work provided the means to salvation. Jesus was far more than a prophet, which is why He was worshipped and affirmed as sharing glory with God as His Son.7

4. F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 190. 5. For more information on the regula fidei see Paul M. Blowers, ‘The Regula Fidei and the Narrative Character of Early Christian Faith’, Pro ecclesia 6 (Spring 1997): 199–228; Grech Prosper, The Regula Fidei as a Hermeneutical Principle in Patristic Exegesis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Frances M. Young, The Making of Creeds (London: SCM Press, 2002). 6. Irenaeus, Haer. III.4.1. 7. Darrell L. Bock, The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 208.

20

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Such core beliefs are what it meant to be a follower of Christ and the core convictions centered on worshiping Him. Even beyond Scripture, church history is replete with the confession of such beliefs, which were evidently in practice in the early stages of the Christian community. That is why documentation in the early church overflows with conversion and baptismal recitations,8 and developing statements were used in worship to remind Christians of their common convictions.9 While it could be argued that the nonscriptural accounts are dated in the second and third centuries, and therefore validate only a much later reference for confirmed tradition and application, the apparent practices are not presented as new, but as common procedure. This backdrop is unquestionably the origin to the textual variant that occurs in Acts 8.37.10 ‘The formula  …  was doubtless used by the early church in baptismal ceremonies … Its insertion into the text seems to have been due to the feeling that Philip could not have baptized the Ethiopian without securing a confession of faith.’11 Such practices were rooted in biblical references (i.e., formulaic catechetical statements) of faith and belief. It stands to reason that the earliest professions of faith were short and succinct, yet focused on basic convictions of the blossoming Christian community intent on worshiping the risen Lord.

8. Hippolytus’s (ca. CE 170–236) early third-century baptismal description is expressive and reflects the natural relationship between the biblical statements of catechesis and the progressive movement toward doctrinal profession and creed. He states, ‘When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one who baptizes, placing a hand on him, should say thus: “Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?” And he who is being baptized should reply: “I believe.” Let him baptize him once immediately, having his hand placed upon his head. And after this he should say: “Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and Mary the virgin and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was dead [and buried] and rose on the third day alive from the dead and ascended in the heavens and sits at the right hand of the Father and will come to judge the living and the dead?” And when he has said, “I believe”, he is baptized again. And again he should say: “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy church and the resurrection of the flesh?” And he who is being baptized should say: “I believe.” And so he should be baptized a third time’ (Trad. ap. 21,12-18 [Stewart-Sykes, PPS]). 9. Justin, 1 Apol. 67. 10. According to the apparatus of UBS4 and NA27, Acts 8.37 is not found in several manuscripts including p45, 74, , A, B, C, 33, and 81. It also is omitted in vg, syrp,h, copsa,bo, and eth, but is found with variations by E, many minuscules (323, 453, 945, et al), itgig,h, vgmss, syrh with *, copG67, and arm. If it originally stood, there is no reason to explain scribal exclusion. The earliest extant sources do not include it. Editors of the NA27 (and many translations) now omit the verse altogether. It exists in all likelihood as an inserted statement demonstrating the importance of confession. In support of its omission is also the fact that  ’  (as recorded in the Western texts listed above) is not an expression used by Luke elsewhere. 11. Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 360.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

21

3. Confessional (Homologia) The second category of traditional material is that of confessional statements. They are sometimes correctly identified as homologia () because they are formulaic confessions or acknowledgements of belief. In the current context ‘confessional’ means a presented summarization of some core conviction of the Christian faith. It is generally longer than the catechetical (creedal) statement and presents a more in-depth précis of a doctrinal or theological teaching. Many times these may be sayings, and while it is longer than a catechetical statement, it also is often more succinct than a hymn. Homologiai seems to present sound bite theology.12 Little doubt exists as to the inclusion of confessions within the biblical texts. At times the author is forward with expressions of confessions, especially relating to key doctrinal issues. John does this frequently in his first epistle. In 1 Jn 4.2 the apostle states, ‘This is how you recognize the Spirit of God: every Spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God’. This confession () is an expression of doctrinal concern, rooted in the public acknowledgement and affirmation that Jesus Christ had come as a man. Such a cry was a communal affirmation, speaking not only against external (and possibly internal) heresies, but against adoptionism because it references the author’s reminder concerning the pre-existence of the Son who came from God.13 Confessions often serve as central themes in epistolary writings. This confession (1 Jn 4.2), for example, is of enormous weight in regard to doctrinal significance in John’s Gospel, his first and second epistle,14 and to Christianity in general.15 The Incarnation is central to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Ulti-

12. Two frequently cited confessions that tightly pack early orthodoxy are Rom. 4.25 and Gal. 4.4-5. Both examples are Christologically centered. 13. Glenn W. Barker, ‘1 John’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 340. 14. The working assumption of this study is that John the Apostle is the author of 1, 2, and 3 John as well as the Fourth Gospel. For a thorough overview of the introductory issues pertaining to authorship, see W. Hall Harris III, 1, 2, 3 John: Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis (Dallas, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2003), 9–15. 15. The rhetorical nature and the persuasive nuance that the creeds/confessions play in John’s writings is significant. Marinus de Jonge, ‘Translating []  in the New Testament’, in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, ed. Sang-Won (Aaron) Son (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 349, states, ‘For 1 and 2 John and the Fourth Gospel the unique intimate connection between Father and Son is a central tenet of belief. In the epistles, however, it has become necessary to emphasize that Jesus Christ came into the world as a truly human being (1 Jn 4.2-3; 2 Jn 7), who died a human death (1 Jn 5.6-8), as an atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 Jn 2.2; 4.10). There is no need to go into details here, but we should note that the two epistles try to curb the influence of people who have left the communities they address.’ Rhetorical persuasion is developed in Chapter 4 of the current study.

22

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

mately, as used in this passage, the confession is a test about what one believes concerning Jesus. ‘Note that the test is both confessional (concerning what a person believes) and Christological (concerning what a person believes about Jesus). Presumably the opponents would not be able to make this confession, since this is designed to test their truth or falsehood.’16 Such an early treatise was paramount to the faith of the Christian community. Besides providing testimony, it also confronted others who believed and proclaimed differently.

4. Hymnic (Poetic) The final category of traditional material encompasses hymnic and poetic patterns. Of the three categories, this well may be the most distinguishable and referenced nuance of embedded tradition. A ‘hymn’ is a song of praise or adoration to God celebrating who He is and what He has done. It is, by definition, poetic in nature in that it is in some form or fashion melodic and rhythmic in its presence. The OT is full of such songs. Miriam sings in Exodus 15. Moses sings a lengthy song in Deuteronomy 32. Deborah’s song is recorded in Judges 5. David sings a lament at the death of Abner (2 Sam. 3.33-34). In regard to poetry, the Psalms are reflective of great form and structure, and exhibit a wide array of literary style and poetic beauty.17 Apparently it is on such history that the early believers based its call to celebratory worship.18 Some writers have offered elaborate patterns and characteristics of the NT poetical material.19 Ralston lists a concise evaluation common to hymnic passages. He argues that most poetic portions of Scripture contain the following characteristics: (1) the intensive use of relative pronouns, (2) the use of participles, (3) an introductory formula, (4) rhythm, and (5) unique styles and themes. Ralston’s final characteristic implies a common emphasis found in NT 16. Harris, 1, 2, 3 John, 175. 17. For an overview of worship in the psalms and articulation on form and structure see Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 211–34; William S. Lasor, David A. Hubbard, and Frederic Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 423–59. 18. Ample evidence exists to note similarities between NT teaching and the structured worship of the synagogue. The primary pattern of such worship was that of praise, prayer, and instruction (cf. Lk. 4.15–21). The expression of praise was reflective of the celebratory order at the time of Christ. Ralph P. Martin (Worship in the Early Church [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964], 24–25), points out: ‘It is the note of corporate praise which opens the service; and this is in accord with the principle laid down in the Talmud: “Man should always first utter praises, and then pray”. The adoption of this procedure may underlie the order of 1 Cor. 14.26 which bids that at the head of the list of Christian corporate worship at Corinth, “a psalm” of praise should be sung’. 19. For example, Ethelbert Stauffer, New Testament Theology (London: SCM Press, 1955), 339, offers detailed twelve-fold criteria for hymnic/creedal evaluation. Extensive criteria are evaluated later in the current chapter.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

23

hymns – an identity associated with a worshipful portrayal of Christ.20 Others spend less time identifying linguistic and grammatical traits and focus more on summarized content. Sanders states, ‘It may be noted … this is not merely a stylistic or formal observation, but refers as well to the content of the hymns, since early Christian hymnody tends to deal with a divine drama, a cosmic redemption, thus with an exalted subject’.21 Simply stated, the hymn served as a unifying reminder of the redemptive work of a living and exalted Jesus. Christ was lifted up in song, and God the Father was worshipped for providing deliverance through His Son. This pattern echoes the manner in which the OT worshipers of Yahweh recalled His mighty hand of deliverance (cf. Pss. 9, 10, 32, 66, 118, 124, and 139). One of the most noticeable hymns in the NT exists in Rev. 15.3b-4. This example is identifiable easily since it is referenced in the text as a song. To be specific, two songs are identified: the song ( ) of Moses and the song ( ) of the Lamb. The latter is the song that seems to be recorded, although it conceptually relates to the former song referenced. Reflective of Exodus 15 (and possibly Deuteronomy 32), the song of the Lamb, sung by those martyred in allegiance to Him,22 celebrates God’s eschatological judgment, and more importantly, deliverance for the followers of the Lamb. This brought forth victorious praise from His people for His provision. John’s rendering of the song may have its basis in the synagogue’s liturgy,23 but there is little question that it is rooted deeply as a song of praise in the early Christian church.24 The hymn is systematic, Christologically centered, melodic, and is introduced as a poetic unit.

5. Taxonomical Summary The aforementioned categories are an attempt to distinguish various flavors of similar origin. All such pieces can be combined and classified, in the broadest sense, as PTs. In this sense PTs are a distinct literary entity. Lewis certainly is correct when he says, ‘There is a … sense in which the Bible, since it is after all literature, cannot properly be read except as literature; and the different parts 20. Timothy John Ralston, ‘The Hymnic Genre and the Pauline Corpus: Its Criteria and Importance for Exegesis’ (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983), 15–33. 21. Jack T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 5. 22. The song is sung by the people standing on the sea (Rev. 15.1-5). They appear to be the martyred dead as described in Rev. 6.9-11; 7.9-17; 12.11; and 14.13. They are followers of the Lamb who will reign with Christ upon their anticipated resurrection (Rev. 20.4). 23. For more information on synagogue liturgy as it relates to Passover traditions see Massey H. Shepherd, The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1960), 96. 24. Alan Johnson, ‘Revelation’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 547.

24

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

of it as the different sorts of literature they are.’25 The existence of traditional material in the NT is a different ‘sort’ of literature, and so it must be evaluated appropriately.

6. Pauline Taxonomical Examples The primary preformed traditions surveyed thus far have been non-Pauline. Prior to evaluating the meticulous criteria and proposals used for the identification of tradition material, it is good to illustrate acknowledged examples of Paul’s use of such traditional material. This observation provides a field of reference for Paul’s stylistic tendencies within his letters. In regard to his use of the traditions, he frequently uses them as central components in a respective letter’s argument. Three commonly cited passages reflective of each primary classification demonstrate this. The three categorical passages are (1) Rom. 10.9: catechetical, (2) 1 Cor. 15.3b-5: confessional, and (3) Phil. 2.6-11: hymnic.

6.1. Catechetical (Creedal): Romans 10.9 Romans 10.9 reflects catechetical or creedal qualities.26 In this text Paul states, ‘That if you confess with your mouth that “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved’. Like many such passages within this category, it seems to function as the simplest form of the more general confessional material. In fact in this particular scenario it is safe to argue that a catechetical reference may exist in a larger confessional unit. The conjunctive use of ‘that’ or ‘because’ () sets the confession apart and brings emphasis to the unity of the statement. The larger statement is familiar to most confessional material in that it is marked by , a natural indicator of the expressed content of the Christian faith. Homologia is best understood as the verbal expression of doctrinal convictions as held within the believing community. Yet because of the succinct declaration that is to be professed, ‘Jesus is Lord’, it is best to see this portion of the confession as being creedal in nature. The catechesis is linked to ‘confess’, and it connotes a verbal expression or some type of public pronouncement. ‘ “The word of faith” or gospel message is something to confess as well as to believe (cf. 2 Cor. 4.13, 14). “Confess” (homologeo) … when used in the creedal sense, as here in v. 9, it means to say the same thing that other believers say regarding their faith. This was done 25. C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (Edinburgh: James Thin, 1958), 3. 26. Romans 10.9 is frequently noted in commentaries regarding its ‘creedal’ association. For example, James M. Stifler, The Epistle to the Romans (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1960), 177, references it as a ‘Christian’s creed’. Likewise Everett F. Harrison, ‘Romans’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 112, notes that it is used in the ‘creedal sense’.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

25

within the Christian group especially by new converts.’27 In this sense the creedal quality of the confession is wrapped up in the object of the confession itself, which is a profession of faith that ‘Jesus’ is ‘Lord’. The use of such a title is more than common reverence. It is an affirmation of His person and position. It emphasizes who He is and his function. The construction of the creedal title occurs in the double accusative ( ) and is presented as a statement that is formulaic.28 In all likelihood it was used in connection with baptism and in Christian worship generally.29 Such an act called one to profess a certain ideology about Jesus, a profession that states that He is God. ‘The use of  more than six thousand times in the LXX to represent the Tetragrammaton must surely be regarded as of decisive importance here … the confession that Jesus is Lord shares the name and nature, the holiness, the authority, power, majesty and eternity of the one and only true God.’30 So it is important to see that what is professed is that Jesus is ‘the Lord’ (i.e., Yahweh).31 This is linked contextually to the citation of Joel 2.32 in Rom. 10.13. Paul’s emphasis focuses on the fact that salvation is found in the Lord, and that His provision is revealed through Christ. In this context, the creedal profession is understood as an affirmation of God’s revelation in Christ. The apostle notes elsewhere that the statement, ‘Jesus is Lord’, is a profession statement (as contrasted to ‘Jesus be cursed’) directed by the Holy Spirit to express authenticity (1 Cor. 12.3). Contextually Rom. 10.9 falls into a much larger unit that articulates God’s sovereignty (9.1-29), Israel’s unbelief (9.30–10.21), discussion concerning the believing remnant (11.1-10), the engrafting of the Gentiles (11.11-24), and the salvation of Israel (11.25-32). This larger unit (Rom. 9–11) connects to the issue briefly raised in Rom. 3.1-8. Romans 10.9, as a creed of profession, and understood as an affirmation (i.e., external expression of faith), further proclaims what had been articulated elsewhere in the letter. In particular the rich section of 3.21-26 claims that God’s righteousness has been made known through Jesus

27. Harrison, ‘Romans’, 112. 28. Cf. 2 Cor. 4.5. The more common recording,   (), is expressive of an established formula due to placement, structure, and emphasis. Yet the current text is reflective of that same purpose. According to the apparatus of UBS4, the reading of B, copsa, and Clement inserts   after  and restructures the reading to the more traditional form. As such, the rendering would read, ‘if you confess the word with your mouth, that Jesus is Lord …’. This scenario is best understood as attempting to present more precision and clarity and heighten the emphasis of the formulaic inclusion. 29. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 527. See also 2 Cor. 4.5; Phil. 2.11; and Col. 2.6. 30. Ibid., 529. 31. For more information on this structure see Daniel B. Wallace, ‘The Semantics and Exegetical Significance of the Object-Complement Construction in the New Testament’, Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 91–112.

26

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Christ. This revelation, and the resulting righteousness testified by the Law and prophets (v. 21), comes through faith in Christ to everyone who believes (v. 22). This belief is in God’s redemptive work in Christ (vv. 23–25) and is a profession of what God has done through Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross.32

6.2. Confessional (Homologia): 1 Corinthians 15.3b-5 1 Cor. 15.3b-533 has long been seen as extant material used by the apostle Paul and stands as a competent example of material classified as ‘confessional’ (homologia).34 From this passage it is easy to identify characteristics common to preformed pieces. First,  (‘to pass on’) and  (‘to receive’) are technical terms that bring specificity to the transmission and embracing of tradition. Such formulaic words were used in a selective nuance in classical literature. For example, Plato states, ‘We say that when someone transmits () them he teaches, and when someone receives () them he learns’.35 Likewise Paul uses such words to identify to his readers that the message to follow was both given and embraced and thus common ground for identity.36 Besides the passage being formulaic, it has a structure that sets it apart as a self-contained passage. This is seen in the short pericope of 15.3-5 which contain a repetitive nature of o … o … o … o (vv. 3–5) and in the long pericope (vv. 5–7)  …  …  … , if indeed the passage extends through verse 7.37 This passage is unquestionably a summarization of the gospel story, streamlining the passion accounts, and done so in nontraditional Pauline language.38 32. Interestingly this passage is most likely a preformed text. Those identifying Rom. 3.24-26 as a tradition text include James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 182, n. 203; E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), 94; Harrison, ‘Romans’; Ernst Käsemann and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 96, n. 33; Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 17; Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer et al., Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889); Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 147, n. 85; Walter Schmithals, Der Römerbrief: Ein Kommentar (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1988), 120–28; C. H. Talbert, ‘A Non-Pauline Fragment at Romans 3.24-26?’, JBL 85 (1966): 287–96. 33. For a detailed analysis of 1 Cor. 15.3b-5, see Jay E. Smith, ‘An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Corinthians 15.3b-5’ (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1988). 34. The preformed structure of 1 Cor. 15.3b-5 is affirmed by virtually all scholars. For an overview of its ‘confessional’ nature, see Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1975). 35. Plato, Theaetetus 198b. 36. This is a frequent Pauline use and occurs elsewhere in 1 Cor. 11.2; Gal. 1.9, 12; Phil. 4.9; Col. 2.6; 1 Thess. 2.13, 4.1; and 2 Thess. 2.15, 3.6. 37. Cf. 1 Thess. 4.15b-17. 38. Pauline words or phrases that appear only in 1 Cor. 15.3-5 are    (vv. 3, 4),  (v. 4),     (v. 4), and   (v. 5).

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

27

According to basic textual indicators discussed in detail later in the chapter, one can deduce that 1 Cor. 15.3b-5 is a preformed passage. While it is important to identify the great contribution that the preformed passage makes to 1 Corinthians as a whole, it plays a critical role in substantiating Paul’s argument in 15.1-11. ‘Paul cited the formula to show the resurrection was not his own individualistic message, but was recognized without question by the entire church. In this way the formula demonstrated that the resurrection of Christ was an inalienable part of all Christian preaching and faith.’39 This is expanded further when evaluating the contribution of chapter 15 to the message of the book. As the church at Corinth struggled with both practical expressions of Christian fellowship and theological convictions of doctrine, Paul found the Corinthian community of believers held false views on the Resurrection. Thus he used a preformed piece to elaborate a primary address in the letter, and he chose to utilize common material to establish his point. While this does not undermine Paul’s authority, it certainly seems to negate a charge of ‘nonapostolic authority’ frequently levied against him by those who questioned his position.40 Thus in aligning himself with the preformed tradition, Paul aligned himself with the teaching of the early church. It was therefore not only his word against theirs, but their word against what was commonly embraced by all followers of Christ.

6.3. Hymnic (Poetic): Philippians 2.6-11 Another passage associated with tradition origin is Phil. 2.6-11. It long has been accepted as an early Christian hymn;41 and scholars generally point to Ernst Lohmeyer as first subjecting the hymn to a thorough and detailed analysis.42 The unit reflects poetic symmetry and is referenced as a Christological treatise. Most likely it is borrowed by the apostle from an earlier source of the community of faith. Some suggest Paul inserted the work of a contemporary composer seeking to use wording borrowed from pagan rituals.43 Although agreement about its structure remains under debate, it retains characteristics 39. Smith, ‘Pre-Pauline Formula’, 85. 40. This is apparently the circumstance in 2 Cor. 10–11 that prompted Paul’s defense. 41. Johannes Weiss, ‘Beiträge zur paulinscher Rhetorik’, in Theologische Studien, ed. C. R. Gregory et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897). Philippians 2.6-11 is historically cited as representative of hymnic material. For the most thorough charting of modern scholarly opinions see Ralph P. Martin, A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967; rev. edn, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983; 2nd rev. edn, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997). 42. Ernst Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zur Phil. 2, 5-11 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1928; reprint, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961). 43. Homer A. Kent Jr., ‘Philippians’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), 99.

28

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

that place one on solid ground when classifying it as a preformed tradition.44 ‘The majority of scholars accept Phil. 2.6-11 as a pre-Pauline hymn, based on the structure and language of the passage … Greek authors peppered their writings with quotations from Greek poetry, and Paul’s use of an earlier Christian hymn is possible.’45 What causes many to conclude its hymnic nature? One of the most noticeable features of the passage is that it is unique in structure. The opening comments of the actual hymn, ‘who though he existed in the form of God’ (     ), refer to the introductory statement concerning Christ Jesus in 2.5. The participial construction (vv. 6–8) is apparent and gives unity and cohesion to the movement of the text. Another obvious characteristic is the rhythmic quality, common to poetic pieces. Such indicators cause Silva to observe, ‘It would be foolhardy to deny the strong poetic qualities of the passage. Even to label it “elevated prose” does not do justice to the rhythm, parallelisms, lexical links, and other features that characterize these verses.’46 In citing the hymn Paul establishes several themes that are important elsewhere in the letter. The hymn itself reiterates Christ’s self-sacrifice, purpose in identification, obedience, and ultimate authority.47 Later (Phil. 3.2-3) he associates himself with the same paradigm and reiterates his relationship with God, Christ, the Spirit, and a transcendence of the flesh.48 The hymn is central to Paul’s argument, not simply in rich-sounding doctrinal beauty, but in how he uses it to establish authority. Paul strengthens the ethos of his letter by using Christ as the model and himself as a follower of Christ. The church at Philippi can rejoice and have victory over the world simply because Christ did and they are ‘in Him’. The powerful hymn provides great leverage for what Paul presents in the letter.

6.4. Pauline Taxonomical Summary It is easy to overlook or fail to recognize the preformed origin of these three passages because of familiarity with them. Yet Bible students must not underestimate their importance, because they illustrate Paul’s utilization of ‘tradition’

44. For an analysis of Phil. 2.6-11 and its hymnic structure see Stephen E. Fowl, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus, JSNTSup, 36 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990). 45. Craig S. Keener, The Bible Background Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 560. 46. Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 93. 47. John W. Marshall, ‘Paul’s Ethical Appeal in Philippians’, in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, JSNTSup, 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 368. 48. Ibid.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

29

material in his writings. Romans 10.9, 1 Cor. 15.3b-5, and Phil. 2.5-11 serve to demonstrate his recurrent use of such material. And while such texts stand representative of catechetical (creedal), confessional (homologia), and hymnic (poetic) material in each respective letter, it is also important to note that they do not stand alone as the sole existence of traditional material in those letters. They stand alongside other tradition texts that are not as frequently referenced because of their popular counterparts. This is true in each book previously cited. In Romans, in the remote context of 10.9 stands 11.33-36. This passage has hymnic qualities expressed in exuberance.49 In 1 Corinthians, in addition to 15.3b-5 one could also appeal to portions of 11.3-16.50 In Philippians, Paul cites another tradition text after 2.5-11. In all probability Phil. 3.20-21 is emblematic of preformed tradition.51 Paul uses traditional material and he does so with frequency. 49. Like most hymns, it reflects qualities of literary dependence on related material with which the early church, and the apostle, were familiar. That is why Cranfield notes, ‘He has freely borrowed from several sources, from the OT, perhaps also from extra-biblical apocalyptic, from Hellenistic Judaism, from Stoicism as mediated through Hellenistic Judaism, and from the language of worship’ (Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2, 589). It displays characteristics of a hymn of faith that expresses dependence on God, not man (Stifler, Epistle to the Romans, 200). 50. 1 Cor. 11.3-16 is introduced by similar ‘tradition’ terminology beginning with 11.2 (  ). The passage is a self-contained unit that has a number of infrequent Pauline words ( [vv. 5, 13] and  [v. 15]). While the passage belongs contextually (with chapters 12–14), it certainly interrupts the flow that previously addressed the improper manner in which the Corinthians were expressing the Lord’s Supper. Like 15.3b-5, 11.3-16 plays a strategic role in Paul’s unfolding message. 1 Cor. 11.3-16 is critical because it strengthens Paul’s correction of the impropriety of the Corinthian worship. This theological treatise is central to the church’s great struggle. Unfortunately the Corinthians were engulfed with concern for personal gain. They had inverted the headship of the triune God and had placed their own ambitions ahead of His desired submission. Thus Paul was led to remind them of what they had been taught from the beginning. In this instance it appears as if the appeal to preformed pieces establishes a common platform from which to correct the struggling fellowship. By identifying 1 Cor. 15.3b-5, one can argue rightfully that it plays a significant role in the message of the book. The same is true of 11.3-16. One also can observe that such pieces bring continuity to a book that has long been accused of lacking strategic and organized content. 51. This pericope opens with the conjunction , best understood as an introductory formula such as used in Rom. 10.13; 11.34; 13.9; 1 Cor. 2.16; 10.26; 15.27. It uses heavily relative clauses and parallelisms that set the text apart as a distinct unit. Combined with many connecting literary points to 2.6-11, 3.20-21 should probably be considered a preformed text. As in other Pauline texts the preformed passages are central to the message of the letter. For example, in Phil 2.6-11 the text seems to support the ethical demands of 1.27-2.5, which instruct the church in living in hostile surroundings. Also it sets the theme for endurance as Paul instructs the church to continue to rejoice (3.1). This joy should undergird the faith of the believer. It reminds the church that even persecutions are temporary because the eternal citizenship of the believer is in heaven (3.20-21). The message of the book, then, is connected directly to the preformed tradition.

30

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

While remembering that the contribution of each unit depends on the message of the book and the structural flow of the presentation, many questions abound. Why did Paul use such tradition? Could he have chosen to use other material? Do the texts contribute to the structure of the letter and if so how? Is it possible that using such material locks his readers into a state of agreement which brings greater emphasis to his commands, admonitions, and areas of emphasis? These questions are worthy of exploration. For now, this brief discussion simply highlights the apostle’s repeated practice and reiterates that such units are used to present his message. Prior to exploring this topic in detail in 1 Timothy, it is necessary to examine the meticulous process of identifying preformed traditions.

7. Identification Criteria As illustrated by the aforementioned Pauline texts, preformed traditions seem to exist in three predominant, yet unconfined, forms. The first of these is the short, simple, catechetical statement such as ‘Jesus is Lord’ or ‘Jesus is the Christ’. The second category expands such statements into a more confessional clause, which is generally longer. Such passages may or may not present a doctrinal summary. It may be a confessed truth within the Christian community. The final category is that of hymnody. This is usually a series of confessional phrases that are rich in doctrine, frequently soteriologically driven, or christocentrically focused, and presented in some type of melodic or poetic format. Each classification has its own history that sheds light on the proposed criteria of identification. The historical survey properly starts with the catechetical (creedal) statement, followed by the more complex confessional material, and concludes with hymnic accounts. Like many historical surveys, the categories are at times intertwined with one another and share the works of multiple scholars and proposals. In fact, the various criteria proposals frequently are similar or at least share individual criterion. The intent is not yet to fully evaluate each proposed criteria or individual criterion, but simply to state the primary lists and working tools used within each camp. The study later will critique and propose the preferential criteria. At present it seems beneficial to evaluate the proposed criteria according to taxonomical and historical categories.

7.1. Catechetical (Creedal) Criteria The catechetical (creedal) statements, or single-statement affirmations, are in many ways the more simplistic form of the preformed material. They overlap most noticeably with the non-hymnic/poetic category. Yet with the frequent creedal emphasis placed on certain statements, scholars have treated such references as a recognizable entity. Historically a seminal work that opened the door for evaluation of creedal statements was presented by Eduard Nor-

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

31

den.52 His work, while focusing on the larger realm of traditional material, stated that formulas of faith, including smaller statements or tradition affirmations, were often found in (1) the context of parallel structures, (2) the use of second- or third-person singular pronouns, (3) participial predications and relative clauses, and (4) a creedal or celebratory style. To display such an approach his attention focused primarily on Rom. 11.33-36, Col. 1.15-20; 1 Tim. 3.16b; 1 Cor. 15.3b-5; and Mt. 11.25-30.53 Part of Norden’s emphasis accentuated the smaller units embedded in larger preformed statements. Thus his proposed criteria, although focusing primarily on confessional material and prayers, shed light on a growing subject matter. It laid the groundwork for more detailed evaluations including those targeted toward identifying traits and characteristics of catechetical (creedal) units. Using Norden’s work as a base, many scholars have expanded their focus, developing intricate evaluations of titled, Christological formulas of traditioned material. Oscar Cullman produced a significant study in which he evaluated the structure of the ancient formulas in addition to presenting a detailed analysis of their content. He gave special attention to the Christological statements, concluding that ‘the most widespread Christian confession is quite certainly the purely Christological formula. This fact is as important for history as for theology. In the earliest times, Christians regarded the confession of Christ as the essential of their faith’.54 In essence Norden proposed that many of the larger traditional units in the NT had smaller liturgical pieces that were fixed expressions (i.e., 1 Cor. 12.3 [ ], 1 Jn 2.22 [   ], Heb. 4.14 [    ]) and were thus ‘short formulas’. These short formulas were not formulas in the sense of displaying patterned criterion as much as they were distinctly a patterned use as confessional titles which evolved from ‘the spontaneous creative act of the primitive Church’.55 In similar fashion, and building on Cullman’s work, Martin Hengel advanced the proposition that the early church’s confession of Christ was a proclamation of the whole saving event of Christ, especially as confessed in Pauline literature. ‘We can best talk of a concentration of the name “Christ” where it is firmly rooted in the earlier “pre-Pauline” tradition, as in the case of nouns and verbs connected with proclamation and faith, in connection with the formula about Christ’s death, the cross of Christ, and indeed in sayings about the passion and resurrection of Jesus generally.’56 The broad assump52. Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1913). 53. Ibid., 240–308. 54. Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J. K. S. Reid (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949), 38–39; original emphasis. 55. Ibid., 47. 56. Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983), 70.

32

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

tion about the Christological titles is that they were the basic form of the homologia. As a result, they exhibit many of the same traits and were part of the Christian profession.

7.2. Confessional (Homologia) Criteria The survey of literature focusing on the lengthy confessional traditions is much more extensive than that of the catechetical material. While Norden’s proposal in 1913 generally applied to all considerations of preformed traditions, the discussion began to focus on the Sitz im Leben of such pericopes. This, in turn, spawned additional endeavors which focused on identification criteria. For example, in the 1930s C. H. Dodd emphasized the importance of confessional features. He stressed the centrality of tradition in the life of the early church, as expressed in Scripture. He also embraced and espoused the early church’s direct acquaintance with traditional form as the only way to account for the reoccurrence of guiding ideas, and even similar arrangements of common themes, and the identifiable formulas which they convey.57 However, Dodd saw the ‘traditions’ as a key part of the kerygma and sought to isolate such ‘preaching’ in the Pauline corpus. He concluded that as the early Christian community settled, the content of the kerygma entered into the Rule of Faith (regula fidei), which was recognized by theologians of the second and third centuries as the presupposition of Christian theology leading to creeds, and eventually shaping liturgy.58 Dodd’s contribution, although primarily targeted at the identity of kerygma, is valuable in that it emphasized the importance of the development and articulation of thought proclaimed by the apostles, embraced by the early church, and communicated as the ‘faith’ for a new generation of believers. Dodd’s work, in part, emphasized both belief (doctrine) and instruction (practice). In doing so he laid the groundwork for additional studies more inclined to focus on specifically how to identify such important traditions that undergird all Christian teaching and instruction. In this regard no work is more important in the exploration of confessions than that of Vernon Neufeld. He evaluated the use of the homologia as used in Judaism, the letters of Paul, the Gospel of John, the letters of John, the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, and other NT books, all with a concluding perspective on primitive Christian utilization and function. In terms of recognition he surmised the following criteria: (1) the frequent use of the verb  (including antonyms and synonyms) which serves as an introductory formula, (2) strategic syntactical clues, such as the conjunction , used to introduce statements or phrases, (3) the function of the double accusative or infinitive to express indirect discourse, and (4) the use of relative clauses or participial phrases indicating creedal

57. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936), 73. 58. Ibid., 73–74.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

33

material.59 To such criteria he also proposed that a more simplistic homologia existed, namely, the profession of Jesus and the titles ascribed to Him. This notes the more focused catechetical statements previously addressed. Neufeld’s summarization is succinct: ‘The place of importance which the homologia had in the life of the early church further demonstrates these expressions of faith were significant both in the inner life of the church and in its contact with the outside world … giving additional support for the conclusion that the formula expressed the heart of Christian belief.’60 Following the works of Neufeld and Norden, yet with a clear Christological emphasis, Reginald Fuller proposed the following seven-fold criteria: (1) contextual dislocations, (2) the continuance of the formula after its content has ceased to be relevant to its immediate context, (3) formula frequently using terms and phrases not characteristic of the author, (4) formula frequently beginning with the relative pronoun ‘who’, (5) formula often showing a preference for participles rather than finite verbs, (6) formula frequently exhibiting a rhythmic style and arranged in lines or strophes, and (7) formula concerned with basic Christological assertions.61 Fuller purposefully embraced criteria that encompassed poetic tradition. Like scholarship before him he encompassed multiple categories of traditional material. One contribution of Fuller’s work is his descriptive amplification of the general structure of such material. He emphasized the frequent traits of PTs existing in a contextual dislocation. He stated that such a unit is often selfcontained, and can function as an enclosed component, literarily independent from its context, yet dependent on its context in regard to thematic flow and purposeful insertion. His contribution is also formidable in that it stresses the linguistic characteristics commonly used in preformed texts.

7.3. Hymnic (Poetic) Criteria A historical survey of ‘hymnic’ material reveals the most detailed discussions of proposed criteria. This is quite natural because hymnic material is the easiest of the three categories to discern, and at times the category of hymnic material envelopes the other two categories. Yet it also is unique in that it is the most psalmic in style, and thus contains melodic patterns and poetic functions. The earliest analysis of such hymns is traced to Johannes Weiss, who presented a scholarly article that focused on hymnic features in Paul’s letters.62

59. Vernon H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), 140. 60. Ibid., 141. 61. Reginald Horace Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), 21. 62. Weiss, ‘Beiträge zur paulinscher Rhetorik’, 165–247.

34

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Others such as Alfred Seeberg,63 Philip Carrington,64 and James Charlesworth65 have engaged in discussions concerning hymnic genre and have proposed progressive contributions. A plethora of lists and criteria, in addition to those already identified within this study, have been produced regarding the identification process and patterned traits of hymns. For example, Ralph Martin presents the following criteria used for identifying hymnic texts: (1) items that claim to have been ‘received’, (2) phrases introduced with words like ‘deliver’, ‘believe’, and ‘confess’, (3) texts introduced with a relative pronoun, (4) sentences with unusual linguistic use, (5) passages with antithetical style, (6) words recorded in obvious lines and stanzas, and (7) truths concerning the person of Christ or His work of salvation.66 However, Martin’s work reflects previously proposed standards for identification and displays his dependence on previously published works in the field. While Martin’s list recommends subtle nuances that distinguish him from his predecessors, one should note the similarities of his list compared to a combined listing of Barth, Harrison, and Stauffer.67 Their combined criteria would produce the following characteristics similar to Martin’s: (1) an introductory formula (cf. Martin’s, criterion 3), (2) unique linguistic phrasings or expressions (cf. Martin’s, criterion 4), (3) poetic or rhetorical devices (cf. Martin’s, criterion 5 and 6), (4) doctrinal emphasis on redemption (cf. Martin’s, criterion 7), (5) similar compositions in other works (cf. Martin’s, criterion 1), and (6) the passage could function as a self-contained independent text (cf. Martin’s, criterion 2). One can readily see the similarities in the stated criteria. In terms of basic criteria, there is solid agreement between the lists. However, the contribution that Martin makes, building on the work of Barth, Harrison, Stauffer, and others, is the focus he brings to the introductory formula and the antithetical style. W. Hulitt Gloer produced a fairly exhaustive work compiling the leading works of the 1960s and 1970s.68 His proposal produced the following criteria: (1) presence of a quotation particle, (2) use of the double infinitive and

63. Alfred Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, Theologische Bücherei, 26 (Leipzig: Deichertschen, 1903; reprint, Munich: Ch. Kaiser, 1966). 64. Philip Carrington, The Early Christian Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957). 65. James H. Charlesworth, ‘A Prolegomenon to a New Study of Jewish Background of the Hymns and Prayers in the New Testament’, JJS 33 (1982): 277–78. 66. Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 249–50. 67. For detailed discussion see Markus Barth, ‘Traditions in Ephesians’, New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 9–10; Everett F. Harrison, The Apostolic Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 117–19; Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 338–39. 68. William H. Gloer, ‘Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament: Form, Content, and Criteria for Identification’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 11 (1984): 115–32.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

35

the accusative to express indirect discourse, (3) presence of certain introductory formula, (4) syntactical variances, (5) stylistic differences, (6) linguistic differences, (7) content of an excursive nature focusing on the Christ-event, including praise, (8) parallelism, (9) rhythm, (10) chiasmus, (11) antithesis, (12) participial style, (13) relative style, (14) arrangements in strophes, verses or stanzas, (15) highly stylized construction, and (16) the presence of different passages that contain the same basic form. Gloer’s synthesis, though cumbersome, displays the nuances in works with differing purposes. Peter T. O’Brien describes two basic criteria with clarity: Scholarship has drawn attention to two criteria for discerning hymnic material in the NT: (a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context.69

Similar to the first two categories, the study of NT hymnody reflects a progressive movement that resembles a historical building process. Criteria are proposed, reworded, expanded, articulated, and redefined in an attempt to bring greater clarity to the topic.

7.4. Criteria Synopsis and Similarities The previous survey has culled through the primary historically proposed criteria for each taxonomical category of tradition material. In doing so it has surfaced many of the principal scholars involved in each respective arena. It has also stated the various criteria and the significant historically adjusted criteria descriptions where appropriate. For the sake of clarity, it is important to present a brief synopsis of each category’s criteria. The intent is to state the most common criteria that surfaced through the survey. In turn, it is necessary to identify the similarities of criteria. This process will lay the groundwork for a synthetic evaluation of all criteria with the eventual establishment of preferential criteria used for PT identification.

7.4.1. Catechetical (Creedal) Criteria Synopsis Four criteria come to the forefront when identifying creedal statements. First, verbs of a confessional nature are to be expected. Verbs such as  or general didactic words are common.70 This type of wording is testimonial in

69. Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 188–89. 70. See Cullman, Earliest Christian Confessions, 25–30. Cullman spends considerable time connecting words of ‘confession’ with persecution. This is understandable because the very act of professing is frequently in response to a question or situation. In support of this general conclusion

36

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

nature. Second, confessional units often utilize relative clauses.71 Such words may be signals to material that is set apart or is in need of recognized literary identity. Third, titled ‘formulas’ frequently ascribed to Christ are often used.72 This emphasis is a contextual use that is patterned elsewhere. Fourth, creedal units are at times part of larger pericopes that express a celebratory or professing tone surrounding the words and works of Christ.73 Naturally, most historical discussions relate the specific creedal dialogue into the larger arena of traditional material. The assumption is that such small units are the building blocks on which other traditions expand. Nonetheless, the four criteria stated above are suggested for identification in this category.

7.4.2. Confessional (Homologia) Criteria Synopsis Four primary criteria historically surface for identifying confession traditions. First, confessional statements frequently use formulas or confessional verbs.74 This use sets the unit apart and draws attention to its existence. Second, there may be syntactical patterns such as the use of conjunctions to introduce statements, or the function of a double accusative or infinitives in indirect discourse.75 It may be a unique use by a particular author or it may simply be a peculiar function or structural association. Third, confessional traditions likely will display some viable measure of contextual dislocation.76 In this regard it will be a selfcontained unit with a measure of organization identifiable and significant in its context. Finally, traditions of a confessional manner thematically are associated with doctrine or instruction.77 Such material may be highly theological, or of a more practical manner relating to community lifestyle. Otto Michel states: ‘New insights are yielded by the very fact that primitive Christian proclamation () and teaching () are described and depicted as confessing () and witnessing (). All such terms … have a proclamatory character which expresses a commitment and an obligation, a bond and a claim’ (‘’, in TDNT [1967], vol. 5, 212). 71. See Nordon, Agnostos Theos, 380–87, for description and examples. 72. See Cullman, Earliest Christian Confessions, 41–47; Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, 65–77. 73. For example, see the larger contexts surrounding Mk 8.29, Jn 7.41, Jn 11.27, Acts 9.22, and 1 Jn 2.22, 1 Jn 5.5, 2 Cor. 4.5. Such confessional language is geared toward proclamatory identity of Christ and his works. 74. This is the same general criteria set forth for catechetical (creedal) as proposed by Norden and later Cullmann. Also Neufeld spends considerable time articulating confessional wording frequently associated with homologia and lays it forth as a criteria of identification (Earliest Christian Confessions, 13–24). 75. Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 140. 76. Fuller, Foundations, 21; Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 339. 77. Neufeld (Earliest Christian Confessions) states, ‘The New Testament provides evidence that the homologia embodied the essence of the Christian faith regarding the person of Jesus. The place of importance which the homologia had in the life of the church further demonstrates that these expressions of faith were significant …’ (141).

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

37

7.4.3. Hymnic (Poetic) Criteria Synopsis Six primary criteria are suggested for identifying hymnic material. First, hymns frequently have some type of introduction.78 This may occur through words like ‘received’, ‘believe’, or ‘confess’ or may be signaled through the use of a relative pronoun. Second, their poetic nature may be expressed with unusual linguistic form.79 This unusual form exists often through unique vocabulary or peculiar syntactical structure. Third, poetry is often expressed through antithetical style.80 As such it may have lines, stanzas, strophes, or simply some basic, organized form. Fourth, it is expected that most hymns are highly theological.81 They will often focus on Christ, atonement, or praise. Fifth, hymns are generally self-contained, independent texts. This is primarily based on the assumption that most NT hymns are inserted units.82 Finally, hymnic material may have a similar composition in part or whole.83 Such repetition would validate frequency and consistency. 7.5. Criteria Similarities The observant reader notes the similarities of criteria that exist from one tradition type to another. The similarities are many. First, there is a marked emphasis on some type of introductory notation. This may be a formal introduction, or it may be specific verbs used to highlight the material. Even in regard to the smaller, creedal passages, the context of a titular statement might possibly be set off through the preceding words or context. Another overlap concerns linguistic traits. All categories reference some emphasis on the use of unique syntax, vocabulary, or sentence structure. This is especially noted in confessional and poetic units. An additional commonality concerns discussion of an identifiable form. This includes various proposals addressing the self-contained nature of a unit. It encapsulates discussions of contextual dislocation and the fact that the unit may exist, in part, in a parallel work. General criterion concerning poetry is 78. Harrison (Apostolic Church, 119), in affirming Stauffer’s general criteria, notes what he references as the ‘most obvious’ points and states that ‘formulas are often introduced by such terms as deliver, believe, or confess’. 79. Martin, New Testament Foundations, 249–50. 80. Ibid, 260–61. 81. This general, working assumption stems from the very nature of Christian worship. Even Fowl, who is highly cautious about the specificity of hymnic references (in regard to Paul’s use), states that ‘it is clear that Paul expected these interpretations of traditions about Christ to be accepted by his audience … the only assumption … is that these particular formulations were compatible with the pictures of Christ already accepted by the community’ (Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul, 45). By implication Fowl affirms a common connection. Tradition material is linked to or synonymous with ‘embraced teaching’ (i.e., doctrine) concerning Christ, his work, and the ethical demands required of Christ-followers. 82. Martin, New Testament Foundations, 249. 83. Gloer, ‘Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament’, 130.

38

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

very common. The nuances within this topic are immense. They range from antithetical style, to the discussion of rhythm, chiasmus, and parallelisms. The final consistent similarity concerns theme. In many early proposed criteria, especially those that were more centered on hymns, the general conclusion assumed the presence of a Christological motif that was usually atonement oriented. Later works expanded the parameters to embrace those of a theological nature. Confession criteria also included instructional material, which was more practical in nature. Thus the common consensus of criteria seems to imply a theme that is both theological and instructional. With such similarities described, the intent now is directed to the collective identity and synthesis of preferential criteria. The establishment of preferential criteria is critical for developing a working methodology by which to discover preformed traditions. Ultimately the intent of this study is to identify preformed traditions in 1 Timothy and then assess their use in combating false doctrine.

8. Synthesis and Preferential Criteria As previously discussed, traditional material exists in three basic forms: catechetical (creed), confessional (homologia), and hymnic (poetic). To encapsulate the three categories, it is appropriate to reference all tradition material as ‘preformed traditions’. Such nomenclature is advantageous in that it best expresses the ideology that the material was formed prior to its textual inclusion. This phrase also communicates that tradition was an accepted conviction of the early church. Traditional material exists in the NT, and the apostle Paul frequently uses tradition in his letters as displayed through Rom. 10.9, 1 Cor. 15.3b-5, and Phil. 2.5-11. He usually does not use tradition in isolation, but uses multiple traditions throughout a given letter. Even a basic overview has demonstrated the regularity with which Paul uses such material. Historically, preformed material has been identified by established traits and characteristics. Like many studies, the proposed criteria of identification are varied, and are based on the emphasized nuances of the particular scholar. For example, Ellis has proposed a succinct four-step criteria that provides a general working model for the basic identification of preformed traditions.84 His first indicator is a formula (used elsewhere) that either introduces or concludes the material. Second, he states that the quoted material is often in a self-contained passage. Third, he proposes that the context displays a distinct vocabulary or theological viewpoint that differentiates it in style from the rest of the letter.

84. See E. Earle Ellis, ‘Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles’, in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), 238. See also E. Earle Ellis, ‘Pastoral Letters’, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 664.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

39

Fourth, he argues that most preformed traditions have similar references to another writing that has no direct literary dependence. Yet Ellis’s quest for succinctness appears to overlook (or at least does not emphasize) certain criteria such as syntactical nuances and poetic style. Does this mean his proposal is invalid? Certainly not. It does mean, however, that this particular scholar had to make a choice in regard to the exhaustiveness of the proposed criteria. The point is that each proposal, at best, places parameters on familiar characteristics because no one tradition piece models all characteristics. That is why the examples thus far have shown that simply to identify frequent traits does not imply that a tradition must contain each trait in order to validate it as a preformed unit. For example 1 Cor. 15.3-5 starts with distinct formulaic language which references material that has been ‘received’, whereas Phil. 2.5-11 does not use such direct wording. Each circumstance demands a detailed defense, and ultimately the responsibility falls upon each student to defend a text’s existence as a tradition unit if one chooses to claim that a particular text exists as an embedded tradition piece. As is true in most areas of study, the historical development of proposed methods of identification reflects a dependence on the work of many who have contributed to the whole of the consensus as it exists today. The current study has revealed that the proposed lists of criteria (and the names associated with them) are many, and the longevity of the study and topic has a fruitful past. As many criteria have been woven into the current tapestry, the goal at hand is to articulate the preferential criteria. To do so, two distinct values must be addressed. First, it is important to identify traits that are ‘common’. These common traits are the ones that are frequently listed in historical criteria and have been provided thus far in the current study with emphasis and brief explanation. Yet the reader must understand that a preferential criteria listing which emphasizes commonality does not mean exhaustiveness. The specificity of a ‘common’ trait is that it reflects the frequent listing in historical criteria. In this way, the process of synthesis acknowledges the work of others and embraces general traits when there seems to be consensus. Second, it is important to identify criteria that can be defined and illustrated. Simply because a criterion shows up in multiple historical lists does not make it valid. It may mean that a criterion was perpetuated without proper defense or articulation. It is important that traits reflect frequency and are expressed textually. Thus two values are expected in this process. A criterion must have some type of presence in the historical field of study (i.e., it is a ‘common’ criterion proposed by others), and it must be defined and textually illustrated. With such clarifiers in mind, eight ‘textual traits’ appear prevalent in historical criteria. Such criteria are also deemed by the current study as favorable because multiple examples validate the criteria’s existence. The eight criteria are as follows: (1) formulaic introduction or conclusion, (2) texts largely selfcontained or contextually dislocated, (3) emphasis on early orthodoxy or central

40

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

theological concepts, (4) emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content, (5) identifiable, external parallel passages, (6) poetic nuances, (7) abnormal vocabulary, and (8) unusual syntactical structure.85 Further, in a larger arena of groupings, these eight criteria can appropriately be divided into three major categories; those that deal with structure (criteria 1 and 2), those that deal with content (criteria 3–5), and those that deal with style (criteria 6–8). To clarify each criterion, it is necessary to define what is meant for each listing. Likewise, it is necessary to illustrate each characteristic textually, and provide ample description for validation. In doing so each trait is defended in terms of value and benefit.

8.1. Criteria of Structure 8.1.1. Criterion 1: Formulaic Introduction or Conclusion A frequent signifier of a traditional text is the inclusion of a formulaic component that either serves to introduce a passage or conclude it. This particular criterion is a noticeable form that identifies the unit structurally and positions the text as an insertion, or encapsulation, of traditional material. In fact, any introduction or conclusion is an entity that announces what is to come (introduction) or summarizes what has just transpired in the presentation (conclusion). By nature the function exists as a component that sets a unit apart in the textual flow. In regard to the introductory use signifying preformed traditions, the concept and practice is most likely rooted in the frequent NT citations of the OT in which the texts are introduced formulaically.86 For example, OT citations are frequently introduced in the NT with notations such as ‘spoken through the prophets’ (Mt. 2.5b,   , ), or by referring to words that are ‘written’ (Mt. 4.6b,  ). Such phrases, introductory in nature, appeal to the authority behind the writing and join the current presenter in affirming the statement that is to come. The view that NT preformed traditions contain formulaic notations is universally embraced. Stauffer writes, ‘Often the most reliable guide is the language of the immediate context: the creedal formulae or their constitutive elements are inserted and introduced by such words as “deliver”, “believe” or “confess” ’.87 The list of potential signifying markers include such words 85. According to the limitations of this study as set forth in Chapter 1, the intent is to interact with the most established and reliable traits and present an updated listing of criteria used to identify and evaluate preformed traditions in 1 Timothy. While the intent is to be thorough, it is not an exhaustive presentation on preformed tradition criteria. As the historical survey demonstrates, the detailed nuances of criterion sub-types are many. 86. For similar discussions concerning introductory formulas of OT citations in the NT see Stanley E. Porter, ed., Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, McMaster New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006). 87. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 338.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

41

as , , , , , , and .88 The previous illustration of Rom. 10.9 illustrates this, especially as confessing () is linked to the conjunction . When occurring introductorily,  may be understood appropriately as expressing allegiance through profession, confession, or general acknowledgment.89 Historically it is likely a compound word connecting that which is ‘common’ or ‘like’ ( )90 and that which is ‘word’ or ‘expression’ ()91 to present the basic, general meaning of ‘a common word’. In a verbal state a frequent meaning implies ‘to acknowledge something’ or ‘claim, profess, [or] praise’.92 While words are always defined in and by context, this does provide a backdrop to the general meaning. This is affirmed by Neufeld when he states, ‘The basic meaning of  and , as the component parts of the compound indicate, is that of agreement, a connotation which appears to pervade all instances of their use.’93 Of course other statements occur as well. As already noted in 1 Cor. 15.3,  (‘to pass on’) and 94 (‘to receive’) are technical terms for transmission. In particular,  likely stems from rabbinical history95 in which the Hebrew verb  connotes the idea of ‘receiving something given’.96 Specific to preformed traditions of the hymnic nature are clauses such as ‘for this reason it is said ( )’ in Eph. 5.14. The use of relative pronouns in Phil. 2.6 (        ), Col. 1.15 (  …), and 1 Pet. 2.22 (  …), demonstrate this patterned propensity. These words announce that traditional material is to follow. While most markers point to formulae found in introductory statements, some exist as concluding notations, serving as summarizations.97 This is not uncommon even in OT citations. For example, the clause ‘says the Lord’ ( ) occurs in Rom. 12.19; 1 Cor 14.21; and Heb. 10.30. 88. Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13–33. Neufeld’s work in the identification of words associated with the homologia is thorough and packaged not so much to identify which words specifically signify a certain ‘type’ of preformed text, but to provide semantic exposure to the nature of homologia. 89. BDAG, ‘’, 1 and 2, 709. 90. BDAG, ‘’, 706. 91. BDAG, ‘’, 598–99. 92. BDAG, ‘’, 4 b, 708. This certainly is the case in 1 Jn 4.2 in which the act of confessing is driving the creedal nature, as presented in John’s textual argument, of that which is confessed as it relates to the object of that confession. 93. Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13. 94. Cf. Col. 2.6; 1 Cor. 11.23; Phil. 4.9. 95. G. Delling, ‘’, in TDNT (1967), vol. 4, 13. 96. Leonard J. Coppes, ‘‫’קבל‬, in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980), 783. 97. Cf. Tit. 3.8.

42

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

8.1.2. Criterion 2: Texts Largely Self-contained or Contextually Dislocated While it is a challenge to articulate this current criterion, it is important philosophically since it strikes at a fundamental assumption in attempting to identify traditional material. The assumption is that traditional material existed before the writings of a particular NT author and that the author was aware of the material and thus inserted the tradition into his message. This thought generally embraces the idea that the material was, prior to the inclusion, a ‘stand-alone’ unit that functioned on its own as embraced tradition and was somehow articulated, recited, sung, affirmed, or confessed98 and then inserted into the biblical text. This criterion comprises two characteristics. First, to state that a unit is largely self-contained implies that it is, to some degree, an identifiable, distinct pericope with a beginning and an ending. Like all criteria, this characteristic is easier to identify in some texts than in others. Units that express poetical or rhythmic traits often can be identified in terms of containment. 2 Tim. 2.11-13 is one such passage that can be identified in terms of a distinct unit. The text is a familiar ‘faithful saying’ (  ), which is commonly viewed as containing an introductory formula used to preview the tradition ‘saying’ to come. The text is rhythmic in its own right and is divided into four conditional clauses, each protasis describing the believer’s action, and each apodasis describing the results that flow from Christ or being identified with Him. Because of its structure, it has an arguable beginning and ending of the passage.99 However, it is important to state the limitation of this criterion. The thought of identifying endings of shorter, more succinct statements is not always clear. And what is one to do if a partial text is cited and woven so tightly into the flow so as to make it part of the tapestry? In such cases one must argue the case as possible and rely on additional criterion to validate the PT claim. Nonetheless some texts can be contained, and all attempts should be made to note the beginning and ending of the cited unit. 98. This is the apparent scenario in 1 Cor. 14.26. In this context Paul provides instruction for the church at Corinth concerning their time of worship and specifically mentions the presence of ‘hymns’. In reference to this text Ralph Martin states, ‘But the texts just quoted do testify to the existence of early Christian hymns; and this evidence raises the question whether any traces of such material remain in the documents of the New Testament period. The existence of traditional forms shared by Paul and his converts suggests that we should see in what comes from his hand traces of hymnic material which belong to this common stock of the nascent church’ (New Testament Foundations, 258). In this statement Martin makes the correct assumption that ‘tradition’ should be expected. 99. In this case, the final stanza     is likely the focus of the hymn or creed and serves as an irregular structure (i.e., an extra line) to bring emphasis to the textual unit. While it is possible that the final phrase is the author’s response to the unit, it does not negate the noticeable structure that is apparent in the preceding verses (2 Tim. 2.11b-13ab). For the purpose of this example, the unit serves to illustrate a text with general, identifiable parameters. As is often the case, one must defend a particular text’s beginning or conclusion. However, the assumption with this particular criterion is that there exists structural markers that makes one’s premise and argument purposeful and worthy of the criterion evaluation in the first place.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

43

Second, it is probable that preformed texts express some measure of contextual dislocation. This characteristic is linked with the first (‘self-contained’) because it is often a by-product of the fact that as a self-contained text, the inserted piece potentially interrupts the flow of the passage. It is important to realize that the level of interruption may differ, and it still may be in cohesion with the literary theme. However, if it is used in a unique manner to provide support or illustration, or in some way heightens its position or function in the text, it is proper to identify it as displaying a measure of dislocation. Thus if attention is drawn to its function in the structure, it may be expressing dislocation to some degree. This may be characteristic of a larger, more defined PT. This point is made by Stauffer when he writes, ‘Frequently when such a formula is inserted the context of the formula or both suffer changes.’100 Again this criterion may apply to traditions that exist in more of a structured context such as Phil. 2.6-11; or in texts that express a presentation of noticeable symmetry. For example, Col. 1.15-20, although at times labeled as poetic, may best be classified as a confessional message. It is a formulaic prose that seems to go beyond the argument of the book; yet it is tied to the apostle’s presented message. It is somewhat dislocated when evaluating its function because the text arguably does not exercise its primary function until Col. 2.6.101 It is interesting to note the preceding context, which is the opening thanksgiving and prayer. The unit is tied to the end of the former context because it references Christ’s redemptive work, but the opening phrase (      ), initiated by a relative pronoun, sets the passage apart from the beginning. The unit goes on to articulate the supremacy of Christ in regard to His person (vv. 15–18a) and His work (vv. 18b–20), and its confessional origin apparently is related to the need to combat some type of mystical asceticism that demeaned the words and works of Christ. These two themes are expressed in a structured manner with an abundance of unique wording.102 That is why in reference to highly poeticized preformed passages it is proper to conclude that ‘the artistic structure, rhythmic style, and stately bearing stand out all the more clearly in vivid contrast to the narrative prose of the surrounding verses’.103

8.2. Criteria of Content 8.2.1. Criterion 3: Emphasis on Early Orthodoxy or Central Theological Concepts While the previous two criteria accentuate larger structural implications of preformed traditions, the next three criteria focus on content. Specifically the 100. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 339. 101. Fowl, Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul, 123. 102. Examples include the word  (‘firstborn’), as well as the phrase   (‘before all things’). 103. Martin, New Testament Foundations, 261.

44

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

current criterion emphasizes that many preformed traditions portray topical substance that reflect great theological density.104 Although current NT consensus frequently views the term ‘orthodoxy’ as anachronistic when applied to the first century, it seems appropriate to reference such identified truths as ‘early orthodoxy’. The term ‘orthodox’ often is used to reference truths of the Christian faith as formulated in the early ecumenical creeds and confessions of the second and third centuries. Yet in a general sense it simply refers to holding correct opinions ‘in accordance with some recognized standard’.105 The early church unquestionably had core convictions (i.e., ‘usual beliefs’). The ‘tradition’ that was passed on expressed such fervor regarding what was commonly accepted by those who claimed to be followers of Christ. Bock expresses it in this manner: ‘I have called the “orthodox” or “protoorthodox” view the “traditional” view. I give it the name “tradition” because of its emphasis on a deposit of teaching laid down and passed on through oral tradition, written text, and worship, often summarized for memory in short bursts of teaching.’106 In this light the criterion implies that many embedded traditions are emblematic of content reflective of the doctrinal convictions of the early church as expressed in core beliefs. This material is often expressed in terms of soteriological or Christological motifs, or as central theological concepts. This criterion should be no surprise to any student of Scripture. The history of the early church is replete with confrontations from sources standing in contrast to the teachings of Christ and His apostles. For example, Paul’s letter to the church at Colossae virtually exists in totality as a polemic against false teachers, which provides the impetus for the epistle.107 It is reasonable to assume that the early believers, under the direction of the apostles, began to articulate such teachings that were confessed as true and were at the heart of the conviction of what it meant to be a follower of Christ. Such content would naturally be rich in doctrinal convictions concerning His person and work. Again Stauffer references this expectation by stating, ‘For the most part creedal formulae refer to the elementary truths and events of salvation history as norms’.108 Stauffer’s stated expectation is a natural assumption. As the early church blossomed and as convictions rooted, foundational elements were expounded and preserved. 104. Ryan Wettlaufer, in proposing seven characteristics that should be evaluated on a scale of probability, entitles this commonly acknowledged trait as ‘Dense Theological Content’ (‘An Interpretive Discussion of Preformed Creedal Texts in the New Testament and Their Relevance to the Theology of the Earliest Church’ [MA thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2002], 11–12). 105. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1991), s. v. ‘orthodox’. 106. Bock, Missing Gospels, 210. 107. H. M. Carson, Colossians and Philemon, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), 15. 108. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 339.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

45

Salvation history was at the core of identifying the need and purpose of Christ. Likewise Longenecker articulates this point: In their Christocentric expressions (as distinct from their purely theocentric expression) the early confessional materials of the NT reflect a narrative substructure of story in which Jesus Christ is the main character. Each of the confessions, whether poetic or in a prose formulation, narrates a portion of the story about Christ as God’s redemptive agent. We cannot say whether or not all the addressees of each NT writing already knew each confessional portion quoted. What can be affirmed, however, is that these confessions – whether cited in whole or in part – were meant to remind them of the basic story about Christ, which they not only knew but also made the foundation of their lives.109

Various themes frequently are portrayed in many traditions. Galatians 1.4, often accepted as a traditional text, thematically presents Christ’s redemptive work as flowing from the will of the Father. Later in the same letter Paul articulates confessional material concerning the Incarnation of Christ with an emphasis on redemption and sonship (Gal. 4.4-5). Rom. 3.24-26 professes the work of Christ in regard to grace, using atonement terminology, and gives a clear presentation of justification. Hymnic and poetic passages frequently present central theological concepts related to Christ. Philippians 2.6-11 speaks of exaltation and a confession that ‘Jesus is Lord’. Colossians 1.15-20 addresses issues pertaining to reconciliation and Christ’s representation of God, as well as a sundry of topics that journal Christ’s work in creation, his position in eternality, and his headship. The content of these examples illustrate how many hymns and poetic units focus on theologically related themes and events. Theoretically one could argue that any NT letter in some measure is cloaked in theological guise. Yet the intent of this criterion is to propose that PTs often are doctrinally centered, orthodox in nature, and theologically compact. While the sum of Scripture is rich in information about God and the outworking of His salvific plan, PTs are focused theological packages that portray conviction and accepted belief.

8.2.2. Criterion 4: Emphasis on Orthopraxy and Paraenetic Content The fourth criterion also displays a content emphasis. While the previous criterion focuses on topics of a theological nature or items of doctrinal convictions, the present criterion demonstrates that preformed traditions can also emphasize material of a more pragmatic nature. ‘Orthopraxy’ distinguishes such content from orthodoxy. In the local context orthopraxy refers to any such traditions that emphasize correct action, activity, or practical life by the community of faith within a cultural setting. To specify such examples one must look no further than the many potential traditions that exist within household regulations,110 congre109. Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 30. 110. Cf. Eph. 5.22–6.9; Col. 3.18–4.1; 1 Pet. 2.18-20; 3.1-7.

46

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

gational practices,111 and vice and virtue lists.112 Such notations do not claim that all references are preformed traditions, but portions of them may be.113 The discussion concerning such material is not new. In particular, traditional material as it relates to paraenetic114 teachings in the NT was given extensive treatment by Martin Dibelius in the 1930s.115 He presented a persuasive argument, claiming that Paul utilized much of his wording and structure from external traditions for his frequently cited ethical exhortations and instruction. This does not mean that such claims were not adapted in the passages that now exist as traditions, but that behind such units stand common ground from a variety of backdrops. ‘Admonitions to do good and to avoid evil, warnings against immorality, exhortations to nonviolence … since these concerns are shared in many early Christian writings (1 Peter, Ignatius, Hebrews, 1 Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, the Didache, and the Pastoral epistles), it appears that the main contours of Paul’s paraenetic materials did not originate with him but were the common property of the early Jesus movement.’116 This context also includes likely traditional pieces that can be cataloged as wisdom sayings (Gal.

111. For example, 1 Cor. 11.3-16; cf. 1 Thess. 5.20-21 with 1 Jn 4.1; 1 Cor. 14.34-35 with 1 Tim. 2.9-12 and 1 Pet. 3.3-6. 112. Cf. Gal. 5.19-23; Col. 3.5-15; Jas 3.13-18. For vice lists cf. Rom. 1.29-31; 1 Cor. 6.9-10; 1 Tim. 1.9-10; 1 Pet. 4.3; Rev. 9.20; 21.8; 22.15. 113. For example, numerous formulaic introductions, issues of common wording, and clear content similarities are in the associated texts. It is important to recognize that many of the cited passages are in connection with unique apostolic missions, thus expressing a likely common source. 114. Paraenetic content refers to material related to the ethical instruction of the NT. In this case the specific reference addresses Paul’s utilization of such material. 115. Martin Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (London: Nicholson & Watson, 1936), 143. 116. Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), 75. It is critical that one guard against confusing influences or main contours with preformed traditions. The New Testament writings were not written in a vacuum. There were cultural styles and embraced patterns that in a very proper sense mimicked normal presentations of the day. Simply because a text displays a contour or distinct literary expression does not mandate it as traditional material. However, just as early orthodoxy rooted in theological confessions, it is expected that elements of ethical and practical community life began to take expression in normative presentations as well. In The Rise of Normative Christianity, Arland Hultgren articulates six factors that appeared to be operative in the life of the early church (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994), 86. Significant to the current discussion are Hultgren’s factors five and six. In the fifth factor Hultgren states, ‘Those who trust Jesus as revealer of God and redeemer of humanity are expected to live as disciples in community whose ethos is congruent with the legacy of his life and teaching’ (ibid.). Likewise his sixth factor expresses the fact that there was an understanding by followers of Christ that the local community of faith belonged to a fellowship larger than its immediate perception. His point is well made. The New Testament is replete with an emphasis on faith and practice. As early ‘orthodoxy’ is expected, so is normative ‘orthopraxy’.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

47

6.7; 2 Cor. 9.6; Gal. 5.9) and imperatival literary thrusts (Rom. 12.9-13). Such content stands in contrast to the passages that articulate material of a theological nature. Instead, the focus is on that which is of a practical, instructional nature concerning godly living and the application of doctrine to life.

8.2.3. Criterion 5: Identifiable External Parallel Passages This is the final criterion emphasizing content. It is unique from the other two content criteria in that while the former emphasize distinct content flavors (orthodoxy and orthopraxy), the present criterion implies that a particular cited tradition may exist in a parallel passage. While this is not technically a content type (like orthodoxy or orthopraxy), it states that the content of a given tradition unit may be repeated elsewhere in the NT. It is probable that the theme (i.e., general content) of a tradition unit will be mirrored in another portion of Scripture. This does not mean that it is an exact replica; rather it conveys similar expressions or common topics. Stauffer again succinctly references this quality by stating that when identifying a tradition passage, ‘we can often see how quite different passages repeat the same creedal formula with very little difference in each case’.117 While the level of ‘difference’ may be greater than Stauffer implies, his general hypothesis is correct. Because of the very nature of the faith and the expression of doctrine many similarities thematically exist. There are times, however, when wording and function seem to insinuate mutual dependence of a common source.118 In such cases it is important to point out that a comparative passage does not necessarily have to exist or be defended as a preformed tradition, but it exists in thematic or stylistic similarity as a point of validation. Yet at times both may exist as tradition pieces. As previously addressed, 1 Jn 4.2 is a frequently cited text that is confessional in nature. John states, ‘In this way you can know the spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is from God.’ In this context the portrayal of the one who () is confessing () Jesus in the flesh () is from God. It is a testimony of association with and an identity to the fundamentals of the faith as revealed by God and portrayed in Christ. A brief survey shows that this is a thematic message of John. He cites the same theme in 2 Jn 7. He also articulates the habitation of Christ in his Gospel (Jn 1.14). Yet this theme is not unique to John. 1 Tim. 3.16, a frequently embraced preformed tradition, opens with a confession that Christ came in the flesh (). While wording alone does not validate a similar thought or parallel meaning, a defended theological ‘theme’ does express similar thought. John’s use of the text concerning Christ is a central theological issue pertaining to the Incarnation. It apparently is combating the influence of Hellenistic 117. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 339. 118. Samuel Sandmell, ‘Parallelomania’, JBL 81 (1962): 1–13.

48

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

cults that denied the humanity of Jesus. John uses 1 Jn 4.2 as a confession that one must make. It was a common belief. The same is true of the hymnic confession in 1 Tim. 3.16. Jesus was revealed ‘in the flesh’ ( ). This is not just a simple description. Like John, it contains rather large theological underpinnings. In regard to creedal references associated with confessional titles of Christ, Neufeld presents such ‘repetition’ as confessional bipartite and tripartite professions of faith.119 This pattern may be related to an associated study regarding midrashic tendencies which display common ‘teachings’, or even traditions of certain frequently used citations. Dodd argues this point quite convincingly when displaying the use of the ‘rejected stone’ insertion as presented in Rom. 9.33 and 1 Pet. 2.6-8.120 This example reiterates the commonality of the kerygmatic circles that would naturally permeate the believing community through crosspollenization and interaction in the early days of the faith (cf. Acts 15). It stands to reason that similar teaching topics would provide common convictions. Thus it is a reliable practice to expect that the content of an arguable preformed text does not exist in isolation but is validated through similar content or structure that exists elsewhere in Scripture.

8.3. Criteria of Style 8.3.1. Criterion 6: Poetic Nuances The final three criteria emphasize characteristics relating to style. Specifically, the present criterion denotes a text’s poetic expression. Many traditional pieces exist in a poetical or hymnic manner. ‘Poetry has its own way of reaching into the hearts and minds of men. No formal list of principles, no careful analysis of the mechanics involved in poetry can tell why it impresses so deeply.’121 One should not be surprised by the early church’s utilization of poetic recitations and the NT writers’ inclusion of such passages in Scripture. Many examples previously cited identify accounts of preformed traditional material existing in hymnic structure.122 Often these reflect the specific and detailed traits within the hymnic genre,123 as well as traditions that simply reflect a poetic, metered perspective that may represent a more general rhythmical style as opposed to lyrical hymnody.124 119. Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 128–33. 120. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953), 35–43 (see especially p. 42 n. 1). 121. A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963), 323. 122. For example, Eph. 1.3-14; 5.14; Phil. 2.6-11; 3.20-21; 1 Tim. 3.16; 2 Tim. 2.11-13; Heb. 1.3; 1 Pet. 1.18-21; 2.21-25. 123. For a thorough analysis of hymnic traits and variances of applications see Sanders, New Testament Christological Hymns. 124. For example Jn 1.4-5 has clear poetic nuances, but does not reflect hymnic traits. This text

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

49

General distinctives associated with hymnic and poetic material would be assumed within the current criterion. The description ‘poetic nuances’ is purposefully ambiguous and allows great room for movement as one attempts to validate a poetic form. The expected nuances would be expressed by such items as parallelisms, chiasmus, word plays and puns, rhythm and meter, heightened imagery, and other patterns generally associated with poetic style. Again, 2 Tim. 2.11-13 is a commonly accepted hymn. Whether or not it is a hymn is irrelevant; what is important for the current illustration is that it is poetic. It is made up of four first-class conditional sentences and unquestionably is carefully packaged. This is noticeable by observing similar verb formations (-verbs) that are strategically placed, the exhortatory nature of the content, and the rhythmic quality created by the repetitive protasis presented with . It is poetic. Yet this unit is not viewed as a preformed tradition simply because it is poetic. Poetic style, in and of itself, does not deem a passage as traditional material. No single criterion does. Ample criterion must be argued prior to accepting a particular unit as traditional material. In regard to Pauline studies ‘preformed tradition’ is not exclusively equated with ‘non-Pauline’. It is plausible, as in the case of 2 Tim. 2.11-13, that this poetry was created by Paul. Yet it could be Pauline tradition also. It could be a hymn crafted by Paul and inserted to strengthen his letter to Timothy. The point is that poetry may suggest, or signal, the existence of a preformed traditional unit because many accepted units contain poetic nuances. In part this is natural. The very nature of poetry, as opposed to prose, implies crafting and precision, and careful, thoughtful structuring that may require the working and reworking of words and phrases. Since hymns (hence poetic style) existed in the early church (1 Cor. 14.26), like general doctrinal summaries, it is assumed that some existed in poetic form. Also, ‘poetic’, as defined in the current context, includes shorter, creedal and confessional phrases that are expressed in a more succinct fashion. Such statements would have assisted the early believing community in memory and provided easier recollection for what was commonly believed and taught. Statements recorded in a more proverbial community confession also may be viewed in this manner.

8.3.2. Criterion 7: Abnormal Vocabulary Another stylistic criterion concerns the expected uniqueness of vocabulary within a preformed tradition. In reference to this criterion Martin comments expresses a stairstep parallelism in that the last key word (‘In him was life’) becomes the first main word in the next line (‘and the life was the light of men’). The same pattern continues with light and darkness in v. 5. Leland Ryken indicates the advantages of such techniques: ‘Several functions are served when an utterance falls into poetic rhythm. Parallelism beautifies a passage by adding artistry to it. Parallelism also heightens the impact of a statement. It has an aphoristic quality and makes a statement memorable. It focuses our attention and creates a sense of compulsion’ (Words of Delight [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992], 443).

50

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

that this ‘test’ demonstrates ‘the rare terms, in some instances hapax legomena as far as the authors are concerned, which produce an elevated, ceremonial, hieratic style. Perhaps the words in question were selected because of their syllabic length and case-ending, with a view to producing the right number of stresses in the line, and the correct vowel at the end of the line’.125 Martin’s perspective is targeted toward evaluating this trait as it pertains to hymnic material. However, it stands true as a general criterion because, if it exists as material not written by the author, it is generally understood that the material will not reflect the particular author’s usual lexical and grammatical choices. Often preformed material contains unique words and phrases that are used in specialized ways unlike the author’s mannerisms in other contexts. That is why Longenecker states, ‘The presence of words and phrases not used elsewhere in an author’s writings (hapax legomena), or not with the meaning or in the manner found in his other writings … suggests that the material in question was probably composed by someone else’.126 As previously addressed, 1 Cor. 15.3-5 displays this characteristic. Unique words or phrases appear in 15.3-5. Nowhere else does Paul speak of events ‘according to the Scriptures’ (  , vv. 3, 4), of Christ being buried (, v. 4), and of His appearing ‘to the twelve’ ( , v. 5). The same is true of the hymn in Philippians 2. Although the volume of unique words is not as prevalent, note the word ‘slave’ () occurring in v. 7. This unique nuance alone has led some to proclaim the text as non-Pauline.127

8.3.3. Criterion 8: Unusual Syntactical Structure The final criterion with stylistic emphasis focuses on the text’s syntactical structure in comparison to the immediate context and to other works by the same author. In regard to the latter, the assumption is that if a unit, written by someone else, is inserted into another author’s work, it may display inconsistent characteristics when comparing the two works. On the other hand, tradition units may simply display unique traits, especially if they are highly poetical. With highly poetic units the passages ‘strike us by their simple and clear syntax. They avoid particles, conjunctions and complicated construction, and prefer parataxis to hypotaxis. Their thought proceeds by thesis rather than argument.’128 Ellis adds that it may include ‘idiom, style, or theological expression that differs both from the rest of the letter and from other letters of the same author’.129

125. Martin, New Testament Foundations, 261. 126. Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 10–11. 127. Vincent Taylor, The Person of Christ in the New Testament Teaching (London: Macmillan, 1958), 63. 128. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 339. 129. E. Earle Ellis, History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 139.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

51

If a text is heightened in emphasis, the syntactical use simply may be the utilization of literary techniques used to draw attention to the presentation. At times the composition may present an anaphoric style.130 For example in Col. 1.16-17 the text presents a successive string of coordinating conjunctions () and a repetitive use of ‘all’ (, ). This is certainly a unique characteristic in the text and not frequently used by the author elsewhere. While there is a close association between syntactical use and poetical nuance, the emphasis in the current criterion is to isolate unique stylistic features that are different from formal poetic practices and thus bring contrast to the author’s normal tendencies. This is, without question, a rather broad category. It is often ‘grammatical and syntactical criteria [that] must be utilized, such as , or the double accusative, or the infinitive introducing a citation, or relative clauses and participial phrases introducing creedal material’.131 This reinforces the fact that the identity of preformed traditions is not mechanical, but exegetical in nature. One is required to evaluate the structure, content, and style, and then build a sufficient database in which to compare syntactical nuances in order to identify heightened use as displayed in irregular style. When such indicators are noticeable, it may be reflective of traditional material.

9. Methodology of Criteria Identification and Evaluation As stated in Chapter 1, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate the use of PTs in Paul’s first letter to Timothy. The previous portion of the current chapter established eight reliable criteria for identifying such traditions.132 Theoretically the preferential criteria apply broadly and function regardless of the author or writing. It is proposed that the eight criteria reflect the most common traits associated with PTs in the NT. As the study approaches a focused look at Paul’s use of PTs in 1 Timothy, it is necessary to expound on the specific methodology and approach to criteria identification and the ensuing evaluative process.

9.1. Method of Criteria Identification 9.1.1. Criteria Purpose When evaluating a possible traditional unit, it is expected to display common criteria as previously articulated in this study. Yet the process is at times a daunting task. It is necessary to acknowledge the struggle of any proposed criterion for identification. In an ideal setting, texts would simply adhere or not 130. In anaphoric style successive lines begin with the same word or phrase. In a large application this would also include the repetition of phrases. 131. Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 12. 132. See ‘Appendix 1: Preformed Tradition Criteria and Categorical Explication’ for a summary and review.

52

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

to a particular criterion. For example, with regard to criterion one (formulaic introduction or conclusion), it is possible to evaluate a text’s formula because it either exists or it does not.133 However, there is a greater degree of difficulty in one’s ability to apply the evaluation of criterion two (texts largely contained or contextually dislocated). This requires an evaluation of the unit’s self-contained nature and probable dislocation. The same is true of criterion five (identifiable external parallel passages). This criterion requires validation of the text’s probable literary similarity to an independent unit. The point of this exercise of disparity is not to state that all sensibility is lost, or that no conviction can be firmly expounded. Instead it is imperative to remember the purpose of criteria. ‘Not all criteria will be present in a given case, and different New Testament authors may reshape a tradition to their particular interests and emphasis. But the criteria provide guidelines that serve as a check on subjective judgments.’134 Criteria exist as principles to assist a rather tricky process in which literary discernment is needed. Although criteria provide parameters, they exist nonetheless and their existence mandates quantification and qualification. Specific to this study eight preferential criteria are established and are thus in need of accounting.

9.1.2. Criteria Expectations in the Identification Process (a) A new approach to preformed tradition: validation through categorical criteria. With the criteria established the question is: How many criteria should be in evidence? Even with varying criteria lists by various authors, virtually no answers to this question have been offered. Historically most scholars have spoken in generalities in reference to this important subject, if they have spoken at all.135 But the silence is understandable and must be respected. In wrestling 133. This assumes that one argues convincingly that a particular passage contains a formula. 134. Ellis, History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective, 140. 135. Stauffer’s statement (New Testament Theology, 238), though long, is noteworthy as it expresses, metaphorically, the great conundrum in criteria quantification. He states that traditional material is ‘embedded in the mass of theological expositions like crystals in a mass of amorphous stone. The stone can consist of the same chemical material as the crystal, or it can be composed of other elements. The crystal itself can be formed and constructed in different ways; it can be so mutilated that we can only recognize one characteristic facet, one specific angle. That makes it the more necessary to sharpen our eyes to detect the crystal and the laws of its formation. The signs of the crystal in the stone of primitive Christian literature, characteristic marks of a formal confessional passage, are very different in different instances. We can give twelve morphological criteria. Naturally enough the whole twelve never appear in any one instance, but there is seldom one only. Mostly there are a number together.’ Others speak generically as well. Cullman (Earliest Christian Confessions, 20, n. 1) states that ‘the authors of the New Testament generally do not expressly say when they make a citation … In other cases, the context and a certain rhythm allow us to discern the citation’. Fuller (Foundations of New Testament Christology, 20), in dependence on the criteria of Norden and Stauffer, states that such criteria help ‘in detecting

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

53

through this quandary Ellis contributes to the discussion: ‘One criterion alone may not be significant since a different vocabulary or idiom may point only to a change of subject matter, to a different secretary or to a different time of writing … Nevertheless, several criteria in a given passage provide guidelines for measuring probabilities.’136 But which criteria? Thus it is necessary to establish criteria expectation in order to assess each proposed PT. For the purpose of validation and assessment it seems best, at minimum, to expect three solid and clearly identified criteria to surface in the identity process, each criterion reflecting one of the three stated groups of the preferential criteria (i.e., Structure, Content, Style). This process is not intent on producing simply a statistical display of criteria, but rather to identify and defend specific, categorical criterion and to use such information to validate a passage’s probable adherence to a tradition’s origin and existence. And while this approach is unique, it is not without warrant or justification. This hypothesis is reasonable. It assumes that a given tradition is somewhat recognizable (i.e., Structure). Not only does this imply that it will express one of the two structural criteria, but it supposes that PTs generally display a level of organization as a circulatory unit of tradition. The very fact that a unit is considered tradition denotes some type of consistency in presentation.137 The function of ‘tradition’ is to perpetuate a degree of steadiness. Hence the understanding is that if a PT is an inserted unit, it will display a measure of patterned arrangement. The understanding is that it will express an introductory or concluding formula (C1: Formulaic Introduction or Conclusion) or exist in an identifiable state of autonomy or dislocation (C2: Texts Largely Self-Contained or Contextually Dislocated). Such structural characteristics exist and have been identified historically because of the fundamental purpose of tradition: the passing on of conviction and patterned expression of belief. Therefore, at least one criterion of Structure is expected. It is also anticipated that certain topics or themes (i.e., Content) will consistently portray themselves. This again is driven from the fact that tradition is what it is because such items were worthy of transmission and continuance. The Christian faith is rooted in the words and works of the God-man Jesus Christ. As early Christianity articulated such convictions, they focused on Christ as redeemer and on doctrinal expressions central to walking as a Christ-

traditional formulae’ but leaves it at that. Martin (New Testament Foundations, 251), after proposing his criteria, conveys that criteria identification is a method ‘by which traditional material may be seen in existing documents’. 136. Ellis, ‘Pastoral Letters’, 664. 137. Most common definitions imply a presentation in some established manner. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1991, s.v. ‘tradition’) states: ‘That which is thus handed down; a statement, belief, or practice transmitted (esp. orally) from generation to generation. A long established and generally accepted custom or method of procedure.’

54

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

follower.138 Thus such items of belief are expected (C3: Emphasis on Early Orthodoxy or Central Theological Concepts). Yet in conjunction with belief comes mirrored instruction for life. As the budding community grew, there was need for levels of community rule and adherence. Instructions articulating ‘daily living’ (C4: Emphasis on Orthopraxy and Paraenetic Content) are expected because the growing community naturally clashed with culture, which demanded authoritative positions on character and action. It is also anticipated that there are common references expressing core teachings (C5: Identifiable External Parallel Passages). After all, traditions of such magnitude were recorded as central to the faith. Early writings will likely denote some measure of repetition. Therefore, at least one criterion of Content is expected. It is also anticipated that common characteristics (i.e., Style) are reflected in traditional material. This too is related to the nature of tradition. Tradition’s purpose is perpetuation, and the power of human language, both written and oral, is arguably at its strongest when packaged in memorable production. Thus symmetrical organization of form and measure (C6: Poetic Nuances) is likely. With the multiplicity of authors it also stands to reason that some of the wording, if produced by another, is unique to the one using the tradition (C7: Abnormal Vocabulary), and it is likewise true concerning syntactical structures (C8: Unusual Syntactical Structure) as well as the fact that highly packaged units may press the boundaries of normal linguistic presentation. Therefore, at least one criterion of Style is anticipated. In summary, each PT is expected to look (in regard to structural presentation), sound (in reference to common content and patterned themes), and act (in view of its stylistic reflection) like a PT. This implies that some texts will be discarded because of insufficient criteria. These texts may display some characteristics of traditional material and could be evaluated in detail in another setting. For the purpose of this study, however, this baseline is set in order to validate texts that are most recognizable. (b) Pauline examples of criteria identification. This new approach to the identification of PTs is grounded in multiple NT examples previously cited, and specifically modeled through the Pauline examples in Rom. 10.9, 1 Cor. 15.3b-5, and Phil. 2.5-11. This is noticeable even in a cursory overview.139 Each Pauline example displays at least one criterion from each category. Romans 10.9 opens 138. Hence Hultgren’s (Rise of Normative Christianity, 22) definition of early Christianity. He states that such terminology is in application ‘specifically to movements, traditions, and communities of the first two centuries CE in which Jesus – known to have been killed, but now considered living an exalted life – is confessed as the incomparable revealer of God and redeemer of humanity’. 139. While the evaluation in 1 Timothy will assess each passage for all eight criteria (according to Structure, Content, and Style), it is currently necessary to only display that each Pauline example displays at least one criterion from each primary category.

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

55

with the conjunctive us of  and uses confessional language () reflective of structure (C1: Formulaic Introduction or Conclusion). Its content is rooted in the profession of the Christian faith (C3: Emphasis on Early Orthodoxy or Central Theological Concepts) by identifying that ‘Jesus is Lord’. And the profession itself is a unique syntactical style (C8: Unusual Syntactical Structure) where the double accusative ( ) identifies the profession itself. The same categorical display of criteria occurs in 1 Cor. 15.3b-5. Its opening language utilizes structural markers such as  and  which are technical terms of transmission (C1: Formulaic Introduction or Conclusion). The content of the passage is an expression of Christian belief (C3: Emphasis on Early Orthodoxy or Central Theological Concepts). It also displays stylistic tendencies of a repetitive nature (i.e. the use of  in vv. 3–5) as well as various words (C7: Abnormal Vocabulary) that appear only in that context. Philippians 2.5-11 is no different. It reflects criteria that point to strategic structure. It opens with the relative pronoun  and arguably displays contextual dislocation (C2: Texts Largely Self-Contained or Contextually Dislocated). In terms of content, it is highly Christological (C3: Emphasis on Early Orthodoxy or Central Theological Concepts) and develops theological concepts. The stylistic features include a highly organized presence with parallelisms (C6: Poetic Nuances). This is not an exhaustive coverage but enough to demonstrate that commonly embraced Pauline PTs convey categorical criteria of Structure, Content, and Style. This corroborates that an expressed baseline for preformed tradition qualification is not unwarranted. Hence, in Chapter 3 of this study, if a passage displays potential preformed traits, attempts are made to evaluate the text in order to validate that ample criteria exist reflective of the primary categories. This process also includes evaluating to what degree the traits are identifiable. Yet it is also important to move beyond criteria identity into the evaluative process. It is there that traditional material displays its textual contribution.

9.2. Method of Evaluation 9.2.1. Philosophy of Evaluation Throughout the study it has repeatedly been argued that the very nature of criteria identity and evaluation implies a basic level of exegetical practice. Criteria that deal with the evaluation of Structure (criteria 1 and 2), Content (criteria 3–5), and Style (criteria 6–8) are rooted in and related to dissecting the text and exploring its meaning. This evaluative process is a complex exegetical procedure that moves beyond factual data or textual existence. True, it is necessary that traits exist and criteria are met. Ultimately either a passage does or does not reflect characteristics of a preformed unit. But the methodology must go beyond trait identification.

56

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

By its very nature, the necessary exegetical method forces a basic contextual evaluation, appraisal of thematic involvement, and an interaction with the meaning of the text. This interaction, like all sound historical interpretation, attempts to engage in dialogue with others who have recognized that such traditions exist. Therefore, related studies that exemplify solid exegetical practices contribute to and assist in this multifaceted identification and evaluative process. The opening charge of this study asserts that Paul’s use of extant material is extensive, primarily because of his utilization of OT material in the NT. Several exegetical diagnostics in that field of study proves beneficial for the identification and evaluative process of PTs. Craig Evans proposes a comparative exegetical process with which to assess explicit OT citations in the NT.140 Evans’s methodology has several strong points including an emphasis on historical interpretation, assessment of a unit’s textual history, and the evaluation of a text’s function. Likewise, Richard Hays proposes questions for the evaluation of OT allusions.141 Like Evans, Hays’s exegetical process is valuable because of his insistence on evaluating a particular passage’s contribution to theme, prominence (i.e., ‘volume’),142 and intended effect. Hays queries how a given passage is utilized contextually by evaluating what comes before and after the identified passage. Although designed for ‘Old Testament in New Testament’ studies, such evaluative philosophies are applicable to the exegetical evaluation of PTs, pending adaptation. In addition to the eight criteria presented in this chapter as a primary tool for recognizing PTs, various questions are also developed and utilized when

140. Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 6–7. Specifically, Evans proposes the following seven questions: (1) What Old Testament text (or combination of texts) is being cited? (2) Which text-type does the quotation follow, and how does that contribute to its meaning? (3) Does the Old Testament text relate to a wider tradition or theology in the Old Testament? (4) How did various Jewish and Christian interpreters understand the Old Testament text? (5) How does the New Testament quotation relate to the various Jewish and Christian interpretations? (6) How does the function of the quotation compare with others in the same New Testament writing? (7) How does the quotation contribute to the meaning of the passage in which it is found? 141. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 29–31. Specifically, Hays proposes seven questions as well: (1) Is the Old Testament source available to the writer and/his reader? (2) How explicit or ‘loud’ is the allusion; that is, does the allusion have a degree of verbal repetition, prominence, or rhetorical stress? (3) How often does the writer allude to the same Old Testament passage? (4) How well does the allusion fit the theme of the New Testament passage? (5) Could the writer have intended the effect of the alleged allusion? (6) Have other readers in the history of interpretation ‘heard’ the same allusion? (7) Does the proposed intertextual reading enhance the reading of the passage? 142. For clarification Hays states, ‘The volume of an echo is determined primarily by the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns, but other factors may also be relevant: how distinctive or prominent is the precursor text within Scripture, and how much rhetorical stress does the echo receive in Paul’s discourse?’ (ibid., 30).

2. Taxonomy and Identification Criteria for Preformed Traditions

57

appropriate to facilitate the exegetical process used in evaluating PTs in 1 Timothy. While many of the adapted questions correspond to the preferential criteria, some do not. The following is a list of questions that are representative of a healthy exegetical practice and will assist in the exegetical process used to evaluate identified PTs. Such questions are not used in their entirety for every text but only where applicable based on the nature and type of preformed unit and the individual context in which the PT is included. The following list of preliminary questions may assist in this endeavor: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Have various interpreters ‘seen’ and ‘heard’ the same PT in the given passage? Are there comparisons to parallel texts within the NT? Does the PT relate to a wider tradition or theology in the NT? How explicit or ‘loud’ is the PT; that is, does it have formal prominence? How does the PT contribute to the theme of the letter? Could the writer have intended the strategic effect of the PT? How does the function of the PT compare with other PTs in the same letter? Does the proposed PT enhance the message of the letter?

9.2.2. Methodological Presentation With the eight-fold criteria presented earlier in this chapter and with the exegetical approach solidified, it is now necessary to proceed with the identification of the PTs in 1 Timothy. This presentation will occur through a chapter-by-chapter evaluation. The process identifies the preformed characteristics (i.e., criteria) of each proposed unit and then, if justified, presents it as an existing tradition. For units embraced as PTs the passage is evaluated in a brief exegetical assessment, utilizing questions similar to those above when applicable, in an attempt to overview the basic meaning, placement, and general function of the PT.

Chapter 3 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFORMED TRADITIONS IN 1 TIMOTHY Ellis identifies the following passages as PTs in 1 Timothy: (1) 1.9-10a, (2) 1.15, (3) 2.5-6, (4) 2.9–3.1a, (5) 3.1b-13, (6) 3.16, (7) 4.1-5, (8) 4.9-10, (9) 5.5-6, 9-10, 17-20, (10) 6.1-2, (11) 6.7-8, 10a, and (12) 6.11-16.1 Other writers propose various texts for consideration with a noticeable emphasis on the ‘faithful word’ (  ) sayings,2 three of which are in 1 Timothy.3 Additional texts, such as 1.17;4 2.1-2;5 5.1-2;6 and 5.24-257 have at times, in various portions, been referenced as traditional material. In Ellis’s listing, it is interesting to observe that he enumerates the passages, but does not fully document each text’s subjection to his own criteria of identification.8 This lack of criteria documentation is common. More often general statements are presented concerning a text’s ‘probable’, ‘likely’, or even ‘definitive’ traditional existence with no

1. E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), 417. Ellis’s list is provided to demonstrate one proposal expressing traditional material in 1 Timothy. The final listing of texts evaluated by this study is a compilation of multiple suggestions of which Ellis is but one. However, as stated in the Introduction, one need for the study is to develop further the works of Ellis and others in an attempt to have a better understanding of Paul’s utilization of PTs in 1 Timothy. 2. In particular R. Alastair Campbell, ‘Identifying the Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Epistles’, JSNT 54 (1994): 73–86; George W. Knight III, The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968). 3. The phrase    is identifiable in 1 Tim. 1.15; 3.1; 4.9. The other two references occur in 2 Tim. 2.11 and Tit. 3.8. 4. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London: A. & C. Black, 1963), 55–56. 5. James D. Miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 93 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 67–68. 6. Ibid., 83–84. 7. Philip H. Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus, IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 130. 8. In fairness to Ellis, such an endeavor is not the thrust of his work. In The Making of New Testament Documents, his primary purpose is to investigate literary traditions and the implications on authorship and the dating of NT letters. His is not a study on the process of criteria evaluation.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

59

validation as to criteria expression.9 Nonetheless Ellis’s list of identified texts, along with the aforementioned references, assist in the initial dialog in which to begin the process of compiling a list of proposed traditional texts for the purpose of evaluation. The evaluative list embraced by this study is an assemblage of the statements by many scholars. It is important to state that the texts are not random. Instead the list reflects two levels of research. First, the proposed texts are those that surface through the ‘historical discussion’. By this is meant texts that are directly or indirectly referenced as some type of tradition material. Second, the proposed texts reflect an initial chapter-by-chapter overview. Passages that display propensity toward tradition expression are proposed for evaluation and will thus surface in the list of passages to survey. The assumption of this study is that all potential tradition passages in 1 Timothy have been exposed to ‘due diligence’, thus presenting the most reliable texts for consideration. With that in mind, the following passages will be evaluated: (1), 1.8-10, (2) 1.15, (3) 1.17, (4) 2.1-2, (5) 2.5-6, (6) 2.15-3.1a, (7) 3.1, (8) 3.16, (9) 4.1-5, (10) 4.8-9, (11) 4.9-10, (12) 5.1-2, (13) 5.5-10, (14) 5.17-20, (15) 5.24-25, (16) 6.1-2, (17) 6.7, (18) 6.10, (19) 6.11-16. This list may be refined once a detailed evaluation of the textual boundaries has transpired. This section of the study consists of six primary divisions that correspond to the six chapters that comprise 1 Timothy. The purpose of the chapter-by-chapter analysis is to develop a criteria-based, exegetically defended position of texts that should be accepted as embedded tradition. To accomplish this goal the process is threefold. First, proposed texts are provided contextual and segment boundaries. The contextual boundaries are important because they place the proposed tradition unit in its larger framework. Functionally this will assist in identifying with as much precision as possible the proposed tradition text.10 This identification process implies that the text under consideration may be shortened or expanded, and may differ from other proposals that assisted in validating its presence on the list. Second, once these boundaries are established, each proposed text is measured against the eight established criteria set forth in Chapter 2. This process establishes a text’s reflection of the broader 9. Examples are provided as the study unfolds in regard to the evaluation of specific proposed texts. Various claims and positions are held by multiple authors and writers concerning individual literary units. Each text is treated separately as each proposed PT is addressed. 10. Inevitably, some ‘boundary’ decisions will have bearing on criteria evaluation. This ‘chicken or egg’ question seems unavoidable due to the fact that one must have general boundaries set in order to have a text to evaluate and yet the boundaries themselves have bearing upon that which is under evaluation. This tension is acknowledged. However, the intent is to not to have each procedural step of the identification process work in isolation, but in conjunction with other procedural steps. The intent is to identify when such decisions have bearing upon later decisions, and vice versa.

60

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

criteria categories of Structure, Content, and Style. Third, texts are given a preformation conclusion based on criteria standards and presence.

1. 1 Timothy 1 Three potential tradition texts are evaluated in 1 Timothy 1. Under consideration are 1.8-10; 1.15; and 1.17. Each proposed unit is provided contextual and segment boundaries. It is then evaluated regarding the eight criteria of Structure, Content, and Style. Finally, based on diagnosed criteria a text is assigned a preformation conclusion.

1.1. 1 Timothy 1.8-10                                               

1.1.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries Following the opening prescript (1.1-2) and a charge to Timothy (1.3-7) to stay in Ephesus and contend with those teaching false doctrines (, v. 3), a shift of the verbal form occurs in 1 Tim. 1.8. Specifically Paul moves to the first person plural; this is the first time such a grammatical presentation has transpired in the letter. With the verbal shift comes a subject change. It shifts from ‘ “certain ones” to “we” and the topic moves from discussion of false teachers to a statement of acknowledged Christian belief. Whereas the opponents were the key participants in 1.3-7, they are no longer explicitly in view in 1.8-11’. 11 This is the second of four subsections12 that comprise 1.3-20 and states in regard to its (1.8-11) inclusion that ‘on the surface they may appear to be a digression. Paul used the sarcastic title “teachers of the law” in v. 7, and it is possible that vv. 8–11 are a correction of any possible misconception that he has a low view of the law … and the heresy described in vv. 3–7 has two flaws: (1) a misuse of the law (1 Tim. 1.8-11) and (2) a corresponding misunderstanding of the role of God’s grace and mercy in salvation (1 Tim. 1.12-17)’.13 The use of the law is the primary theme of 1.8-11. The progression of thought is easy to identify. As Paul acknowledges the opponents as supposed teachers of the law, he now compares their positional proposition to the actual 11. Ray Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles, JSNTSup, 280 (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 21. 12. (1) 1.3-7, (2) 1.8-11, (3) 1.12-17, (4) 1.18-20. 13. William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC, 46 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 30.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

61

purpose of the law. It is therefore fitting to see this section as a critical opening statement in response to his opponents, for it is their misunderstanding of the law and their inaccurate teaching of it that had apparently led to many of the false teachings in the church and had even perverted the message of the gospel itself. This is evidenced by his emphasis on grace at the end of the chapter, with Paul himself epitomized as the ultimate example of a grace recipient.14 As patterned throughout the letter, the apostle constantly corrects the inaccuracies of the opponents through both direct and indirect discourse. The catalogued vice-list, specifically identified in vv. 9–10a, is nestled within 1.8-11. This list plays a pivotal role in the argument of the unit of vv. 3–20. It is tempting to simply focus on vv. 9–10a because of the specificity of the catalog that resides there. The detailed ‘listing’ occurs within those verses and it is easy to see that the unfolding of such words provides flare to the literary development. However, the listing (1.9-10a) must be evaluated within the unit proper (vv. 8–11). Three points need consideration: (a) the connection between v. 8 and v. 9, (b) the connection of v. 10b with what precedes, and (c) the connection of v. 11 with what precedes.15 A seeming disconnection occurs between vv. 8 and 9. Dibelius and Conzelmann note this: ‘V. 9 introduces instead a further, well-known principle, which implies something entirely different from the preceding clause’.16 Yet this does not seem justified as there are at least two primary connections. First,  (v. 9) may be a response to  (v. 8): the proper use of the Law is to know the truth, which follows from the  clause. Second, one must account for the patterned parallels. ‘Structural parallels suggest vv. 8–9 belong together. They both begin with a form of , followed by a  clause which has  as its subject and gives the content of that which is known’.17 Based on such observations, a connection between vv. 8 and 9 is justified. 14. Cf. 1.13-16. Paul describes his life without Christ in a succession of three terms, each one stating a progressively more severe description. He was a blasphemer (), a persecutor (), and a violent aggressor (). Such a description is important to Paul’s argument because of his zealous nature as an exemplar of the Law. Homer Kent Jr. states, ‘The factor that makes this testimony of Paul such a telling one in the light of the legalistic danger at Ephesus is that all of those previous traits of Paul occurred while he was a zealous exponent of the law. In fact, it may be asserted that the law produced those characteristics in him, as he became more and more a fanatical defender against its supposed enemies’ (The Pastoral Epistles [Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1982; reprint, Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Co., 1993], 86). 15. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 21. 16. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermeneia, ed. Helmut Koester (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972), 22. 17. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 22. To this he also notes that the use of -root also occurs in both sentences. Hence the two verses are best understood as parallel: 1.8  … o …   …  .9  … o …  … 

62

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

A connection also exists with 10b. The concluding part of v. 10 is often unfairly omitted from the vice-list proper. This decision seems to be made because it is not part of the detailed descriptive listing. That is apparently why Hanson notes, ‘The final clause “and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” is a rather lame ending’.18 Kelly seems to acknowledge this tendency as well when he observes, ‘Coming at the end of an inventory of the grossest offences, some have found this a grotesque climax’.19 Yet, he adds, ‘But in fact it vividly reflects the contrast Paul habitually draws between the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit’.20 The phrase itself (   ) is most likely an indicator or formula stating a collection of embraced traditions.21 The final phrase of v. 10 provides Paul the final contrastive element which stresses the importance of ‘sound teaching’ ( ). Since this was the problem of false teachers, it is favorable to include it with the unit. Verse 11 is a different matter. There occurs again a verbal shift as well as a shift in person. While it is still syntactically connected to the sentence,22 it seems to connect the content by means of an additional explanation. This is especially noticeable in that it concludes what has previously been stated (vv. 8–10) as well as sets the scene for what is to follow (cf. the context shift in v. 12). In this regard ‘the phrase is grammatically awkward, and its meaning in the present context is obscure. It seems to function here almost as a summarizing formula, tying together the materials that have been gathered’.23 Thus the clause seems to function as rounding out the passage, in response to the preceding verses, and providing a transition to the reference to come.24 In light of the previous data the text under consideration is limited to vv. 8 through 10. Verse 11 is excluded from evaluation since it appears as an addendum to 1.8-10.

18. Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles: Based on the Revised Standard Version, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 59. 19. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 50. 20. Ibid. 21. See J. T. Fitzgerald, ‘The Catalogue in Ancient Greek Literature’, in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture, Essays from the 1995 London Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 275–93. Fitzgerald documents that abbreviated formulas such as ‘and the like’ and ‘all the others’ are quite frequent in catalog listings and in fact validate a tradition phrasing (ibid., 288). For additional resources see Albert J. Harrill, ‘The Vice of Slave Dealers in Greco-Roman Society: The Use of Topos in 1 Timothy’, JBL 118 (1999): 97–122. 22.  can imply a standard by which something is judged. See BDAG, ‘’, 5 , 512. 23. Miller, Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 63. 24. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 25.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

63

1.1.2. Criteria Evaluation25 (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. Two definite formulaic references exist, and a possible third (in regard to the conclusion of v. 10). Verse 8 opens with the formula ‘But we know’ (  ) and then is paralleled in v. 9 with ‘we also know’ or ‘[but] also knowing that’ (  ).26 Such statements are ‘concessive formulas’. 27 This wording is used in Rom. 2.2; 3.19; 8.28; 1 Cor. 8.1, 4; and 2 Cor. 5.1. Likewise the introductory statement in v. 9 is likely ‘a technique for introducing an already existing vice-list’.28 As a formula it is ‘used to introduce a well-known fact that is generally accepted’.29 The phrase is common in catalogs, and it ‘resembles other Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Christian vice-lists’.30 It exists in the same genre of introductory formulas used to introduce other proverbial statements that were accepted tradition. For example, in Polycarp’s To the Philippians (4.1) the maxim, ‘We brought nothing into the world, nor can we take anything out’, is introduced with ‘knowing, therefore, that’ (  ).31 The concluding statement of 1 Tim. 1.10 provides a supporting role as it relates to the more formal vice-list. This function harmonizes with other previously referenced ‘conclusions’ in catalogs.32 (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. 1 Tim. 1.8-10 largely exists as a contained unit. The larger unit is 1.8-11, but previous support demonstrates that v. 11 functions as the follow-up to the proposed unit. As such, the pericope exists as a stand-alone text that could have been articulated in a variety of community contacts. The text also displays a fair amount of contextual dislocation. While suitable reasons exist to demonstrate the thematic connection of the text (cf.  in v. 7 with    in v. 8), it functions as a unit set by boundaries that interrupt the flow established in the preceding section (vv. 3–7). This appears as common in epistolary structure, and combined with other factors it arguably serves as a literary marker of inserted or compiled material. In regard to the pre and post context of 1.8-10: ‘The topic has shifted to the use of the Law. Thus, 1.8 begins a new unit. The appearance 25. For review and referencing of criteria, see ‘Appendix 1: Preformed Tradition Criteria and Categorical Explication’. 26. Cf. n. 17, above. 27. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 48. 28. Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 59. 29. BDAG, ‘’, 1 e, 693. See also Mt. 22.16; Lk. 20.21; Jn 3.2, 9.31; Rom. 2.2, 3.19; 7.14; 8.22, 28; 2 Cor. 5.1; and 1 Jn 3.2. 30. Craig L. Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction from Acts to Revelation (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 361. 31. Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1999), 209. 32. See n. 21, above.

64

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

of a thanksgiving statement at 1.12 confirms 1.11 as the final boundary of the unit’;33 and v. 11 functions as a transition to the next context. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. The content is not doctrinally centered. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. The vice-list is negative and focuses on the lifestyle that should not be reflective of a believer. Yet in the listing is a projected message: against God’s ethical norm, as unveiled in the Law, the sin of humanity stands out in ‘bold relief’.34 Herein lies the problem. ‘The heretics’ interpretation of the OT (used to support a gospel that promised too much too soon) obscured this revelation, so that sinners were no longer directed toward the genuine gospel. Their use of the OT was illegitimate because it did not accord with God’s purpose’.35 Such material is paraenetic because the entire context is a question of Christian ethics that stem from correct teaching. The implication is that the results of the false teachers would not lead to such practiced Christian norms. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. Vice-lists are common in Paul’s writings36 and are more common in his letters than in other NT books.37 The similarities of such vice-lists point toward a common source from which the traditions were formulated.38 Kelly concurs: ‘They exhibit a good deal of overlapping, and it is evident that the early church soon amassed a substantial body of hortatory material.’39 (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. Although the level of poetic implication is debated, a quick observance of the wording used for each vice (i.e., the distinct, descriptive terms found in 1.9-10a) displays some alliteration with primary words in

33. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 21. 34. Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus, 50. 35. Ibid. 36. For example Rom. 1.29-31; 6.9-10; 13.13; 1 Cor. 5.10-11; 1 Cor. 6.9-10; 2 Cor. 6.9-10; 12.20; Gal. 5.19-21; Eph. 4.31; 5.3-5; Col. 3.5, 8; 1 Tim. 6.4-5; 2 Tim. 3.2-5; Tit. 3.3. 37. Cf. 1 Pet. 4.3 and Jas 3.14-18. They are also common in apocalyptic writings (Wis. 14.2526) as well as pseudepigraphal works and early Jewish literature (e.g. 3 Apoc. Bar. 4.17; 8.5; 13.4; T. Reub. 3.3-6; T. Jud. 16.1; 2 Enoch 10.4-5). 38. In the PE this is an intriguing study. Three vice-lists occur in the PE: 1 Tim. 1.8-10; 2 Tim. 3.2-5; and Tit. 3.3. Combined, 42 terms are utilized. Of the 42, 14 occur in other Pauline lists. Other Pauline vice-lists share an even higher similarity. For example, in Rom. 13.13; 1 Cor. 6.9-10; Gal. 5.19-21; and Col. 3.5, 8, eleven words appear in more than one list. For a study pertaining to the PE, see A. J. Malherbe, ‘The Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles’, CBQ 36 (1974): 203–19. 39. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 49.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

65

an alpha () pattern. ‘The list follows distinctive, yet inconsistent, literary patterns. Paul pairs twelve terms into eight groups. He also employs alliteration with an initial alpha.’40 Others have noted that the phrasings were set for aural effect by implying that poetic nuances result from the rhyming scheme created with thirteen items ending in  or .41 (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. Thirteen terms are used in the vice-list.42 Of those thirteen, only four appear elsewhere in the NT,43 leaving nine words as hapax legomena. With only 45 words in the proposed passage, 20 per cent of the vocabulary is unique to this unit. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. This unit does not exhibit this criterion.

1.1.3. Preformation Conclusion While some propose that the unit exists only in 1.9-10a,44 it seems best to include the opening introduction found in v. 8 (  ), as well as extend it through the concluding addendum (       ) as was customary in ancient vice-listings. Thus the evaluated unit is understood as 1.8-10. With boundaries set, the survey has demonstrated six different criteria. Specifically, the unit contains two criteria each of Structure, Content, and Style. In regard to Structure, the unit is strong on introductory phrases (C1) which appear to introduce well-known facts embraced by the primary audience. The concluding stanza of v. 10 reflects a phrase (       ) that provides further evidence of structural organization. Such book-end introductions and conclusions provide good validation for the unit’s autonomy. Likewise it is a self-contained piece (C2) that while standing in agreement to the literary content does disrupt the textual flow. This is noticeable due to the fact that there is a shift in person. In regard to Content, 1.8-10 is orthopraxical in nature (C4). The vice-list expresses traits not conducive to the Christian walk, and denotes that sound teaching will avoid such practices. Vice-lists occur in other passages (C5) and are similar in expression. Stylistically, it contains poetic nuances (C6). The alliteration and aural affect of the wording signify order. It also contains unique wording 40. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 30. For the current study, alliteration is subsumed under the larger heading of poetic nuance (Style) since it is a patterned format that produces a distinct sound. 41. J. D. Quinn and W. C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 95. 42. These 13 are              43. These are  (Lk. 6.34),  (1 Cor. 5.9-10; Rev. 21.8),  (1 Cor. 6.9),  (Jn 8.44; Rom. 3.4; Tit. 1.12; and 1 Jn 1.10). 44. Ellis, Making of the New Testament Documents, 417.

66

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

(C7). In view of the substantive criteria of Structure, Content, and Style, 1 Tim. 1.8-10 is embraced as a PT.

1.2. 1 Timothy 1.15                    .

1.2.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries 1 Tim. 1.15 is the first of three references identified in 1 Timothy with the phrase ‘faithful is the word’ (  ).45 The text resides in its larger unit of 1.1217, which moves from the purpose of the law and the entrusting of the gospel to Paul (1.8-11), to an expression of thanksgiving by Paul as the example used throughout the pericope. Although the saying itself is listed as v. 15, the actual reference to which the apostle alludes is more aptly identified as v. 15a-b rather than in the entire verse. The verse consists of three parts, but the saying appears to consist of two parts. The opening comment (v. 15a) serves to introduce the quotation: ‘This is a trustworthy saying and is worthy of full acceptance’ (      ).46 After the introduction the saying itself is then given (v. 15b): ‘Christ Jesus came into the world in order to save sinners’ (        ). The concluding statement (v. 15c) ‘of whom I am the first’ (   ) appears to be a separate notation by the writer purposefully tagged on to the ‘saying’ in order to stress the point that Paul is a product of God’s purpose accomplished through Christ. This is similar to Paul’s use in 1 Cor. 15.9 and Eph. 3.8. Mounce concurs: ‘The final phrase     of “whom I am the foremost”, is of primary importance because it ties the faithful saying into Paul’s argument. The emphatic position of , “foremost”, and the emphatic use of the pronoun , “I”, drive the point home.’47 This supports Paul’s argument that he is the epitome of 45. The other two references occur in 3.1 and 4.9. 46. The proposed saying introduction does contain a variant in some Latin witnesses in which  is substituted for . The same variant occurs in 1 Tim. 3.1. In this regard the translation would be rendered ‘it is a human saying’ or ‘it is a common saying’. This would seem to emphasize the commonality or popularity of the saying as opposed to the tradition behind it or the truthfulness of the tradition which it actually cites. According to the apparatus of NA27 the attestation of the variant (itr,86 , Ambrosiaster, mssacc. to Jerome , Augustine, Julian-Eclanum, Vigilius) appears to follow a similar variant that exists in 1 Tim. 3.1 in regard to the subsequent ‘trustworthy saying’. The reading  is preferred due to the weight of the texts that support it (, A, D, Ggr, H, K, P, , and a host of minuscules) and because the readings in 1 Tim. 4.9, 2 Tim. 2.11 and Tit. 3.8 read    with no variant readings. For an interesting perspective on the origin of the phrase, see J. Lionel North, ‘ “Human Speech” in Paul and the Paulines: The Investigation and Meaning of νθρώπινος ό λογος (1 Tim. 3.1)’, Novum Testamentum 37 (1995): 50–67. North references the two variants in conjunction with one another due to their likely origin. 47. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 56.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

67

God’s mercy. ‘His [the Lord’s] patience with the great persecutor was a signal example of this, which should prevent any from despairing his mercy. The first (or chief) of sinners provided the first (or chief) occasion of patience and mercy.’48 The proposed unit then exists in v. 15a-b; 15c, while central to the argument, is likely the apostle’s response to the saying.

1.2.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. Structurally, 1 Tim. 1.15a-b is introduced with a formulaic expression (  ) that draws attention to the literary expression unlike any other formula in the NT.49 The articulate noun, modified by the preceding adjective, is likely the use of the article categorized as kataphoric.50 ‘This rare use of the article is to point to something in the text that immediately follows.’51 In this case the use points to the phrase’s distinction. Historically there has been considerable debate regarding the application of the formula as it relates to tradition. Is it to be understood as introducing words from a citation?52 Or is to be understood as a formula affirming the truth that was about to come?53 Due to the use of the article and the fact that the contextual presentation of  implies a saying or expression set apart for recognition, the unit addresses both questions. Knight’s seminal work presents this case. He categorizes the statement as a ‘quotation-commendation’.54 Marshall concurs: ‘The formula emphasizes the truth of what is said. It introduces a solemn note into the context, and it serves to underline the importance of the 48. C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles in the New English Bible (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 46. 49. Outside of the Pastoral letters, the phrase is used by Dionysius Halicarnassensis (De. Thuc. 3.23.17; 19.3) in a manner that affirms the credibility of a particular saying. While the emphasis appears to be on the truth of what is said, the terms used to make up the phrase bring solidity to the statement and the consensus behind the statement. The emphatic position of  implies the trustworthiness and faithfulness of the saying. In normal Pauline use it frequently focuses on God as the one who is faithful (cf. 1 Cor. 1.9; 10.13; 2 Cor. 1.18; 1 Thess. 5.24; 2 Thess. 3.3; 2 Tim. 2.13). The adjective then modifies  . Combined with the fact that in each instance the formula seems to be in reference to what is in quality a ‘saying’, it is appropriate to understand  as a saying or expression set apart for recognition of definite teaching (see BDAG, ‘’, 1 a, 599–600). For an older yet succinct presentation of background material pertaining to the origin of the phrase   , see Ceslas Spicq, Les Épitres Pastorales (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1947), 42, notes on v. 15. 50. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 220. 51. Ibid. 52. Kelly references it as an ‘excerpt’ of primitive creed or liturgy (Pastoral Epistles, 54). 53. Such as emphasized by Robert G. Gromacki, Stand True to the Charge: An Exposition of 1 Timothy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982), 38. 54. Knight, Faithful Sayings, 19–20.

68

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

statement. An antiheretical stress may be present … Its use is flexible, referring to teaching that is usually based on tradition and is related to salvation and to the consequent practical behavior.’55 Regardless of whether it cites a wordfor-word phrase, or is a summarized adaptation, it is formulaic and highlights material stated by the author that is in some form or fashion directly connected to, reflective of, or a verbatim dictation of tradition. As it stands in the current criteria evaluation, it is an ‘introductory’ formulaic presentation. The text is thrust into the spotlight because of its unique, preparatory nature. (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. The text is a self-contained unit expressed by the formulaic introduction that points to the statement which follows. As previously argued, this excludes 1.15c and understands that portion of the text as a first-person addendum to the unit proper. The text can readily stand on its own as a succinct presentation and a complete thought. Yet it also displays a sense of dislocation from its context. Again, Miller identifies ‘seams’ and observes in the text a lack of cohesion.56 Yet this does not seem founded. The faithful saying is connected contextually. Verses 12–14 state that Christ saved Paul in spite of his sin, and the saying (15a-b) affirms that as the very reason Jesus came. So while it is not necessary to see a lack of cohesion in the text, one still can identify elements of dislocation. By this is meant that there are elements that force a contrastive movement before and after the segment. In particular, the formula is introduced with , an indicator signifying an abrupt announcement of the statement to come. This decision understands 57 as introducing direct discourse, however brief it may be, and it draws attention to the statement which follows. ‘Only here is the formula used with  … primarily emphasizing the truth of what is said … and characterizes it as “received” tradition bearing official validation.’58 Regarding the conclusion, Paul’s first-person addendum places a bookend to the saying which concludes the verse in an illustrative manner. The tradition is intact, yet with a pejorative nuance due to its announcement and ending. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. The unit’s content is a doctrinally based confession, and a survey of the unit itself will substantiate this fact. Following the introductory , the emphasis is 55. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 329. 56. Miller, Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 64–65. 57. BDAG, ‘’, 3, 732. This decision is embraced and demonstrated in English translations such as NIV and NET. For example, NET reads: ‘This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” – and I am the worst of them.’ Other versions apparently do not heighten the statement as much. NKJV reads: ‘This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.’ 58. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 397.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

69

exclusively focused on Christ Jesus and what he ‘came’ to do. The subject is  , which notes his name given by God (Mt. 1.21) and his role as the promised Messiah (Jn 1.25-34). The content is also salvific. The fact that ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners epitomizes the cardinal fact of Christian truth’.59 The terminology relates to the entire Christ event, and functions as a theological treatise summarizing the work of Christ.60 The tradition is likely expressive of concepts in Lk. 19.10. The imagery of ‘seeking the lost’ is an echo of this gospel phrase. ‘The pastoral imagery … makes the statement more general, in keeping with the salvation-historical thrust. The statement is thus … based on a saying of Jesus (cf. 2.6; 5.18) which in the course of the whole argument links Paul to the mission of God and the gospel of Christ.’61 This presentation reflects both the historical roots of the Christ event and the attestation of salvific triumph. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. The content is doctrinally centered as opposed to regulatory. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. Lk. 19.10 is frequently cited as a companion passage62 due to its conceptual connection, and rightfully so. Even in terms of wording, there are similarities63 and synonymous exchanges.64 The phrase    (‘into the world’) also provides a connection. It is only used by Paul in Rom. 5.12 and is used almost exclusively by John.65 Such ties imply a level of literary association. (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. The content is presented without substantive poetic traits.66 (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. Although there are no NT hapax legomena,  (‘acceptance’ or ‘approval’)67 occurs only here and in 1 Tim. 4.9. It 59. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957; reprint, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 65. 60. Contextually,  denotes saving or preserving from eternal death (BDAG, ‘’, 2, a, 982. For other examples, see 1 Cor. 1.21; Tit. 3.5; Jas 4.12. 61. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 399. 62. Ibid. 63. Specifically,  and  occur in both Lk. 19.10 and 1 Tim. 1.15. 64. In Lk. 19.10, those who are saved are noted as   (the lost) whereas in 1 Tim. 1.15 it is ‘sinners’ () who are referenced. Also, as previously noted, 1 Tim. 1.15 references Jesus as   whereas the title given in Luke is     (the son of man). 65.    is used 13 times in John’s Gospel and 4 times in his epistles. Outside of these references, it only occurs 4 times elsewhere in the NT. 66. Guthrie references the unit as having ‘rhythmical form’ but nowhere articulates what rhythm or form exists (Pastoral Epistles, 65). 67. BDAG, ‘’, 110.

70

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

is part of the longer phrase   68 (‘deserves full acceptance’) that is connected to the formula ‘Faithful is the word’ (  ). There are also two literary uses associated with vocabulary that are not reflective of normal Pauline patterns. The first literary trait has been previously identified: the phrase ‘into the world (  )’. This phrase is infrequently used by Paul. In fact the only other time it is utilized by the apostle is in Rom. 5.12, a text that in and of itself is a likely tradition unit or at least a kerygmatic piece.69 Instead the phrase is used almost exclusively by John. This has been noted by others as well. As Guthrie observes, ‘The emphasis on the incarnation and its purpose is more Johannine than Pauline, and this adds further weight to the view that Paul is here quoting a current statement of the gospel.’70 Also Mounce observes that the phrasing is highly ‘reminiscent of the Fourth Gospel … as it joins the incarnation and redemption’.71 This alone does not mean that it is non-Pauline, but it does establish a pattern that is uncharacteristic of the apostle Paul. The second literary trait is his use of the word ‘sinner’ (). Although not totally foreign to Paul, the word is used frequently by the Gospel writers, in particular, Luke. This may give weight to the fact that the tradition may be an adaptation of Luke 19. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. This unit does not exhibit this criterion.

1.2.3. Preformation Conclusion While some propose that the unit exists in the entirety of v. 15, the unit should properly be limited to the opening formula (v. 15a) and extended through the citation proper (v. 15b). It should cease prior to the addendum (v. 15c) which serves as the pivot phrase which sets up the Pauline autobiographical testimony (v. 16). With boundaries set, the survey demonstrates five different identifiable criteria. Specifically, the unit contains two criteria of Structure and Content, and one reflective of Style. In regard to Structure, the unit is weighted heavily with an introductory phrase (C1). The formulaic phrase introduces a well-known, truthful saying that is to be embraced by all, especially in Ephesus. As there are only five ‘Faithful is the Word’ statements in the NT, this is strong evidence. Likewise it 68. The phrase itself has two possible meanings or implications. If the emphasis is on  then the meaning brings focus to the fact that the saying should be accepted by everyone. With the contextual situation, it could be bringing special attention to the importance of acceptance by those in the Ephesian church. However, it could mean that it should be openly and unhesitatingly received. Either way the point of the statement substantiates the ‘trustworthiness’ of the saying. This is true of both contexts (1 Tim. 1.15 and 4.9) in which the phrase appears. 69. Cf. Ellis, Making of the New Testament Documents, 96. 70. Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 65. 71. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 57.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

71

is a self-contained piece (C2) that while standing in agreement to the literary content does disrupt the textual flow to some degree. The formula, in part, does this, but it is also separated by Paul’s concluding remark (15c) that accentuates the saying and provides a real scenario that is an example of the doctrinal creed addressed in the saying proper (C3). This saying is early orthodoxy. It stresses the person and work of Christ, and articulates conceptually the Incarnation by stating that Christ came ‘into the world’. In that regard, Lk. 19.10, Rom. 5.12, and Johannine phrasings provide external connections (C5). And connected to such a passage is vocabulary (C7) that is infrequently used by Paul. Since the substantive criteria of Structure, Content, and Style are met, 1 Tim. 1.15a-b is embraced as a PT.

1.3. 1 Timothy 1.17                  .

1.3.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The proposed tradition unit is the doxology of 1.17, and it stands as the concluding statement of vv. 1.12-17. The current doxology has been proposed and presented as a PT by many.72 Kelly has specifically articulated its traditional origin when he states in regard to the doxology’s opening presentation, ‘The formula he employs here, like the parallel one in vi. 15f, is almost certainly a liturgical one borrowed from the pre-Christian Hellenistic synagogue … from this it passed to the Christian liturgy.’73 The proposed unit is somewhat separated from the preceding verse. This does not mean it is incohesive. It simply means that it is distinct from what comes before it and what comes after it. The preceding verse concludes with Paul’s testimony concerning the Lord’s patience. In this context, Paul presents his life as an example to all who ‘are going to believe in him for eternal life’ (v. 16). Following this summation Paul presents a new sentence, and a new thought that begins with a postpositive . The text concludes with , a frequent liturgical word of ending that provides a strong affirmation of what is stated.74 Following , the author shifts the content to a direct charge to Timothy. As such, the segment boundaries for consideration are set. The proposed tradition exists in v. 17 alone. No discussion exists in regard to extending its range. This does not mean that it is not challenged in regard to its traditional standing, but it means that v. 17 is viewed as a precise doxological unit that begins no sooner, or ends no later.

72. For example, Hanson says ‘all editors agree that this is a liturgical fragment’ (Pastoral Epistles, 62). 73. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 55–56. 74. BDAG, ‘’, 1, a, 53.

72

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

1.3.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. The evaluation of formulas in doxologies present a bit of a conundrum as the doxologies themselves are often assessed for their general structural (formulaic) presence. This evaluation is different from a formulaic statement that introduces or concludes a tradition unit.75 Yet there is overlap. Black embraces the historical argument that two different types of biblical doxologies exist: (1) those that begin with a more Hebraic presentation, ‘Blessed are you, O Lord God of Israel’, and (2) those that begin with ‘To you, O Lord, is greatness, power, and glory’.76 In evaluating NT doxologies four elements are consistently found: (1) an addressee is presented in the dative case; (2) honor is ascribed with either ‘glory’ or ‘honor’ or some comparable term, (3) a duration of praise is noted (often ‘forever’), and (4) ‘Amen’ is presented as an invitation to affirm the praise.77 In the larger studies of doxologies, 1 Tim 1.17 presents the latter of the two presentations. In reference to the four elements of a NT doxology, the current text displays all expected characteristics. In particular to the presented doxological traits is the opening trait, which signifies a notation regarding the addressee. In this instance the opening doxological trait to the addressee, ‘Now to the King eternal’ (    ), in all likelihood functions as an introductory tradition formula because of the unique phrasing utilized in this announcement of praise. This is the only occurrence of  in Pauline literature and the only phrasing, and structure, of ‘the King eternal’ (  ) in the NT.78 This unique organization presses the language and draws attention to its introduction and placement and probably indicates a liturgical use. Dibelius and Conzelman concur with this perspective in stating that the formula ‘should be regarded as liturgical … [and] [s]ince this prayer contains much Jewish material, we may assume that we are dealing 75. See Matthew Black, ‘The Doxology to the Pater Noster with a Note on Matthew 6.13b’, in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 327–38. Black’s overview and interaction of doxologies in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures provides working parameters for the discussion. For a detailed assessment of Pauline doxologies and their formulaic structure, see L. G. Champion, Benedictions and Doxologies in the Epistles of Paul (Oxford: Kemp Hall, 1934); Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings, JSNTSup 101 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994). 76. Black, ‘The Doxology to the Pater Noster’, 327–28. 77. Jerome H. Neyrey, ‘ “First”, “Only”, “One of a Few”, and “No One Else”: The Rhetoric of Uniqueness and the Doxologies in 1 Timothy’, Biblica 86 (2003): 73. 78. This is a unique structure that is heightened by the plural use of the genitive. The quandary is whether it expresses an innate character or an actual domain. Wallace states ‘the gen. is elastic enough to include both; perhaps the expression was left in the gen. for this very reason, as a sort of pregnant gen’ (Greek Grammar, 104, n. 85).

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

73

with a Jewish cultic formula’.79 It seems sound to understand the doxology as containing a PT formula announcing its presence in its opening statement and also in its existing structure. This dual formula heightens the unit’s presence. (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. The text is self-contained. It opens in a distinct manner and separates itself from the conclusion of v. 16, and it concludes with . This is also seen in the phrase that occurs prior to  (    ) which is the typical ending thought in doxologies.80 It is embraced as a complete unit, and yet it bears the marks of dislocation. While it is woven tightly into the contextual flow, it is ‘distinct’ and could easily function as a stand-alone unit. That is why Miller states that the unit is ‘a fixed, liturgically styled doxology … the contents of which have little connection with the immediate context’.81 Although he overstates the case by implying that there is no literary connection, he is correct in asserting that the unit exists in tension simply because as an inserted preformed piece, it does, to some degree, interrupt the contextual flow. Doxologies, by their nature, are concluding thoughts or responses to God in praise. As such they could easily stand alone. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concept. Regarding elements of orthodoxy or high theology, Guthrie’s description is helpful: ‘New features in earlier examples admittedly appear, but there is the same allabsorbing adoration of God and the same sense of the majesty of God.’82 It is safe to conclude that early orthodoxy and theological concepts are traits common to all doxologies. This does not imply that all doxologies are preformed, but they do, by their very nature, express praise and adoration to God in exalted terminology. As many doxologies are available for comparison, 1.17 is similar in part in wording to the doxology that appears in the conclusion of the letter (6.15-16).83 Apart from the PE, similar wording and structure is used in such texts as Rom. 16.27 (     and  ) ; Gal. 1.15 (  ); and Eph. 3.20 ( ). The chief similarity is undoubtedly the ascribing of glory and honor to God. But this is a primary thematic function of all NT doxologies. In the current context, the word usage is very descriptive and emphasizes theological concepts. For example, God is described as immortal (). The word is only used of God in Rom. 1.23 when distinguishing him from mortal creatures. He is also described as invisible (). This descriptive concept is rooted in the OT understanding that God could not be seen (Exod. 33.18). In this doxology

79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 30. For examples of this common ending, see Phil. 4.20; 2 Tim. 4.18; 1 Pet. 4.11. Miller, Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 65. Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 60. This is covered in detail in the current chapter, section ‘1 Timothy 6’, below.

74

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

he is also expressed as ‘the only God’ ( ) . This has clear connections to Deut. 6.4 and NT descriptions (Rom. 3.30; 1 Cor. 8.4; Eph. 4.6; Jude 25). Such descriptions are theological concepts and serve as anchors for early orthodoxy. They express central beliefs concerning God. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. The content is theological in nature as opposed to formational. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. A host of previously cited texts serve as similar external passages. Specific to the PE, 1 Tim. 6.16, and 2 Tim. 4.18 display similarities. External to the PE, texts such as Rom. 11.36, Gal. 1.5, and 1 Pet. 4.11 express parallels of wording and style already indicated. The similarities of doxologies in general imply a working framework to their structure and style. This alone does not imply preformation as an author often uses common wording and general structure. It does imply, however, that external passages express similar content. (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. All doxologies to some degree reflect poetic tendencies because they present adoration through terminology that elevates expressions and leads to worship. In part this occurs because of word choice. But at times this occurs because of word placement, alliteration, and rhythmic quality. Such is the case with 1.17. In regard to its poetic presentation, the linguistic layout of the wording is noteworthy. Praise is given to the King who is described as ‘eternal’ (), ‘immortal’ (), ‘invisible’ (), and the ‘only God’ ( ). The first three descriptive words are presented in a triadic description that is rhythmic in sound because of the initial alpha that begins each word. The description culminates in the centrality of Judaic worship as the praise is rightfully presented to the ‘only’ () God (cf. Deut. 6.4). (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. The definitions of each word are no less inflated because of the poetic presentation. The emphasis on eternality is emblematic of a Semitic idiom ‘into the ages of ages’ (    ) which implies ‘forever’.84 Descriptions of immortality and invisible qualities are reserved almost exclusively for God. This also may explain the variant that occurs in this tradition as well.85 This is noted by Johnson when he 84. Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 103–104. 85. The Textus Receptus has  prior to  and renders the alternate translation ‘the only wise God’. Metzger summarizes, ‘The word is no doubt a scribal gloss derived from Romans 16.27; the shorter reading is strongly supported by good representation of both the Alexandrian and the Western types of text (, A, D*, F, G, H*, 33, 1739, itd,g, vg, syrp, copsa,bo, arm, eth, arab)’ (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994], 639).

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

75

states that 1.17 has ‘a variety of modifiers for God in Paul’s doxology: some Mss read “deathless, invisible”, others “incorruptible, invisible, deathless”, while still others add “wise” to “only God”. Such alterations reflect, in all likelihood, the language of worship.’86 As previously discussed, doxological uniqueness does occur in the opening description ‘To the King of the ages’ (    ) as well as the ascription given to God as ‘immortal’ (). (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. One minor syntactical nuance has been previously described (  ), but it is likely a by-product of the poetic language and a heightened description of God. As such, this segment does not exhibit this criterion. It appears conducive to normal syntactical structure associated with doxologies.

1.3.3. Preformation Conclusion The boundaries of the unit are confined to 1.17 alone. The opening words of the unit make it distinct from the preceding context and it concludes in proper doxological form which separates it from 1.18. With boundaries set, the survey has demonstrated that at least six different criteria are identifiable. Specifically, the unit contains two criteria of Structure, two pertaining to Content, and two reflective of Style. In regard to Structure, the unit opens with an introduction (C1), albeit a unique introduction that is also reflective of its doxological presence. The unique wording in the introduction supports this decision. The text also structurally is set apart and contained (C2). There exists strong evidence of its unity and it could exist independently. While admittedly most longer doxologies would meet this criteria, the length and symmetry provide grounds for validating adherence to this standing. It reflects structure and organization. In terms of Content, it is theological in nature and reflects convictions of the Judeo-Christian faith (C3). The descriptions of God solidify this criterion. Basic tenets confessing God as the ‘only God’ ( ) express it well. The unit also has external passages with which it can associate (C5). Primary to these are other doxological units that reflect similar wording and concepts. Stylistically, the unit reflects a basic poetic nuance. The patterned, descriptive wording of God provides a rhythmic quality and flow to the unit. Even the concluding ‘Amen’ brings a sense of affirmation to a unit meant to be lyrically professed. This proclamation occurs with some unique wording (C7) and phrasings, or patterns that are more common in the PE. Since the criteria of Structure, Content, and Style are met, 1 Tim. 1.17 is embraced as a PT.

86. Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 118.

76

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

2. 1 Timothy 2 Three potential tradition texts are evaluated in 1 Timothy 2. Under consideration are 2.1-2; 2.5-6; and 2.15–3.1a.87 Each proposed unit is provided contextual and segment boundaries. It is then evaluated regarding the eight criteria of Structure, Content, and Style. Based on diagnosed criteria a text is assigned a preformation conclusion.

2.1. 1 Timothy 2.1-2                               .

2.1.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The passage falls in line in an interesting movement of the letter. The second chapter of 1 Timothy marks a change from its preceding context. ‘A remarkable change in the literary “atmosphere” is apparent in this section. The personal remarks to Timothy (1.18-20) give way to an unexpected collection of formal community regulations and duties.’88 Specific to the divisions within the larger unit are found a discussion concerning prayer and salvation (2.1-7), roles and responsibilities of men and women (2.8-15), qualifications of overseers (3.1-7), and qualifications of deacons (3.8-13). The proposed traditional segment (2.1-2) resides in the larger opening section of 2.1-7. The larger unit, as well as the segment under investigation, commences with a statement concerning prayer with a primary emphasis on salvation. It opens with the phrase ‘First of all, then’ or ‘Therefore, first of all’ (   ). This text, much like 1.18-20, opens with an exhortatory statement that is followed by a  clause, signifying the purpose of the exhortation. The verb of the  clause () is first-person plural, indicating that the exhortation has now moved from a scenario directed toward Timothy (as in 1.18-20) to one of community instruction. The fact that 2.1-2 is a unit is noted for two reasons. First, the unit is one sentence that extends through both verses; it has one verbal clause with multiple  clauses followed by a single  clause. Second, textual markers exist that seem to distinguish it as a distinct unit. For example,  is used four times, 87. 1 Tim. 2.15 is discussed in relation to the    statement in 3.1a. This is placed in the current analysis because 2.15 is understood as part of the concluding unit addressed in 1 Timothy 2 (i.e., 2.8-15) as opposed to the coming context that unfolds in 3.1-7. Verse 3.1a as it relates to 3.1b will be addressed in the assessment of traditions in 1 Timothy 3. 88. Miller, Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 66.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

77

one of which occurs at the beginning of v. 1 and one at the conclusion of v. 2. Thematically the two verses are connected topically, emphasizing prayer for all people. Following the segment, v. 3 begins to move toward a more doctrinal emphasis of God which is expressed in v. 4 with the use of the relative pronoun . All of this identifies 2.1-2 as a unit.

2.1.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. No formulaic introduction exists. The text opens with the expression    that can be translated ‘First of all, then’, or ‘Therefore, above everything else’. Such a phrase, noted by , appears to note urgency and priority and connects 2.1-7 to the preceding context of Chapter 1. These opening words ( ) are quite normal in Pauline writings and do not seem to signify tradition insertion but are simply emphasized instruction.89 However, Miller does embrace the unit as traditional material. He notes the conjunction  which exists at 2.3 as a variant and states that it is a ‘marker of traditional materials, signaling here the inclusion of a community rule in 2.1-2, and declaring its validity’.90 While  can help note a content shift that could demonstrate an inserted piece, it seems without warrant. First, the variant lacks the weight of the preferred reading91 and instead seems placed to bring continuity between vv. 2 and 3.92 Second, the variant is after the proposed tradition.93 And even if embraced, it would only have bearing on what follows. (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. While the unit is fairly succinct, it does not exist in tension due to dislocation. Much cohesion is displayed with its surrounding context. Van Neste provides a corroborating synthesis: Some features display a strong link between 2.3 and 2.1-2. First, the use of the pronoun, , in 2.3, links 2.3ff. to 2.1-2 because it refers back to the material of 2.1-2. 2.3 then acts as a bridge, connecting vv. 1–2 with vv. 3ff. by saying the prayer in vv. 1–2 is pleasing to the God described in vv. 3ff. Secondly, the couplet of adjectives joined by  which modify  in 2.3 (  ) mirrors the use of couples joined by  in 2.2 (  ,   ). Third, the occurrence of   in 2.4 and  in 2.6 connects with 

89. Cf. Rom. 12.1; 1 Cor. 4.16; and Eph. 4.1. 90. Miller, Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 68. The variant is supported in part by  (corrected), D, F, G et al. 91. The preferential reading is supported in part, according to the NA27 apparatus, by *, A, 6, 33, 81, 1739 et al. Mounce references the variant as a later ‘clarification’ (Pastoral Epistles, 75, note b). 92. For a similar variant insertion, see Gal. 1.10. 93. I.e., 2.3: ‘[]  …’. This further supports the general connection of content.

78

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy  in 2.1 (and the other three occurrences of  in 2.1-2). These connections make it clear that 2.3-6 flow out of 2.1-2.94

So, while the unit has boundaries, it does not seem to express expected PT dislocation. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. The content is more regulatory in nature. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. The didactical content is community orthopraxy. The opening statement is an emphasis on prayer. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. Other texts address this theme.95 The primary parallel is conceptual. The current unit is unique in the command for prayer and appears instigated for reasons presented in the verses to come (2.3-7). (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. The unit contains two NT hapax legomena,96 two references that are PE hapax legomena,97 and a word that is frequent to the Lucan tradition.98 Possibly, this unique context of prayer led to the semantic specificity, or was reflective of an amanuensis,99 or was language directed to the opponents. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. No highly unusual structures are observable beyond those related to vocabulary.

2.1.3. Preformation Conclusion The unit does not display criteria of Structure. Although the segment is succinct, it lacks expected autonomy (C2). It has no introductory phrase or formula (C1) other than a note of urgent instruction that is common throughout the NT. Nevertheless, the unit does express some expected criteria of traditional material. It favors a common theme (C4) and context familiarity that could most

94. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 31–32. 95. Cf. Rom. 13.1; 1 Pet. 2.14, 17; Tit. 3.1. 96.  (‘petition, request, prayer’),  (‘quiet, tranquil’). 97.  (‘spend one’s life, live’),  (‘seriousness, dignity’). 98.  (‘life, everyday life’). 99. For a fresh overview of the hypothesis concerning Lucan involvement in the formation of the PE see Rainer Riesner, ‘Once More: Luke–Acts and the Pastoral Epistles’, in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, ed. SangWon (Aaron) Son (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 239–58.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

79

certainly exist as community instruction. While the unit is identifiable in an external concept, it is not strong in its specificity of wording and presents more of a kerygmatic connection. The unit’s strongest criterion is that of vocabulary (C7). Several unique words or phrases are evident. At the onset of this study the expectation of primary criteria reflective of Structure, Content, and Style was established as the base, normal expression for traditional material. According to criteria establishment the unit does not reflect normal expected criteria of Structure. Others do embrace it as a traditional expression. Miller states, ‘It can scarcely be doubted that the regulation here has been incorporated from another source, be it a church order, or an ancient liturgy, or a Jewish prayer manual.’100 Also Dibelius and Conzelmann note that it sounds ‘catechetical’ with inclinations toward ‘liturgical language or prayer’.101 However, the unit lacks Structural precision, and while it ‘sounds’ potentially liturgical, it is not introduced as traditional material and it does not separate itself in any manner from its context. It could be that behind the verses was a common source and instruction that influenced much of the wording. It is always important to note that common themes and instructional patterns are at the root of much of the NT. As the unit lacks expected criteria it is not embraced as a PT.

2.2. 1 Timothy 2.5-6                      .

2.2.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The current proposed tradition falls in line with the contextual boundaries of the previous evaluation. Specifically within 2.1-7, the text contains two sub-units: vv. 1–2 and vv. 3–7. The segment opens in v. 5 with the clause, ‘For there is one God (  )’. Not only does this present a new doctrinal highlight in the text, but what follows is a unit (vv. 5–6) of great symmetry. It ‘is a balanced unit containing four rhythmical clauses; its compact literary style is notably different from that of the materials surrounding it. The fact that it is a set form is confirmed by its inclusion of ideas that appear unmotivated by the context (for example, the mention of monotheism, and the reference to Jesus’ mediatorial role)’.102 The intent thus far is not to evaluate traditional characteristics, but to identify a general, structural presence to the unit. Such an observation assists in identifying the concluding boundary of the segment. At the close of v. 6, the statement ‘the testimony given in its proper time’ (   ) appears in rather awkward language. The phrase 100. Miller, Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 67–68. 101. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 36. 102. Miller, Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 69.

80

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

‘is difficult. It either concludes or was appended to the traditional material to make the transition to the personal statement which follows.’103 The view that includes the phrase as part of the statement understands that it is in apposition to the previous phrase (5-6a). In this case, the emphasis is on the Christian message. As there is symmetry in the unit this position embraces the phrase as the fifth and concluding clause of the metric.104 Yet there is greater support for understanding the phrase as Paul’s addendum to the unit. There are four reasons in particular. First, it brings emphasis to the ‘witness’ (), which is an apostolic function that Paul elsewhere demonstrates. For example, in 2 Thess. 1.10 Paul states that the ‘belief’ of the community of faith in Thessalonica was in response to his ‘testimony’ or ‘witness’ ( ). Paul also seems to present this thematically in Tit. 1.1-3. The phrase is a set-up for the content to come (1 Tim. 2.7). Second, if the phrase is included with what comes before, its meaning is very ambiguous. Third, the parallelism is better when 6b is omitted from the structure.105 Fourth, it has the greatest support from various authors who have wrestled with this issue long before this study.106 In lieu of such uses, and in light of the following verse (v. 7), it seems best to view the phrase as an appendix to vv. 5–6a that helps transition the previous unit into a description of his apostolic function. Following the transition set by 6b, v. 7 concludes the larger unit (2.1-7) and is set apart from the sub-unit previously discussed (vv. 5–6a). It serves as a bookend in that it returns to the use of the first-person singular with Paul himself as the primary subject ( ). ‘The topic is still related to the doctrinal concerns of 2.3-6 as noted by the words , , and , each of which in this context clearly refers to the communication of the doctrinal truths mentioned previously.’107 The proposed tradition then exists in 2.5-6a. The only consideration of segment extension surrounds v. 6 and the statement ‘the testimony given in its proper time’ (   ). But as briefly displayed, the phrase is arguably an appendix to the thematic statement of 2.5-6a. In reference to the structure and literary flow of the larger unit (2.1-7) in which the proposed tradition (2.5-6a) exists, Mounce brings great clarity: 1 Timothy 2.1-7 divides into two parts. (1) Paul urges Timothy and the Ephesian church not to exclude some people from church prayers and consequently the offer of salvation (v. 1). He parenthetically specifies one group of people who especially 103. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 432. 104. The NA27 has embraced this position and indented the entire phrase (2.5-6), including the final stanza (   ). 105. See the current study, ‘1 Timothy 2.5-6’, ‘Criteria Evaluation’, ‘Criteria of Style’, ‘C6: Poetic Nuances’, for a detailed evaluation of the poetic presentation. 106. This position is held by the majority of commentators including Marshall (Pastoral Epistles, 433) and Mounce (Pastoral Epistles, 90). 107. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 34.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

81

should not be excluded: (secular) leaders (v. 2). (2) Paul follows with three reasons why the Ephesian church should include all people in their prayers and the scope of salvation: (a) in general this is pleasing to God, who wishes all people to be saved (vv. 3-4); (b) it is in line with the mediator’s work, which provided a ransom for all people (vv. 5-6); and (c) excluding the Gentiles from the scope of salvation runs counter to Paul’s divinely appointed ministry (v. 7).108

It is now important to evaluate the unit’s reflection of preformed criteria.

2.2.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. The proposed unit does not display ample evidence to deem it as an expression of this criterion, although many provide a good case for embracing it as such. Dibelius and Conzelmann proposed this long ago by stating that the opening reference is reflective of a large number of ‘one God’ formulas, yet not existing as a ‘“creedal formula” or “confession”, but rather a liturgical piece, as style and content indicate’.109 Towner brings more clarity to this position: ‘In pre-Christian times the Jews employed this “there is one God” formula, which echoes the thought of the Shema (Deut. 6.4), to counteract the polytheistic claims of the pagan religions. Paul went a step further and drew on the oneness of God to demonstrate that all have access to God’s salvation: the fact that there is one God of both Jews and Gentiles means salvation for the Gentiles too (Rom. 3.29-30; Eph. 4.4-6).’110 Towner sees such an ‘echo’ as a formula based in Judaism but now adapted to the Christian context and that it functions more as a strategic ‘introduction’, setting up the discussion of mediatorship of Christ as opposed to a theological encapsulation of monotheism of which it also speaks. Such an evaluation would certainly merge the relationship and study between PTs and those pertaining to use of the OT in the NT. Towner is not alone in his proposal. Martin, to some degree, also sees this more as an introductory matter because it references a Jewish creed, which, as he states, is a confession of faith that was used as an opening ‘introduction’ in synagogue worship.111 Hence to fully investigate this topic would necessitate a 108. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 77. While it appears from this statement that Mounce embraces 6b as part of the proposed traditional statement, he does not. As he states: ‘It seems more likely, however, that v. 6b is Paul’s comment on the creed’ (ibid.). It is possible to embrace 6b as pertaining to the structural unit but not existing as part of the traditional statement. If it is an addendum added by Paul, as embraced by this study, it still fits thematically and simply heightens the verse to come (v. 7). 109. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 41. 110. Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus, 66. 111. Ralph P. Martin, ‘Worship’, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 985. Martin also draws on the fact that the second division of the synagogue prayers leads to ‘prayer proper’ in which supplications are made for those in need (exiles, judges, counselors, and the chosen

82

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

detailed exploration of introductory formulas in regard to type, function, and the specificity of authorship, which is not within the scope of this study. However, there does seem to be a difference of formulaic material in that some (as in 1 Tim. 1.15) truly ‘introduce’ the material, where others, as here, appear to function as part of the PT (i.e., existing as part of the ‘tradition’ itself). As such, it seems best not to view the statement as an introductory formula. (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. 1 Tim. 2.5-6a displays characteristics of adherence to this criterion. Barring discussion concerning the latter part of v. 6, the proposed passage exists as a succinct segment. Even if included, the unit is set apart from its previous context (2.1-4) and the autobiographical conclusion presented by the apostle in v. 7. As it is situated, it is a highly contained unit that could stand alone in its presentation. Yet it also displays contextual dislocation. The primary shift in flow is seen in the various transitions. As noted, v. 5 opens with ‘for’ (). By its very nature  is a coordinating conjunction that presents a cause or reason, or an explanatory referent, or an inferential connection.112 In this case it connects the segment with the larger unit. The application sets a break in the pattern, and the context also pivots it against what was already presented and what would come afterward. While this does not mean that there are no grammatical or linguistic connections, it does mean that it appears as a unit that disturbs the continuity of the material in a manner that draws attention to the prescribed unit. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. The segment’s verbiage is unmistaken regarding a strong developing orthodoxy reflective of formidable Christology. It does so through the utilization of descriptive theological lingo. Outside of the monotheistic formula in the opening of v. 5, the emphasis on Christ as the Mediator () occurs only here and in Gal. 3.20, Heb. 8.6, and Heb. 9.15, each with a unique nuance of meaning. While there are contextual emphases that make each use distinct, in rabbinic Judaism  is linked with ‘the meaning of , in the sense of “broker”, “negotiator”, “interpreter”, … and in essentials the term is used exclusively for Moses as the commissioned agent of God’.113 So as the word carries the connotation of a commissioned representative, Paul now describes both the representative and his work. people). Thus he proposes that 1 Tim. 2.1-4, in relationship to vv. 5–6, is somewhat reflective of this pattern. This, of course, would demonstrate that the pattern in Timothy exists in reverse (prayer [2.1-4], followed by doctrinal confession [2.5-6]) as opposed to what was customary in synagogue worship. Yet the context does briefly return to prayer again in 1 Tim. 2.8. Nonetheless Martin’s interjection into the backdrop of such circumstances is well noted, especially in view of the existence of the ‘opponents’. 112. BDAG, ‘’, 189–90. 113. A. Oepke, ‘μεσίτης’, TDNT (1967), vol. 4, 615.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

83

In 1 Tim. 2.5,  is used in a highly Christian context, moving well beyond the rabbinic grasp and communicating, in part, the mystery of the atoning sacrifice of the God-man Jesus Christ. ‘He is expressly called man to emphasize that He belongs to all who bear the face of man. The universal validity of His mediatorial self-offering to death gives all a share in salvation from God’s standpoint. This saving act is the central theme of the apostolic witness addressed to all.’114 The message is that Christ is the means of access to the One God. Having mediated the New Covenant (Heb. 8.6; 9.15; 12.24) Christ stands between the fractured parties (i.e., God and humanity) and makes possible a restored relationship. Such linguistic use presents an elevated perspective of Christ and brings emphasis to this special and exclusive function. The focal point of this segment is in the articulation of Christ as the one who ‘gave himself as a ransom for all’. This also substantiates this criterion. ‘Ransom’ () is a Pauline hapax legomenon, that when used in connection with the concept of ‘giving himself’ (  ) is most certainly related to Mk 10.45, which states that the Son of Man came to ‘give his life as a ransom for many’ (      ). This is of enormous theological weight and through it opens one of the great mysteries of the faith. Büchsel is correct: ‘By intention, the saying of Jesus is only allusive. It gives an insight into the mystery of God which is to be humbly venerated and yet also protected against over-subtle curiosity; hence its figurative form. It is to be understood in terms of the history narrated in the Gospels … It is part of the history of the death of Jesus.’115 Hence the orthodoxy of this particular tradition is composed of an OT monotheistic profession and a gospel teaching of Jesus, packaged now as an embraced tradition of the NT church that confesses the work of Christ as the only Mediator sent from the only God. It is with such persuasion that Paul reminds the community of faith in Ephesus of why they are to pray. The sacrifice of Christ was for all () people (2.6a). The teaching in this unit goes full circle because it was with the opening command in 2.1 that they are directed to pray for all people ( ). To do anything less is to treat the death of Christ with contempt.116 (ii) C4: Emphasis on Orthopraxy and Paraenetic Content. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. The content is orthodoxical in nature as opposed to regulatory. (iii) C5: Identifiable External Parallel Passages. Several passages may be thematically linked to the current text, thus displaying the unit’s expression of the criterion, even in addition to texts previously cited. For example, 1 Cor. 8.6 opens with, ‘Yet for us there is one God’ (   ). The phrasing is 114. Ibid., 619. 115. F. Büchsel, ‘λύτρον’, TDNT, vol. 4, 343. 116. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 89.

84

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

the same as the opening statement in 1 Tim. 2.5. Also the verse in 1 Corinthians concludes with the words ‘through whom are all things and through whom we live’ (       ). This is arguably presenting Christ as the Mediator of all things, especially life. While this portrays a different emphasis on His role as Mediator that is not as specific as the description in 1 Timothy (in which He is described in positional placement between God and man), it nonetheless shows continuity of the grammatical prominence of the preposition , which stresses means, instrumentation, or agency. Additional texts should also be cited in regard to the ‘giving up’ concept (cf. Rom. 8.32) and in particular with emphasis on Christ being given ‘for us’ ( ), as in Eph. 5.2, and for the church, as in Eph. 5.25. This theme also continues elsewhere in passages in the PE that address the context of redemption.117 (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. A strong poetic structure is displayed in the current unit’s presentation, thus giving 1 Tim. 2.5-6a a sturdy association with this criterion of Style. The text reflects an aural ring that could have been presented in a public profession of faith, or more likely, in a worship setting reflective of synagogue worship. As Jeremias and Strobel state, ‘Das ist der Sinn des Zitats in V. 5-6 … das wie ein formuliertes Gemeindebekenntnis klingt’.118 Towner concurs, noting that Paul is drawing on ‘well-known formulations; they may be parts of the early church’s hymns or creeds, and the readers would have recognized them immediately’.119 While the audience ‘recognition’ is difficult if not impossible to prove, it is a plausible conjecture because of the memorable effect that such a poetic presence undoubtedly makes. This poetic presence is identified by the majority of scholars.120 117. In Tit. 2.14, the basic structure is quite similar. Note the consistent use of ,  , and . 118. Joachim Jeremias and August Strobel, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus – Der Brief an die Hebräer, 12th edn, Das Neue Testament Deutsch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 20. 119. Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus, 65–66. 120. In a rather humorous statement prior to his focused endeavor on the mediatorship of Christ, Hanson almost bemoans the fact that such a plethora of descriptive phrasings exist: ‘Naturally these verses have been claimed by many modern editors as constituting some sort of formula, whether liturgical, creedal, or catechectical … Thus B. S. Easton calls them liturgical, “a Christian version of the Jewish Shemac”. A. J. B. Higgins describes them as part of “a primitive creed”. D-C agrees that they are liturgical, and J. N. D. Kelly accepts them as a catechetical or liturgical formula. P. Carrington goes so far as to suggest that they are “a piece of a Eucharistic anaphora” ’ (Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, Studies in the Pastoral Epistles [London: SPCK, 1968], 57). The statement is humorous in the sense that after presenting such a detailed opening statement and displaying particular interest in noting the various phrases regarding the structure and style of 1 Tim. 2.5-6, Hanson concludes, ‘We are not concerned here with the relation … It is in the word “mediator” that we are particularly interested’ (ibid.). Nonetheless the listing of

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

85

Two distinct stanzas, with four clauses that display a parallel movement, comprise the unit. It ‘is a balanced unit containing four rhythmical clauses; its compact literary style is notably different from that of the material surrounding it’.121 The parallel form is seen in the following structure: Stanza

1A    [For there is one God]

 1B



Stanza

2A    [(the) man Christ Jesus]

2B  



      [and one Mediator between God and humanity]

      [who gave Himself as a ransom for all]

The parallel structure is noticeable in that lines 1A and 2A are both short and succinct. Each is then followed by its supplemental clause that completes the initial thought. The theme flows from 1A to 1B in that both clauses open with  and are connected with the common . Also 2A and 2B display continuity in that   is followed by the rhythmic break with the masculine, aorist participle ( ) which seems to stress the concluding thought. There also exists the aural tone at the conclusion of each primary stanza in that each concludes with the genitive ending (1A – , 2B – ). As previously addressed, the current model embraces the final stanza of v. 6 (   ) as an appendage that connects the tradition to the context to come, which links the witness () to Paul’s apostolic appointment as a preacher () and a teacher (). Others have proposed that 1 Tim. 2.6b be included in the poetic flow.122 Easton notes, ‘The truth of vv. 3–4 is confirmed by a citation, whose five abrupt clauses – particularly the fifth – are quite foreign to the style of the Pastorals.’123 Kent also embraces 1 Tim. 2.6b as part of the segment.124 Viewed this way, the structure would have two primary complementary clauses ([1]  , [2]     ) followed by three supporting clauses that stress his humanity (v. 5c:   ), his role (v. 6a:  phrases indeed reinforces the presence that such a passage most notably contains. To this end its poetic structure is an expression of Style as it resembles a highly organized poetic presence. 121. Miller, Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 69. 122. For a brief overview addressing considerations and translation implications see Richard D. Balge, ‘Exegetical Brief: 1 Timothy 2:6 – the Testimony Given in its Proper Time’, Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 98 (2001): 291–92. 123. Burton Scott Easton, The Pastoral Epistles: Introduction, Translation, Commentary and Word Studies (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947), 121. 124. Kent, Pastoral Epistles, 101.

86

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

    ), and the time (v. 6b:    ). Yet the previous structure is preferred based on the parallel presentation of the text and because of the following verse (v. 7). It is important to note that the criterion is not in jeopardy even if v. 6b is included. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. Technically, , as used in 1 Tim. 2.6a, only occurs here in the NT. However, the word is a compound of  and , both of which are used in conjunction with one another in Mt. 20.28 and Mk 10.45. In the current context, the words that seems to substantiate a theme are , ‘in place of’, and , ‘on behalf of’. In this case Christ is a ransom (in place of) and on behalf of all. Such substitutionary language validates why prayer should be given for all (1 Tim. 2.1-2). (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. With the exclusion of 1 Tim. 2.6b, this segment does not exhibit this criterion. It is structurally sound.

2.2.3. Preformation Conclusion 1 Tim. 2.5-6a is a distinct unit that reflects several strong criteria expected of traditional material. Structurally, the segment is self-contained and could exist as an autonomous literary unit (C2). It is well organized and separates itself appropriately from its context. Regarding Content, it reflects terminology of doctrinal centrality of the Christian faith (C3), and many external passages (C5) exist with which it can associate and find common ground (cf. 1 Cor. 8.6, Rom. 8.32, and Eph. 5). The unit also displays a criterion of Style. The segment has a strong display of poetic structure and reflects organization and movement. This criterion alone indicates a textual presence that brings emphasis to its placement in the letter. In conclusion, based on the criterion representation of Structure, Content, and Style, 1 Tim. 2.5-6a is embraced as a PT. 2.3. 1 Timothy 2.15–3.1a                  .

2.3.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The proposed passage is a complex text that has spawned widespread dialog and voluminous writings. The passage itself (2.15) serves as the concluding verse of a local unit that exists in 2.8-15. While most agree that the unit (2.8-15) exists as stated, some argue that v. 8 is the conclusion of the previous unit (vv. 1–7) and thus extend the unit to include v. 8 since it also addresses the subject of prayer.125 However, it is better to see the unit beginning in v. 8 because of 125. Guthrie (Pastoral Epistles, 73–74) and George W. Knight III (George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992], 130) includes v. 8 with 2.1-7. Guthrie provides no reason for its inclusion and Knight suggests that it is simply a ‘transitional’ verse (ibid.).

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

87

(a) the  and (b) the shift from  to , which implies (especially with the use of  in v. 9) the movement from an address to people in general, to specific scenarios regarding men and women in the Christian community, most likely in a descriptive worship setting. The unit itself (2.8-15) is somewhat puzzling, but thematically it includes three units that cover (a) instructions concerning men and prayer (v. 8), (b) instructions concerning women and adornment as it relates to godliness (vv. 9–10), and (c) instructions addressing women and teaching (vv. 11–15). The segment under consideration is 2.15, which resides as the concluding statement about women and teaching. The unit itself shows a logical connection between vv. 11 and 12 because they exist as one sentence. The greatest shift comes between v. 12 and v. 13. ‘For’ () in its common sense, is a ‘marker of cause or reason’126 and is best understood in this light.127 With this ‘estrangement’ (between vv. 12 and 13), Miller sees 2.13-15 as a unit that is a collection of material and ‘sayings’ that in itself functions as the conclusion of the section.128 Lock also holds this position, yet with an important distinction. He embraces vv. 13–14 as a unit expressing a Jewish cultic flavor which is then followed by a ‘Christian saying’ (v. 15) that denotes a positive movement concerning the role of women. He states, ‘I would suggest that the previous words,   … , are a quotation from some Jewish Apocrypha, scornful of women (this would make the perfect tense  more natural), which is answered by quoting a well-known Christian saying about the effect of the Incarnation on women.’129 Hence his proposal is that v. 15 is a distinct inserted tradition. Lock has since been joined by Dibelius and Conzelmann (1972), Bassler (1996), Quinn and Wacker (2000), and most recently by Ellis (2001). In fact Ellis proposes that the unit encapsulates 2.9-3.1a, thus linking the context as a tradition piece and associating it with 3.1a. He states, ‘1 Tim. 2:9–3:1a appears to be a cited “faithful saying” … taken over by Paul from circles in the church at Caesarea or at Rome’.130 Yet Ellis is unique in embracing the breadth of the passage as preformed. By far, those who understand the ‘faithful saying’ of 3.1a to accentuate what comes before it, do so by usually associating it to 2.15 alone. They do not link it to the material that precedes it in vv. 9–14. The 126. BDAG, ‘’, 1, 189. 127. However, there are those that lobby for the infrequent use of  in this context. In this regard the conjunction would be functioning as interjecting a contextual illustration (Eve) which, it would be assumed, parallels the deception occurring to the Ephesian women. For a thorough presentation of the interpretive options, see D. M. Scholer, ‘1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry’, in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. A. Berkeley Mickelsen (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 193–224. 128. Miller, Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 73. 129. Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 33. 130. Ellis, Making of the New Testament Documents, 84.

88

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

proposed tradition, for the sake of this evaluation, exists in 2.15. With primary boundaries of 2.15 set, its relationship to 3.1a must now be determined. Some attempt to associate 2.15 with the formulaic statement of 3.1a (  ).131 They do so not on a grammatical appeal but on an appeal to the theological nature of 2.15 and the proposition that it is more like 1.15 and other ‘faithful word’ passages. Specifically proponents of the 2.15–3.1a association see a common theme to salvific content as occurs in other ‘faithful word’ statements. Also they appeal to Tit. 3.8, which has    in apposition to the previous context (Tit. 3.5-7). Yet this rationale does not seem right. Embedded in this decision is the assumption that (1) all ‘faithful word’ sayings must be soteriologically driven or at least orthodoxically rooted, or (2) that there is nothing genuinely ‘faithful’ () about 1 Tim. 3.1b. However, both assumptions are preferential for those who embrace them. The counterargument can be presented. The faithful saying phrase nowhere mandates a salvific referent, and since 1 Timothy is predicated on the importance of sound leadership it is permissible to argue that the call to such a position would be an appropriate ‘saying’. Thus, those who associate 3.1a with 3.1b primarily do so because of the aphoristic132 nature of 3.1b,133 and the lack thereof pertaining to 2.15. It seems best to associate 3.1a with 3.1b ‘since nothing that can really be called a  precedes’.134 With this conviction and with the acknowledgement that such decisions have ramifications on the criteria evaluation, the segment is bound to 2.15 and will not be evaluated with 3.1a.

2.3.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. With the exclusion of    (3.1a), 2.15 does not display a formulaic introduction or conclusion. It opens with the post-positive . This coordinating conjunction indicates transition normality. (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. While the material of 2.15 does display some semblance of dislocation, it is tied to the larger unit (2.8-15) in two ways. First, it is connected with  which occurs in 2.15 and 2.9. Second, 2.15 is similar to 2.9a-10. In this regard the verses exhort godly women to good works. As such the text seems bound to the preceding context and would struggle as a stand-alone unit without textual support. As it relates to the totality of the chapter, 2.15 seems better suited as 131. This position is also modeled by NA27. 132. By ‘aphoristic’ is meant a short concise statement of a principle, or an embraced general truth. 133. The following section on 1 Tim. 3.1 articulates the reasons for embracing the formulaic notation in 3.1a with 3.1b. 134. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 475.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

89

a reflection of potential, general, kerygmatic material. It is possible that the content was in relationship to Jewish teaching and cultural associations that were circumstantially bound, especially in light of the erroneous teachings of the Ephesians’ opponents and the battle regarding sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1.10;  ). (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. Although there is a soteriological flavor to the unit due to the phrase ‘But women will be saved (or “But she will be delivered”, or “But she will be preserved”) through childbearing’ (    ), the unit does not express a central theological concept or material generally considered early orthodoxy, at least not in the normally patterned expression. This verse is unique. While   does consistently refer to salvation from sin, the application of this use (albeit true and instructional), as linked to women and childbearing, is exclusive to the current presentation. It is not commonplace in its phrasing nor is it repeated elsewhere. More common than not, ‘early orthodoxy’ references salvific connotations or the saving act of Christ.135 (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. Although instruction is given, the emphasis of the specific passage is not central to delivery but relates to the teaching contained in the larger unit (2.8-15). (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. There are no passages with associated wording of such precision. While the text has probable associations with Genesis 3, it has no NT parallels. It is quite unique.136 (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. There is no noticeable poetic structure or distinguishable symmetry. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. Two words express unique function. ‘Childbearing’ () is a NT hapax legomenon. Although Paul addresses the role of women elsewhere, he does not use such wording.137 Also, as previously stated,  (‘self-control’) is used only in 1 Tim. 2.9 and 2.15, and once in Acts. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. Syntactically there are three issues that display the pressing of grammar and normal linguistic use. The first noticeable issue is that of . While  frequently connotes salvation from 135. E.g., 1 Tim 1.15, 2.4; 2 Tim 1.9. 136. While the larger unit (1 Tim. 2.8-15) is frequently discussed in relation to 1 Pet. 3.3-6, no parallels compare to the nuances presented in 1 Tim. 2.15. 137. Cf. 1 Cor. 14.34-35.

90

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

sin in the PE, the interpreter is left to debate the nuanced meaning in the context. Is it to be understood in terms of salvation from divine wrath at judgment, or is it a perspective of deliverance? For the purpose of criterion identity, it is not necessary to delve into the complexity of the meaning but to display that an unusual syntactical display is demonstrated. The second syntactical issue is the relationship of  to  . The term  is a medical term that portrays the physical act of bearing children.138 In all likelihood the ‘term here is meant to encompass the whole process of bearing and raising children; but it certainly cannot refer merely to the latter’.139 The third issue is the force of . Its meaning and function are important and have implications ranging from a perspective of instrumentation to accompaniment. These examples express a unique presentation. While the answers to such questions are unnecessary at this time, what is important to identify is that such syntactical structures exist and validate criteria standing.

2.3.3. Preformation Conclusion 1 Tim. 2.15 is the final verse of a larger unit (2.8-15). It is the concluding statement of that unit and ends with the charge to women to continue in faith, love, and holiness with self-control. The unit does not extend beyond 2.15. Instead it is strongly connected to its preceding material both linguistically and thematically. In regard to criteria adherence, the segment does display some criteria reflective of traditional material, but is lacking in certain expected criterion categories. Primary to this absence is the category of Structure. The segment does not display sufficient evidence within this category. Specifically, the unit does not display an introductory or concluding formula (C1). The unit begins and ends in a normal fashion. Likewise the segment does not reflect itself as being highly contained or dislocated (C2). On the contrary, it flows naturally within the greater unit (2.8-15) and is connected linguistically. In regard to Content, the unit is unique. While the soteriological emphasis of 2.15 could be argued, it does not reflect the normally expected content related to early orthodoxy (C3). A central theological concept that would be expected would relate to the salvific work of Christ or reference the Incarnation. The content of 2.15 is indeed unique, and it is not driven in a focused orthopraxical presence (C4) and has no clear parallels of specificity (C5). In regard to criteria of Style, the unit contains no poetic characteristics (C6). However, it does contain a few unique words (C7) and unusual syntactical nuances (C8). After evaluation, it is determined that 1 Tim. 2.15 should not be embraced as a PT since it does not display the primary, necessary criterion common to tradition units. Specific to the larger groupings of tradition criteria, v. 15 displays Stylistic criteria, but is lacking in a definitive display of expected Structure 138. BDAG, ‘’, 994. 139. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 468.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

91

and Content. According to the hypothesis of an expected display of all primary criteria categories, 2.15 does not display sufficient expression according to the selected criterion standards.

3. 1 Timothy 3 Two potential tradition texts are evaluated in 1 Timothy 3. Under consideration are 3.1 and 3.16. Each proposed text is provided contextual parameters in which to isolate segment boundaries. Then the text is evaluated regarding the eight criteria of Structure, Content, and Style. Finally, based on diagnosed criteria, the segment is assigned a preformation conclusion.

3.1. 1 Timothy 3.1   .       .

3.1.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries A shift occurs at the beginning of chapter 3. The content moves from an instructional emphasis for men and women in a worship setting as found in 1 Timothy 2, toward leadership issues that apply to someone () aspiring to be an overseer (), those functioning as deacons (), and the exhortation that all should conduct () themselves as part of the household of God. Specifically there are three primary divisions in chapter 3: 3.1-7, 3.8-13, and 3.14-16. The proposed PT (3.1) exists at the onset of chapter 3, and to some degree has been previously discussed as it relates to 2.15. As the discussion concerning 2.15 presented reasons why it is best not to associate 2.15 with the opening formulaic phrase in 3.1a, it is now imperative to present reasons why the association of v. 3.1a to 3.1b is preferential. It is important to remember that even those who disagree with the 3.1a-b association admit the complexity of the situation, especially if the formula is to be viewed as a quotation formula. For example, Dibelius and Conzelmann, who connect 3.1a to 2.15, state, ‘If one sees in the words a quotation formula … it is only possible to connect the words with what follows.’140 In turn it is possible for one to understand the formula of 3.1a to be an affirmation of 2.15 as opposed to seeing it as an inserted quotation. In that regard the same is true of 3.1b. It is possible for one to connect 3.1a with 3.1b but to see it only as an introductory affirmation as opposed to introducing a succinct quotation, the position preferred and defended in this study. The decision to associate 3.1a with 3.1b (and thus not with 2.15) is based on four reasons. The first is the understood meaning of the formula itself, ‘Faithful is the word’ (  ). Outside of the Pastoral letters, the phrase is 140. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 51.

92

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

used by Dionysius (Halicarnassensis)141 to affirm the credibility of a particular saying. While the emphasis appears to be on the truth of what is said, the terms used to make up the phrase bring affirmation to the statement.142 The emphatic position of  expresses the trustworthiness of the saying. In normal Pauline use,  frequently focuses on God as the one who is faithful.143 The adjective modifies  . Combined with the fact that in each instance the formula seems to be in reference to what is in quality a ‘saying’, it seems appropriate to understand  as a saying or expression set apart for recognition of definite teaching.144 The formula anticipates the need for the readers to accept and grasp the proposed statement. Marshall agrees that the union of 3.1a with 3.1b is preferred because ‘nothing that can really be called a  precedes’.145 In comparison 3.1b does function as a , which leads to the second reason for the association between 3.1a-b. The second reason for connecting 3.1a with 3.1b is that 3.1b presents a more natural, expected example as to what would be considered a ‘faithful saying’. Specifically the word or saying that is faithful is that if someone aspires to oversight his heart seeks a worthwhile task. The word for oversight is , which denotes general care or supervision.146 The use ‘does not necessarily refer to ecclesiastical office but can connote any kind of administration [thus] commending ambition for office in general’.147 Paul is embracing the ‘goodness’ of those who desire to serve the people of God, and as a faithful saying it was a didactic piece that taught that serving in the Lord’s work is a noble task. The maxim states that service within the community of faith, in the context of the leadership roles soon to be articulated, is a good thing. To use the words of Marshall, the entire phrase (      ) is ‘aphoristic’.148 The third reason for linking the two relates to the textual variant in the passage. Like 1.15,149 3.1 contains an alternate reading that proposes  in place of . Although supported by several Western witnesses,150 the 141. Cf. De. Thuc. 3.23.17; 19.3. 142. For an older yet succinct presentation of background material pertaining to the origin of the phrase   , see Spicq, Les Épitres Pastorales, 42, notes on v. 15. 143. Cf. 1 Cor. 1.9; 10.13; 2 Cor. 1.18; 1 Thess. 5.24; 2 Thess. 3.3; 2 Tim. 2.13. 144. BDAG, ‘’, 1 a, 599–600. 145. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 475. 146. BDAG, ‘’, 3, 379. 147. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 72. 148. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 475. Again, by ‘aphoristic’ is meant a short concise statement of a principle, or an embraced general truth. This would stand in contrast to an elongated complex explanation. While this does not necessarily imply simplicity, it does mean something that can be grasped within a brief phrase or clause. 149. See n. 46, above. 150. According to the apparatus of NA27, texts supporting the variant include D*, itd,86, Ambrosiaster, mssacc. to Jerome, Augustine, Speculum, Sedulius, and Scotus.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

93

overwhelming weight is in support of . In all likelihood the variant reading supports the 3.1a-b relationship in that it would point forward by attempting to interpret 3.1b in a more proverbial manner since the translation of    would render the phrase ‘it is a human saying’. This variant would fit better with 3.1b than 2.15 and was likely inserted because of the use of the variant in 1.15, or to correct an assumption that 3.1b did not express a ‘faithful’ saying, since it was of a different nature than the other two. The final reason to embrace 3.1a with 3.1b is that the full formulaic statement is not utilized. In both 1.15 and 4.9 the phrase ‘and deserves full acceptance’ (   ) is part of the introductory statement. Interestingly it is not used in 3.1. The argument is that it is not used because it does not apply to everyone. The word is faithful and true and can be embraced by all, but the application is for the ‘someone’ () who aspires to serve in such a capacity. It seems as if ‘the full formula with the addition “worthy of all acceptation” is not used here because this saying is not relevant to everybody’.151 The segment, then, is bound to 1 Tim. 3.1 in its entirety.

3.1.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. Concerning this criterion, much has already been stated concerning the formulaic introduction. The phrase itself is noncommittal since the emphasis is directed at the truth of ‘saying’ as opposed to implying a direct citation. Nonetheless the material and decisions already suggested in this study places 3.1a as an introductory formula that directs attention to the phrase found in 3.1b. It sets the scene for the entire pericope in regard to the ever important task of leadership service. While this is true concerning all communities of faith, it was of a critical nature in Ephesus because of the espousing of counter-mission doctrine. The precision and direction presented toward those who would serve in such leadership capacities and those who would aspire to ‘teach’ was of the utmost importance. (ii) C2: Text largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. This proposed tradition is self-contained and relates well to the larger unit of 3.1-7. Yet it is not without a proper amount of dislocation as is expected of a preformed unit, albeit a unique type of introductory dislocation. Regardless of one’s assignment to    (i.e. whether interpreted as the conclusion to 2.15 or the introduction to 3.1b), scholars agree that the statement in 3.1b (whether it is faithful or not!) is still a saying.152 Evidently this unit is placed to distinguish it from the 151. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 475. 152. Commentators such as Dibelius and Conzelmann (Pastoral Epistles, 51–52), Kelly (Pastoral Epistles, 72), and Quinn and Wacker (First and Second Letters to Timothy, 251) embrace the phrase ‘If someone desires the office of overseer, he desires a good work’ (      ) as a saying or reference which sets the scene for 3.2-7.

94

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

catalog to come, and it is heightened in its focal insertion at the beginning of the unit to draw attention to the leadership qualities described. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. This criterion is not met. No highly theological concepts are evidenced. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. With regard to Content, the unit reflects this criterion. Following the formulaic introduction the statement proper (3.1b) is a short, embraced maxim that teaches that one who aspires (i.e., ‘sets his heart’ [NIV]) to leadership desires a good work. The text itself does not say if there were problems with the assumed truth of the statement, but one suspects that because of the ever engaging presence of opponents, the positions of leadership were not only under attack, but had possibly been abused. Could it be that some of the opponents had once been leaders, possibly under self-appointment, who were not qualified? The brief community confession underscores the value of the work of the office,153 and leads one to think that challenges had been made within the community as to the very validity of the office. Johann Bengel phrases it succinctly: ‘This is a true saying – This preface is used, because it does not seem so to the world.’154 The orthopraxy is not lacking. It is a practical affirmation, with great ramifications for the believing community. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. The criterion is not met. No parallel passages exist. It is unique as a ‘saying’ and has no associations to other texts. (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. The reflection of this criterion is closely related to the previous discussion of C4 due to the compact nature of the PT. In the initial description of ‘poetical nuance’ it was noted that such nomenclature was broad in application and set to encompass not only traditional, detailed, poetic descriptions that reflect meter, rhythm, and parallel stanzas, but also presentations that are proverbial and succinct. The latter is characteristic of 1 Tim. 3.1b. Following the formulaic introduction the saying reads, ‘If someone aspires to the office of oversight, he desires a good work’ (      ). Collins’s comment is poignant: ‘This pericope … begins with a conditional clause. The Pastor wants to say something about the someone who desires to exercise the function of oversight.’155 He certainly says something, and in doing so he draws attention to the community context by presenting a common proverb. 153. Knight, Faithful Sayings, 54. 154. Johann Albrecht Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, vol. 2 (New York: Sheldon, 1864), 516; original emphasis. 155. Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2002), 79.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

95

In the NT the   formula is often used when a general rule is being stated about a particular matter.156 In most instances the apodosis is stated normally in the imperative (cf. 2 Thess. 3.10). Yet that is not the case in 1 Tim. 3.1b. The verse simply affirms that ‘If’ someone aspires, he desires a good work. As most conditional sentences do, the distinct divisions present a rhythmic flair in two parts: (1)    , and (2)   . Combined, the statement presents a memorable proverbial thrust. Such a literary use has the tendency to present words epigrammatically and thus leave the hearer with an aphoristic gift.157 It was apparently a community confession. ‘Probably it arose as a positive encouragement to any man ( ) to consider this good work ( ).’158 (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. Unique words are not found. The saying, although short, is clear in meaning and presentation. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. The sentence is straightforward with an introductory phrase followed by the saying proper. This criterion is not met.

3.1.3. Preformation Conclusion The text has several strong criteria that anchor it as a PT. Primary to this is the introductory    notation (C1), which is presented to heighten and affirm the statement to which it is attached. Although short, the proverbial presentation is self-contained (C2). Yet it also promotes the detailed qualifications (3.2-7) to come. In terms of Content, it was apparently an accepted teaching (C4) which stood in contrast to those who desired to be leaders but lacked the qualities of the office. The compact nature of the segment (C6) presents a Style common to traditional units. Since the major categories of Structure, Content, and Style are met, 1 Tim. 3.1 is embraced as a PT. 3.2. 1 Timothy 3.16                          .

3.2.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The final section of chapter 3 is 3.14-16, and it is within this unit that the second proposed tradition unit (3.16) exists. The NASB rendering of the opening of 1 Tim. 3.16 reads, ‘by common confession great is the mystery of godliness’.159 156. Cf. 1 Cor. 3.17, 18; Gal. 1.9; 2 Thess. 3.14; and 1 Tim. 5.4, 16. 157. Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), 447. 158. Knight, Faithful Sayings, 55, n. 17. 159. Cf. JB, NKJV, and the RSV for distinct English translations that express the unique Greek semantic construction        , which will be discussed in detail later.

96

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

This common confession () in 3.16 exists as the second proposed PT in 1 Timothy 3. This verse concludes the final unit of the chapter (3.14-16). Previously Paul had directed his attention toward overseers (3.1-7) and deacons (3.8-13) by reminding Timothy that in leadership one’s lifestyle must match one’s claim to faith in Jesus Christ.160 With this premise, 1 Tim. 3.14-16 makes another proclamation: Paul intends to visit Timothy in Ephesus. However, if he is detained, Paul reminds Timothy about proper conduct concerning God’s household (3.15). Thus the admonition states that the true house of God is the church, the actual dwelling place of His presence.161 In fact, it is this dwelling place of God that is a ‘pillar and ground of truth’ (3.15c). The unity of vv. 14–16 is intact, and in particular v. 16 stands in a distinct position. For example, since 1 Tim. 3.16 is followed by yet another warning about deceiving spirits and the importance of correct doctrine (4.1-16), it is interesting to note that the mystery of godliness is tightly wedged between a description of true leaders (3.1-13) and false teachers. In this context 3.16 serves as a hinge that contrasts the heresy of improper doctrine and the truth found in the household of God. It explains the regulations of the preceding chapters and also leads to the advice about Timothy’s teaching; thus it becomes the focus of the letter.162 When 1 Tim. 3.16 is taken in this contextual frame, it is proper to understand that the mystery of godliness encompasses both faith and practice. It presents a call to proper doctrine and a response of the heart that stimulates righteous living. Therefore the mystery of godliness ‘exhorts the Christian community to devote itself to God in every sphere of life, so that both beliefs and behavior are centered in Him’.163 The segment boundaries are set by the opening call of confession (       ), and the tightly woven presentation164 that presents a series of strophes, and is followed by a distinct content shift in 4.1 as indicated by ‘Now the Spirit explicitly says’ (    ). Such bookends contain the segment and confine the proposed unit to 3.16 alone.

3.2.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. 1 Tim. 3.16 begins by stating: ‘And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness’ (      ). Specifically the confessional formula used to introduce the material states, ‘and confessedly great’ (  ). 160. The practical requirement of family management is stated in 1 Tim. 3.5, 12. 161. Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 83. Cf. Eph. 2.19-22. 162. Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 42. 163. John J. Wainwright, ‘Eusebia: Syncretism or Conservative Contextualization’, Evangelical Quarterly 65 (July 1993): 223. 164. The textual organization is evaluated in detail in criteria of Structure and Style.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

97

The term , which shares the same morpheme, introduces material in Rom. 10.9-10; 1 Jn 4.2-3; and 2 Jn 1.7. Virtually all agree that this opening statement serves as an introductory statement in which it is acknowledging the primitive hymn to come.165 The confession to come concerns the mystery of godliness. In the NT a ‘mystery’ is information revealed by God.166 The term  does not describe items that cannot be understood, but items that have been revealed. In this case the apostle is identifying that God has revealed ‘godliness’ () as the truth referred to in 3.15. The term ‘ does not necessarily carry with it the idea of mysteriousness, in the modern sense of unintelligibility, it simply means a secret, into which some have been initiated’.167 The ones initiated into the mystery are believers in Christ. The unit opens with a formula that draws special and specific attention to the material to come. It confirms the mystery of godliness and affirms it as a common confession. (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. 1 Tim. 3.16 is a contained unit. It is set apart from 3.15 and 4.1. But its autonomy is most noticeable by observing its local structure. At this stage, it is good to acknowledge that many of the discussions used to express various criteria for this unique verse simply overlap and cross boundaries within multiple criteria. Specifically when discussing the structure of 3.16, it is necessary to address poetic nuances that also are utilized to identify Criterion 6: Poetic Nuances. This overlap is unavoidable. As it is, the unit’s structure is discussed, in part, here to validate that it is distinct and displays contextual dislocation. Identifying the symmetrical structure of 1 Tim. 3.16 is a challenging task; yet it is a fascinating study that reveals a definite, organized presentation that expresses a contained, inserted composition. ‘The hymnic quotation is notorious for the different schematizations and consequently varying interpretations laid upon it.’168 In general, there are three different approaches to the hymnic arrangement; and these approaches are displayed best through three separate translations. The first approach interprets the six lines as a progressive account of the life of Christ.169 This expression is clearly shown in JB.170

165. Charles R. Erdman, The Pastoral Epistles of Paul (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1923), 46. 166. BDAG, ‘’, 1 b, 662. 167. J. H. Bernard, The Pastoral Epistles: With Introduction and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980), 62. 168. Robert H. Gundry, ‘The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16’, in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on His 60th Birthday, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 203. 169. This approach was noted early on by Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 2, part 1 (Boston, MA: Lee and Shephard, 1872), 529–32. It is also referenced by Barrett, Pastoral Epistles, 66. 170. See also NASB for a similar presentation.

98

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

He was made visible in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

This account views the first line as revealing the Incarnation, and the sixth line as portraying the Ascension. While the initial conclusions may be correct, it may be premature to assume that lines 2–5 fall into a chronological order. This approach seems to stretch the meaning of certain vocabulary,171 and it also leaves no room for identifying parallel structure and contrasting phrases. The second approach views 1 Tim. 3.16 as being in two strophes of three lines each. The RSV demonstrates this position. He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Those who hold to a two-strophe three-line view generally maintain the chronological approach as stated above. A common example is the view held by Lock, in which the first strophe describes the life of Christ on earth and as viewed by angels in heaven, and the second strophe describes the ascended Christ as preached on earth and lived in heaven.172 However, this approach seems to neglect the parallelism that is present between flesh and spirit, angels and nations, and world and glory. ‘It must be noted that the often-noted antitheses between adjacent lines (1–2, 3–4, 5–6) is ignored, with the one pair (3–4) separated, and that line 6 again makes even this chronology out of place.’173 Knight’s critique of Lock’s position is justified. As stated above, proponents of the two-strophe view claim that the contrast is between heaven’s observation of Christ on earth (at the Incarnation) and Christ’s observation (post-Ascension) of the effects. However, if this is the case, line 6 should be placed before line 4. 171. According to this view, several phrases would have to specify earthly connotations during the life of Christ. As an example the aorist passive use of  would have to necessitate an understanding of Christ being proclaimed to the nations while He was physically embodied on earth. The more natural interpretation would place this as a post-Ascension act. In other words, as the post-Ascension Book of Acts records, the overall progression of the gospel was from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria, to the ends of the earth (Acts 1.8). Acts 10 begins a full proclamation to the Gentile world, eventually ending with the message reaching Rome (Acts 28). 172. Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 45. 173. Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 182.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

99

In other words, if line 1 of the first strophe signals the Incarnation, the contrast should be that the first line (line 4) of the second strophe signals the Ascension. Yet this is not addressed until the final stanza. Also in this construction the second strophe would seem to lack the same theological aggressiveness that occurs in the first strophe (‘He was manifested in the flesh’). A third interpretation identifies three strophes, two lines each. Hence the NIV: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

This approach, held by numerous scholars, identifies within each pair a contrasting concept expressed through aorist passive verbs and dative nouns.174 As an example, line one (‘appeared in a body’) and line two (‘vindicated by the Spirit’) make up the strophe. In this instance the parallel contrast is between body (a physical reference) and Spirit (a spiritual reference).175 While this contrast is found in all three strophes, it takes on different nuances. What should be addressed is the significance of each contrast as it relates to the mystery of godliness. As an example it is possible that the first strophe unveils what natural man could not combine as it contrasts physical and spiritual. Likewise the second strophe may contrast the spheres of the observing audiences. The third strophe may express a contrast that evaluates when and where this one revealed is received. As such each strophe may exemplify a synonymous idea. Gundry identifies this perspective suggesting that strophe one refers to revelation, strophe two to proclamation, and strophe three to reception.176 Regardless of precision, it exhibits parallel form. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. The substance of the proposed unit connotes a high theological presence with a detailed Christological expression. This can be seen in the chiastic arrangement of its content. As stated, the structure reveals three strophes, with each strophe alternating between antithetical objects at the end of each line. Lines one and two contrast ‘flesh’ and ‘Spirit’, lines three and four contrast ‘angels’ and ‘nations’, and lines five and six contrast ‘world’ and ‘glory’. Because the 174. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 61; Gundry, ‘Form, Meaning and Background’, 206–07; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1957), 138; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 92; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 183. 175. Some see the affirmation of the Spirit at the baptism of Jesus in such a reference. 176. Gundry, ‘Form, Meaning and Background’, 208.

100

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

pattern alternates between a physical and spiritual inference, the continuity of the hymn presents an intriguing (AB/BA/AB) structure.177 Using the NIV, the pattern can be displayed in this way: A

(physical)

He appeared in a body,

B

(spiritual)

was vindicated by the Spirit,

B

(spiritual)

was seen by angels,

A

(physical)

was preached among the nations,

A

(physical)

was believed on in the world,

B

(spiritual)

was taken up in glory.

Strophe one

Strophe two

Strophe three

This is a fascinating development of the content, which is emblematic of a central theological content that focuses on the work of Christ. The text is highly reflective of this criterion as its emphasis is orthodoxically related. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. Since no orthopraxy or paraenetic content is found, this criterion is not met. (ii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. Strong similarities exist between the current unit and other NT hymns such as Phil. 2.5-11 and Col. 1.15-20. The most noticeable similarity relates to the poetic nuances and the Christological presentation. Another example is the striking similarities between 1 Tim. 3.16 and 1 Pet. 3.18-22.178 In this case structural similarities are evident as well as content similarities. (c) Criterion of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. Stylistically, 1 Tim. 3.16 develops a unique, assonant, rhythmical pattern that serves an elaborate poetic function. Since each line contains an aorist passive verb followed by a preposition179 and dative construction, 177. Proponents of this position often suggest that this understanding is a new interpretation. However, this antithetical (AB/BA/AB) pattern was noted as early as 1870 by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 6 (Glasgow: Collins, 1870; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), vol. 6, 490. (Page references refer to the reprint edition.) 178. For a comparison of 1 Tim. 3.16 and 1 Pet. 3.18-22, see Jack T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 17–18. 179. The preposition  occurs in every line except line three.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

101

the melodic ring, when pronounced, is obvious. ‘That it is a hymn, not a creedal fragment or piece of catechetical material, is borne out by the careful parallelism of the Strophes, the rhythmic diction, and the deliberate assonance marked in the Greek by the six third person singular aorist verbs.’180 Its assonance can be identified fully by listening to the Greek pronunciation created by the packaged presentation. Further it can be illustrated by observing the following written verbal endings that occur in each strophe and the ensuing prepositional pattern:                  181 When combined with the rhythmic paralleled structure, it is anchored firmly in hymnic literature.182 While it is helpful to identify the specific type of poetry, one must not lose sight of the important fact that it is a lyrical work that celebrates the mystery of godliness. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. Throughout the hymn, there are unique, abnormal, vocabulary displays. In fact, observing how the very content of the hymn is noted displays such expressions. The content of the mystery, that is, what God has revealed, is displayed through the six lines of hymnic material. Christ, as the subject of the hymn, is specified. The hymnic stanzas are introduced with the relative pronoun ‘who’ ().183 Since the relative pronoun does not have a stated antecedent,184 its simple presence should cause the reader to expect a literary shift. This shift promotes anticipating the explanation of the mystery of godliness as a masculine noun. Therefore, as the hymnic genre requires, the reader should look no further than the hymn itself for the full identification of the subject. Also, since the mystery implies God’s revelation, one can expectantly look for a description of this one whom God has revealed.

180. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 89. 181. The underlined type stresses the similarities. The assonance is marked by a distinct ‘th’ sound that is portrayed through the aorist passive ending followed by the rhythmic . 182. Because of its many poetical characteristics 1 Tim. 3.16 is sometimes identified as a preformed hymnic-type confession. See E. Earle Ellis, ‘Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles’, in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), 246. 183. The relative pronoun  is the preferred reading over the alternative  and . It also best explains the creation of the other variants. 184. Wallace states, ‘To seek outside the hymn for an antecedent of , as some have done, is an unnecessary expedient, which in fact, misreads the genre and misunderstands the force of    ’. See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 341.

102

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Other unique words or phrases occur. The term , as previously addressed, occurs only here. ‘Revealed’ (, from ) is a key theme in John’s writings.185 (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. This passage has many unusual syntactical structures. Three examples demonstrate the passage’s adherence to this criterion. First, the unit begins with ‘Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great’ (       ). From the onset, the interpreter is forced to grapple with the ‘mystery of godliness’ in relation to the hymn to come. Why is the mystery ‘great’ () in light of the Christ event? The greater context sheds light on this issue in view of the false teaching and improper conduct of the false teachers. Nonetheless, it is a unique syntactical structure. Second, unique structures are presented through the parallel strophes. Various decisions must be made in response to exegetical decision. Finally, the use of the dative in the various strophes force decisions regarding sphere of location or instrument of means. Such decisions are expected due to the format.

3.2.3. Preformation Conclusion This text contains PT criteria. Structurally, it displays a strong formulaic introduction (C1) emphasized by . The unit is very structured and could stand on its own (C2). In terms of Content, the segment presents central theological concepts of the Christ event (C3) and reflects other passages (C5), most notably Phil. 2.5-11, Col. 1.15-20, and 1 Pet. 3.18-22. The unit is poetic (C6). It also displays unique wording (C7) and syntax (C8) because of the parallels and strophes. Due to the abundance of categorical criteria, 1 Tim. 3.16 is embraced as a PT. 4. 1 Timothy 4 Three potential tradition texts are evaluated in 1 Timothy 4. Under consideration are 4.1-5; 4.8-9; and 4.9-10. Each proposed unit is provided contextual and segment boundaries. It is then evaluated regarding the eight criteria of Structure, Content, and Style. Finally, based on diagnosed criteria a text is assigned a preformation conclusion.

4.1. 1 Timothy 4.1-5                                            .                  . 185. Cf. Jn 21.14; 1 Jn 1.2; 3.2, 5, 8; 4.9.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

103

4.1.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The chapter is composed of three units, 4.1-5; 4.6-10; and 4.11-16. The contextual unit is intact and unique, and it presents a shift in content from that which precedes it. Boundaries for this segment are contained. 1 Tim. 4.1 begins with ‘The Spirit clearly says’ and ends at the beginning of 4.6 as Paul provides Timothy with focused instruction. Because of this some have proposed that 4.1-5 exists as a tradition unit. For example, Ellis says, ‘The cited tradition at 1 Timothy 4.1-5, which is introduced with the formula for prophecy, “the Spirit says”, is concluded by Paul’s admonition to Timothy.’186 Likewise Miller identifies 4.1-5 as an eschatological polemic, noting: An abrupt transition leads to a series of polemical sayings, framed in apocalyptic language (cf. II 3.1ff.). The introductory expression (    ), and the (recitative?) , suggests that some authoritative material is being cited; perhaps the material that follows was originally a floating collection of prophetic sayings. Similar collections are common with apocalyptic Judaism; the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, for example, contains such eschatological polemic … The eschatological polemic in 1 Timothy 4.1-5 is not unlike these … The language is typically vague and broadly aimed; the opponents are only identified as ‘some’ people (, 4.1) who engage in a variety of clearly evil activities.187

Miller is correct in the sense that the unit reflects the style and genre of the eschatological conflict descriptive of the last days. ‘The apocalyptic conviction that the end-time would be marked by apostasy, deceit, and false prophecy was widespread … the battle for the truth was not carried out simply at the ethical level; it involved as well a cosmic struggle between spiritual forces for good and for evil.’188 That is why the NT is replete with material articulating such a conflict, and Paul’s description of it in the context, utilizing words of the Spirit, must have been no surprise to Timothy.189 One thing is certain: the counter-mission doctrine espoused in Ephesus originated from demonic powers,190 and it was being presented through the opponents. Thus the segment under review is 4.1-5.

186. Ellis, ‘Traditions’, 240. 187. Miller, Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 78–79. 188. Luke Timothy Johnson, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Knox Preaching Guides (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1987), 82. 189. Cf. 1 Jn 4.1; 2 Pet. 2.1; Mk 13.22-23; Mt. 7.15; 24.23-24; Eph. 6.10-15; 2 Cor. 10.1-6; 11.12-15; 2 Thess. 2.9-12; and Rev. 13.11-18. 190. The preposition  is likely instrumental; hence NASB renders the phrase ‘by means of the hypocrisy of liars’. The false teachers are the instruments that lead people astray. Such emphasis certainly heightens the terminology of the ‘deposit’ entrusted to Timothy and to all who are placed in positions of leadership (cf. 1 Tim. 3.2, 6, 9).

104

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

4.1.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction and conclusion. While Miller references the opening phrase (    ) as a ‘saying’ formula, it requires a fine definition to distinguish between types of introductory formulas. In the current context it is important to make a distinction between a prophetic formula and a formula that would introduce an inserted tradition piece. As previously established in the second chapter of the current study, expected ‘formulas’ associated with traditional units are frequently phrases (or conclusions) that reflect wording that affirms an insertion (e.g.   ) or involves descriptive verbiage that implies technical transmission such as  (‘to pass on’) and  (‘to receive’). It may also invoke words such as , , , , , , and . To be sure, the introductory phrase under evaluation,     , is a formula introduction in its own right. But it does not reflect characteristics of introductions associated with traditional units that appear as literary insertions reflective of common catechetical or confessional material. This phrase appears as a formula type that introduces a prophetic word of the Lord. Towner agrees: the formula ‘is similar to the formula in Acts 21.11 and Revelation 2.1, 8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 14 (and frequently in the Greek OT), introducing a prophetic word from the Spirit or the risen Christ (“Thus says …”), and to the formula that closes the prophetic messages to the seven churches in Revelation 2.7, 11, 17, 29; 3.6, 13, 22’.191 This formula type is of a prophetic nature and seems to imply an understood teaching of the Spirit.192 Where it came from is unclear; whether through Paul or the prophetic order is not described. What is observable is that it ‘is expanded by the attaching of paraenetic directives on conduct to be avoided or cultivated’.193 Such directives were given to teach. In the current context there seems to be a meshing of the actual word of the Spirit and the application elements attached therein. As such, the formulaic reference does not reflect a common pattern of phrases introducing traditional literary segments. Instead, it is a word of the Lord, embraced and presented as such with an authoritative prophecy as opposed to conviction of belief as is common for PTs. (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. While the text does stand as a fairly contained unit, it is an abrupt statement without the context. Although introduced in a formulaic presentation, the word that the Spirit ‘explicitly says’ ( ) is ambiguous. It may reference a ‘saying’ of the 191. Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus, 101, note on 4.1. 192. For an introduction and overview of formulaic prophetic references see David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983). 193. Quinn and Wacker, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 348.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

105

Spirit. Or it may be addressing the source of the statement. The unit is also not reflective of normal dislocation patterns. Part of the reason for this is its size. Within its own boundaries it is cohesive, but it is difficult to assert where the Spirit-led statement concludes. This is, in part, due to the fact that the segment is one sentence, with a series of multiple clauses.194 In this regard it is a packaged presentation, but not a stand-alone citation. It exists more as an instructional piece, reflective of most prophetic statements.195 (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. This text does not adhere to required Content standards. Although the piece commences with a statement originating from the Spirit (), it is more instructional in nature as opposed to expected values pertaining to soteriological and Christological events. And although the content is theological, the content is not focused on central themes such as the articulation of the Christ-event, the Incarnation, and confession of the faith. Instead, the Spiritled material is instructional with specificity to the opponent’s false teaching. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. The text does not reflect content that expresses orthopraxy. While it should be noted that the content provides a backdrop of the opponents, it lacks in direct assertions as to any community standards or actions. It indeed provides critical information, implied by the very fact that the message’s origin is from God. The segment communicates the context of the false teachers in Ephesus. Their presence was proclaimed long before their arrival. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. As it is associated with other ‘Spirit word’ ( ) statements, the unit reflects this criterion. There are many such units to which one could appeal in the NT that express similar themes.196 (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. The segment does not present elements conducive to this criterion. There are no signs of parallels, highly structured rhythmical strophes, or even proverbial maxims. Although it does contain descriptive terms and metaphors (e.g., ‘whose consciences are seared’ [   ]), the language is presented in a prophetic instruction, exposing the opponent’s teachings.

194. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 233. 195. For similar structures and content of Jewish literature addressing prophetic word statements pertaining to evil and end times, see 1 Enoch 80.2-8; As. Mos. 8.1, and 2 Apoc. Bar. 48.32-36 (James H. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [New York: Doubleday, 1983]). 196. See n. 189, above.

106

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

(ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. The text does reflect some infrequently used words. In 4.1-2,   (‘demon teachings’),  (‘hypocrisy of liars’) and  (‘seared or branded’) are Pauline hapax legomena. Many words and phrases are contextually connected due to the unique circumstance surrounding the false teachers and the inaccurate doctrinal and practical teaching espoused by them. Linguistically there are commonalities with additional Jewish literature, which frequently addresses topics of apostasy and end-time evil associated with false teachers.197 The linguistic similarities would direct the discussion toward a detailed exploration of such genre as opposed to the current emphasis toward PTs. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. There are multiple syntactical challenges throughout the segment, many of which have already been identified. An additional example, occurring in the opening claim and as expressed through the Spirit, is a question regarding the phrase ‘of the faith’ ( ). Syntactically, it either associates to ‘some’ () or to ‘will depart’ or ‘will apostatize’ (). The difference is will ‘some of the faith depart’ versus ‘some will depart from the faith’. The former seems preferable for two reasons. First,  is frequently used in a context with the object of the preposition describing from which they fell away.198 This would suggest that   modifies . Second, the context of the letter seems intent that by the time of the writing of the letter some Christians were indeed falling from the faith. In this particular context it also appears that those falling away are different from the opponents. Regardless of the syntactical outcome, it is a challenge pressed within the segment. Other unique structures exist as well. In 4.2, ‘seared’ () can be translated figuratively or nonfiguratively. The current point is not to treat each syntactical nuance but to demonstrate that unusual syntactical structures do exist throughout the unit and in doing so bring the segment in compliance with the criterion.

4.1.3. Preformation Conclusion 1 Tim. 4.1-5 expresses some primary tradition criteria, but is lacking in others. Specifically, it lacks criteria of Structure. It does not exhibit an appropriate introductory formula, but instead is introduced by a frequent introduction common to prophetic oracles. In this regard the unit, from the onset, seems to be associated with literary tendencies expressive of prophetic patterns articulating apostasy. As the unit progresses it follows suit with such a presentation. It is possible that is why it also lacks an expected dislocation. While the larger unit is bound, the actual word of the Spirit is not readily identifiable. The statement seems to exist as a summation of embraced teaching. As such it appears more 197. For additional similarities of prophetic wording, see 2 Apoc. Bar. 25–27, 1QpHab. 2.5–10; 1 QH 4.9; CD 12.2–3. 198. For examples of this use, see Lk. 13.27; Acts 12.10; 19.9; 2 Cor. 12.8; and 2 Tim. 2.19.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

107

as a confirmation of revelation as opposed to an inserted statement of tradition. However, the unit does exhibit some criteria common to traditional material. Its content has parallel passages (C5). Its greatest strength is in vocabulary (C7) and syntactical use (C8), both of which are expressed in an appropriate measure. Yet in spite of such criteria, the segment is lacking the exhibition of Structure, Content, and Style. While it is a word of revelation from the Spirit, 1 Tim. 4.1-5 is not embraced as a PT.

4.2. 1 Timothy 4.8-9                       .       

4.2.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The second contextual unit of the chapter is 4.6-10. In this unit Paul charges Timothy (4.6-7) to deal with the message of the false teachers and he provides vv. 8–10 as theological grounding for the imperatives in the unit. Specifically, 1 Tim. 4.8-9, and variations of it, have been proposed as a PT by many commentators.199 Other scholars have noted that v. 8 is not to be regarded as a tradition unit but instead is to be regarded as the literary setup for the faithful saying that is introduced in 4.9, with the subsequent PT actually being cited in v. 10.200 Such a division points out the difficulty in synthesizing the complexity of the rift, for it is tied to presuppositions concerning the ‘faithful saying’, linguistic analysis, structural survey, and almost anything else related to one’s view of the author’s argument and the purpose of such an appeal. Foremost to the discussion is the possibility of 4.8 as a PT. If 4.8 is supported through its association with 4.9, then it will contain a notable formulaic statement. Therefore 4.8 will be evaluated on its own strength, as it stands independently. A decision about its relationship to 4.9 will be held until the following evaluation. 199. Verses 8–9: Barrett, Knight, Lock, Miller; v. 8a (omitting 8b as part of the tradition unit): Towner; vv. 8b–9: Bernard, Fee, [L. T.] Johnson, Kelly, Marshall. The topic is also forced upon translators as such decisions are linguistically related and are thus reflected in many English translations. For example, the NET states, ‘For “physical exercise has some value, but godliness is valuable in every way. It holds promise for the present life and for the life to come” ’. This associates the entirety of v. 8 with v. 9 and embraces v. 8 as the trustworthy saying referred to in v. 9. Cf. also NASB (v. 8b). 200. The NIV and NEB connect 4.9-10. The NIV states, ‘This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe’. This expression forces the verses into one complete thought. (This relationship is discussed under the proposal of 1 Tim. 4.9-10 in the subsequent proposed segment.) This position (4.9-10) is embraced by commentators such as Campbell, Easton, Ellis, Guthrie, and Mounce.

108

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

At the conclusion of v. 7, Paul instructs Timothy, saying: ‘train yourself for godliness’ (    ). This connection with  reaches back to 3.16, the most recent use of the word in which the mystery of godliness is expounded through the hymnic presentation. With the instruction to ‘train’ or ‘exercise’ (), a statement is connected with  noting that ‘physical training has some value’ (     ). The athletic motif is the point of association. In contrast to ‘some’ is the fact that godliness () is valuable in every way (   ). This is followed with a statement concerning the time frame of the value: ‘it holds promise for the present life and the one to come’. This statement, regardless of its association with v. 9, is often cited as a ‘proverbial’ axiom. Many proponents of 4.8 have made note of this. Merkel states, ‘V.8 ein Sprichtwort zitiert wird; ursprünglich dürfte es den größeren Nutzen philosophischer Übung gegenüber der Athletik herausgestellt haben’.201 His point is that it was possibly a secular proverb from the world of philosophy that has now been adapted to the Christian environment. Those who see such a connection generally stress that it appears as a maxim and seems strategically placed in the textual flow. This study will take the position that the proposed tradition exists in 4.8 alone; its association with v. 9 will be evaluated later. As a unit it is contained and relates well to the larger unit of 4.6-10.

4.2.2 Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. 1 Tim. 4.8 does not contain a formulaic introduction.202 As previously shown, the movement is from v. 7, and its connection to 4.8-10 is noted by . This is best understood as a conjunction that expresses continuation or explanation from the preceding context (vv. 6–7).203 (ii) C2: Text largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. The text is a contained unit that displays a competent level of contextual dislocation. Besides being separated by , it also interjects a new, temporary subject matter ( ) that ‘clearly acts as a foil for the real point which is made in v. 8b, the profitability of ’.204 Hence it is contained, and yet it provides an interruption of the flow but not without a literary connection (3.16, ; 4.7, ). Therefore 4.8 meets the parameters for this criterion and is emblematic of expected Structure for a PT.

201. Helmut Merkel, Die Pastoralbriefe, Das Neue Testament Deutsch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 37. 202. It is established in the following section that 4.9 is best understood in association to 4.10. 203. BDAG, ‘’, 1, 189. 204. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 49.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

109

(b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. While the text relates to this criterion in that it does expound on the benefit of godliness (       ), the emphasis is not so much focused on the doctrinal explanation of godliness as to its practical benefit; hence the content is better focused on the practical and ethical value of godliness in day-to-day living. Therefore, the text does not qualify for this criterion. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. The text reflects the tone of a proverbial maxim but is also indicative of a paraenetic tone. In both regards it expresses the criterion. The proverbial quality is found in the fact that the unit compares ‘physical exercise’ with ‘godliness’. This contrast is a general indicator of proverbial expression. Specifically it displays the proverbial content through antithetic parallelism, which is a function of biblical proverbs in general that make them so memorable.205 Paraenetically the unit is a teaching adage that expresses biblical truth about the value and application of . The text adheres to this criterion. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. No parallel passages can be found to support this criterion. (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. The segment’s poetical presence provides a textbook case of parallelism. It can be seen in the following manner: A 

   For

 physical

  exercise

     with small is value

B 

   But

 godliness [implied]

 with every

    value is

C

        promise it holds life now and future

The poetic presentation parallels the primary objects (‘physical exercise’ and ‘godliness’) as well as the value of both (‘some’ [i.e., small or few] with ‘every’). One is lesser and the other is greater simply because of its end result. ‘Its range is immeasurably greater for it embraces not only this life but the life to come. The promise of life is not an equivalent for worldly prosperity, but sums up the blessedness of godliness. Irrespective of his present earthly circumstances, a Christian may fairly be said to have the best of both worlds.’206 The text meets the criterion established.

205. Ryken, Words of Delight, 316. 206. Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 95.

110

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

(ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. There are a few words that are Pauline hapax legomena. ‘Physical exercise’ ( ) is a phrase unique to the NT, although  is used one time by Luke (Lk. 3.22). ‘Useful’ or ‘value’ () is used only in the PE (twice in 4.8 and once in 2 Tim. 3.16). Such indicators are reflective of nontypical verbiage that frequently appeals to an inserted piece. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. There are no unusual structures.

4.2.3. Preformation Conclusion The text has several strong criteria. In regard to Structure, although it does not exhibit an introductory or concluding formula, it does display distinct self-containment and dislocation (C2). In this regard, the segment has defined boundaries that separate it as a unit, and its presence as a maxim provides a stand-alone quality to it. Its Content, although succinct, is a teaching adage that emphasizes general instruction (C4). The proverbial thrust presents the content as a wise saying that is to be embraced and believed. Stylistically, the segment displays strong criterion of poetic presence (C6) and unique vocabulary (C7). One of its greatest strengths is the proverbial, poetic structure which displays strong organization and a well-thought-out movement of wording. This alone gives credence to its traditional presence. Each of the major categories of Structure, Content, and Style contain at least one criterion, which, for purposes of this study, substantiates 1 Tim. 4.8 as a PT. 4.3. 1 Timothy 4.9-10                         .

4.3.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries Two questions pertain to contextual and segment boundary considerations. The first question to consider is the contextual relationship between vv. 9 and 10. Verse 9 opens with the familiar faithful word formula (  ), the third time it occurs in the letter. As in 1.15, the extended citation is presented, with the notation that the  is deserving of full acceptance (  ). To what verse does the ‘faithful Word’ of 4.9 apply? Admittedly this is a difficult decision. Mounce states the struggle of assessing the data by noting the following observations and questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Neither verse has better parallel structure. Both contain appropriate faithful saying themes. Both verses fit the context of godliness. Is v. 10 a reflection and application of v. 8, or is v. 8 preparatory for v. 10? Are the faithful sayings consistent and do they favor topics of salvation?

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy 6. 7. 8. 9.

111

Do either contain language foreign to the Pastoral Epistles? Maybe Paul quotes a saying because of word and metaphor connection.   can point forward or backward. V. 8 is introduced by , v. 10 is connected by ; introduced by .207

The balance is distributed evenly on both sides, and a decision is made based on two reasons. First, it is possible to lean toward connecting 4.8 with 4.9 because of the proverbial ring that exists through its presentation. The second reason is based on the interpreter’s assumption. All interpreters have a preconceived idea of what a ‘trustworthy word’ sounds like. Frequently commentators state that a particular reference does not ‘sound’ like a tradition. Even Mounce, who is usually guarded with such terminology, states in reference to v. 8 that it ‘does not sound like a statement that would be transmitted as an independent saying’.208 Yet one wonders what ‘sound’ a tradition should make? Both units ‘sound’ instructional. This study embraces 4.9 in association with 4.10 because it closely models a previously defended PT (2.5-6a), and that its content, in terms of the argument presented in its local unit (4.8-10), is substantiated to a greater degree in 4.10 as opposed to 4.8 because the ultimate end of godliness (v. 8) is salvation (v. 10). Interestingly, both segments work together in the unit arrangement. The second question pertains to the opening clause existing in 4.10a. As previously determined, it appears to be a response to the ‘trustworthy saying’ introduction that is presented in 4.9. In this venue it connects the saying ‘introduction’ with the formal statement which is noted by the . The boundary, then, for evaluation is limited to 4.9-10, excluding 4.10a.209 Henceforward the unit reference is 4.9, 10b.

4.3.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. Since the ‘faithful saying’ of 4.9, according to the parameters established in the segment boundaries, is considered in association with 4.10, then the proposed unit indeed displays a formulaic introduction. Not only does the unit commence with   , but the formula extends, as in 1 Tim. 1.15, and notes that the ‘faithful saying’ is ‘worthy of full acceptance’ (  ). It is to be accepted in its 207. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 247. 208. Ibid. 209. This is the apparent position held by the translators of the NIV: ‘This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of all who believe’. In this presentation, 4.10a is presented as a parenthetical notation bridging the force of 4.9 to the statement of 4.10b.

112

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

totality. As 4.9 and 4.10 are linked due to previous decisions, the segment is cast into a strong criterion representation. (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. The text is a defined unit and expresses an appropriate amount of contextual dislocation. The unit is connected to the context by , which expresses an explanatory function. The opening clause (v. 10a) highlights the formal statement (v. 10b) which concludes at the final clause. A transition between 4.10b and 4.11 is evident. While v. 10 does not disrupt the textual flow of 4.8-10, it does disturb it in the sense that it is a new topic. Because v. 10 is preferentially connected to v. 9, the thematic dislocation is heightened even more as the formula presented in 4.9 draws attention to the statement in 4.10. However, regardless of the assignment of v. 9, v. 10 stands on its own merit. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. The unit is theologically driven with special emphasis on soteriological concerns. Three particular phrases make this apparent. First, 10b opens with a directive toward hoping in the living God (   ). The terminology for hope is best understood as ‘placing one’s hope (in)’, with an emphasis on the perfect tense of stressing a continuous state of hope.210 The process of hoping develops further the explanation of godliness and reflects on the consistency of training implied in the introductory athletic metaphor. As training is a continuous process, so is the forward movement of godliness as expressed in the believer’s continuous reflection of hope. The object of the hope displays significant, contextual, theological underpinnings. The object is the ‘living God’ ( ). While this phrase is not unique to Paul or the NT,211 it reiterates an important theme. Paul does not mind toiling, because his hope is in the living God. God is living and because He is, the hope of the believer, who is modeling godliness, is not in vain. This notion about God apparently led the apostle to stress that God not only is living but also the ‘Savior of all men (  )’. This is the second theological emphasis, and it closely reflects 1 Tim. 2.3-4. The apparent context of the false teachers led Paul to stress God’s salvific plan made available to all who believe. The third phrase, ‘especially of those who believe’ ( ), solidifies the prominence. It is clear that  is in reference to ‘believers’, and that  is bringing the application of the statement to bear on those who profess this truth and therefore trust in God’s salvific plan.212

210. Fritz Rienecker, A New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, trans. and ed. Cleon L. Rogers Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 494. 211. Other than the current use,   (and derivatives) is used by Paul only in Rom. 9.26; 2 Cor. 3.3; 6.16; 1 Thess. 1.9; and 1 Tim. 3.15. 212. R. Kent Hughes and Bryan Chapell state: ‘Paul is not suggesting that all people will be

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

113

(ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. This segment does not exhibit instruction or ethical content. The content is not regulatory in nature. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. The text does not exhibit this criterion. There is a connection between the current segment and 1 Tim. 2.5-6a as it relates to the soteriological content pertaining to ‘all’ (). Yet it is more of a thematic movement. The term ‘especially’ () exists in Gal. 6.10 and Phil. 4.22, but such uses display a Pauline pattern, not external validation.

4.3.3. Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. The text displays a clear poetic pattern. The material is placed in parallel fashion where one main clause is supported by two distinct subordinate clauses: [Opening parenthetical comment in response to ‘Faithful Word’ introduction] 

  With this in view



 [Direct discourse]

A  We have set our hope

 for

 on

 toiling

 and

 laboring

  (the) living God

B1     Who is Savior [of] all B2 [implied ……………………………]

 humanity   especially those believing

Like most expressions of poetry, there is a subtle metered presence in the flow. In this case it stresses the conclusion of ‘humanity’ (B1; ) and ‘those believing’ (B2; ). Dibelius and Conzelmann see in this a contrasting nuance: ‘For Paul all men are, theoretically, capable of becoming believers. The Pastorals are reconciled to the fact that the faithful represent only a portion of humanity.’213 Unfortunately, their statement fails to see that the poetic presence is not a contrast, but is more synthetic and climactic, completing the previous thought about the function of the living God who is the Savior. ‘Because God is potentially the Savior of all but only those who believe are saved, there saved, because his other writings make it clear that this is not the case (cf. 2 Thess. 1.7b-10; 1 Thess. 1.10). The final phrase – ‘and especially of those who believe’ – simply describes those who are saved … [and] Christians who have placed their hope in the living God and pursue godliness will not be disappointed’ (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus: To Guard the Deposit, Preaching the Word [Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000], 111). 213. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 69.

114

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

arises the necessity for the spiritual battle.’214 Thus the statement in many ways functions as a challenge to service as well as a note of praise for God’s salvific endeavors. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. The passage does not exhibit abnormal vocabulary. Although ‘toil’ () and ‘strive’ () are uncommon, variations do occur elsewhere together (e.g. Col. 1.29). Overall the wording is normal. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. There are no unusual syntactical structures. However, the final phrase, ‘who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers’ (      ), is a frequent hotbed for the advocation of universal atonement. The background of the segment may be that in Ephesus, the dead emperors were embraced as saviors and gods.215 If this is the case, the unit is an attack on a cultural issue that is interwoven into the implications towards the false teachers and the culture of the day. Yet such items are primarily interpretive.

4.3.4. Preformation Conclusion 1 Tim. 4.9, 10b contains several strong PT criteria. Foremost to this claim is the formulaic introduction (C1), which assumes segment parameters that associates 4.9 with 4.10. The unit also exhibits a self-contained presence (C2) and could readily stand on its own as an autonomous piece. Its confessional content is soteriologically driven (C3), which links it to both early claims of the faith (orthodoxy) and central concepts of salvation emphasizing trust in the living God. Thus the segment displays anticipated PT criteria of Content. Stylistically the segment is organized in a basic poetic fashion (C6). It displays an ordered flow with parallel clauses. As each criterion reflects the major categories of Structure, Content, and Style, 1 Tim 4.9, 10b is embraced as a PT. 5. 1 Timothy 5 Four potential tradition texts exist in 1 Timothy 5. Under consideration are: 5.1-2; 5.5-10; 5.17-20; and 5.24-25. Each proposed unit is provided contextual and segment boundaries. The text is then evaluated regarding the eight criteria of Structure, Content, and Style. Based on diagnosed criteria, a text is assigned a preformation conclusion.

5.1. 1 Timothy 5.1-2                   .

214. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 557. 215. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 257.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

115

5.1.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The chapter is composed of three primary units: 5.1-2, 5.3-16, and 5.17-25. Almost all commentators agree on these divisions. The opening unit (5.1-2) is virtually unattested in regard to its structure. Both the chapter and the subdivision open with a shift in content. As such, 1 Tim. 5.1-2 is defensibly a unit. 1 Tim. 4.16 concludes with a warning concerning teaching and instruction, and the unit to follow begins with a shift in content, and presents a patterned structure concerning the treatment of community members. It opens with a charge stating ‘Do not rebuke an older man’ (  ), which sets the parameters for the general treatment in the household of faith. The movement in content is that in 4.16 the instruction is personal to Timothy’s teaching; here it is focused on the manner in which he treats others. The segment concludes with the parallel of how to treat older women (). The content again shifts in 5.3 concerning widows (). With the boundaries of the proposed segment set, it is necessary to evaluate the proposed unit’s adherence to tradition criteria. 5.1.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. The unit has no formulaic introduction. It opens in normal fashion with an aorist prohibition about relational issues. (ii) C2: Text largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. While the text arguably is structured, it does not reflect the anticipated dislocation from the context that is expected of PTs. This is best expressed in observing that the only structural unity that sets the pericope apart from its context is the shift in content, and a subtle content shift at that. The content is still under the heading and focus of general exhortation. Van Neste agrees: ‘While these shifts can support viewing 5.1-2 as a new unit, it must be noted that the shifts are not dramatic since this is still exhortation from Paul to Timothy and the predominant second person singular imperatives continue.’216 So there is nothing that heightens the unit’s literary placement and draws attention to it other than content, which as presented, is a normal movement in the patterned instruction from Paul to Timothy. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. The unit does not meet this criterion. There are no theological or orthodoxical concepts. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. The unit reflects this criterion as the material is orthopraxical in nature. It functions as direct instruction concerning community life and the inner workings of familial rela-

216. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 54.

116

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

tionships. It also follows the previously established imagery that the church is a household (cf. 3.15). The instruction and application place Timothy in the younger position in which to relate to those who are older. The teaching is consistent with other PE references. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. In one sense, the teaching is a general truth proclaimed elsewhere (cf. Mk 3.31-35). However, it is highly conceptual with no formal parallel passages existing with precision in wording and structure. (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. The unit does reflect some resemblance to an organized poetic style in its presentation. The segment is recorded in a balanced structure and displays symmetry. For example, there is linguistic symmetry between references to ‘older men’ and ‘older women’. Likewise there is a clear relationship in wording between ‘younger men’ and ‘younger women’ in which each is respectively presented in metaphor as father, mother, brother, and sister. However, it does not seem to be as much poetic as it does reflective of a general didactic and communicative format. Dibelius and Conzelmann add that ‘in 5:1f we are dealing with a different type of exhortation which belongs to a pattern of popular moral philosophy’.217 Whether this is true or not is unknown. What can be concluded is that the unit is organized. It can also be surmised with some credence that it is likely formulated as literature concerning relationships that were common throughout Greco-Roman culture. It may have been a pattern utilized by Paul to state the societal context to Timothy and his expected role within the community of faith as he interacted in a leadership capacity with various groups. Nonetheless, it does reflect an organized presentation. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. The unit utilizes two unique words. The term , ‘to rebuke’, is used infrequently. Contextually it means to strike at, rebuke, or reprove.218 Yet its meaning is understandable when contrasted with the instruction ‘to exhort’ (). In 5.2, younger women are to be treated with ‘purity’ (). The term is used only here and in 5.12, although it was used in secular Greek and here seems to mean ‘moral purity and blamelessness’.219 (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. No syntactical irregularities exist.

5.1.3. Preformation Conclusion 1 Tim. 5.1-2 reflects three different criteria. First, it expresses content consistent with community instruction (C4). This is its strongest criterion conducive to traditional material. Second, it expresses some measure of an organized stylistic structure (C6) with oscillating words that brings symmetry. Third, it 217. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 72. 218. BDAG, ‘’, 377. 219. Friedrich Hauck, ‘’, TDNT, vol. 1, 123.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

117

contains unique words (C7). Yet the segment is lacking in criteria of Structure. It does not reflect significant dislocation nor is it introduced or set apart in any noticeable manner. In this regard it does not demonstrate all categorical criteria and is thus excluded from PT consideration.

5.2. 1 Timothy 5.5-10                        .      .                 .                              .

5.2.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The proposed PT falls within 5.3-16, which is admittedly larger and more complex than most sub-units. It spans 14 verses and is primarily focused on widows and families, which signals a subtle shift in structure based on the movement in content. Specifically, 5.3-16 is most identifiable by noting units that contain contrasting elements concerning the support of widows. The proposed tradition (5.5-10) resides within the larger section of 5.3-16 and is not succinctly contained. On the contrary, the proposed unit exists as part of the larger argument concerning widows who should be ‘supported’ and those who should not. 1 Tim. 5.5-10 reflects part of this alternating pattern. The ‘true widow’ ( ) is to be supported (v. 5), but those who live for pleasure are not to be supported (v. 6). Timothy is then instructed to ‘command these things’ (v. 7), and those who do not adhere are worse than unbelievers (v. 8). It is the older, godly women who are to be considered (vv. 9–10), but not the younger, possibly ungodly women (vv. 11–13). Within this alternating pattern the proposed tradition exists. Infrequently the passage is referenced as a potential preformed unit, usually in a generic manner without substantive validation. For example, Ellis refers to ‘5:5f; 5:9f’ as potential congregational and household rules ‘which are probably also PTs incorporated into the Epistles’.220 In that context, he presents no validation other than to state that it might exist as such. Elsewhere he states its feasibility noting that v. 7 ‘may’ be formulaic.221 This seems unlikely for two reasons. First, 5.5-10 flows within the context and shows no signs of noticeable interruptions. Second, while   is used only here and in 1 Tim. 220. E. Earle Ellis, History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 82. 221. His reference to the formulaic notation refers to the statement ‘Command these things’ ( ). See Ellis, Making of the New Testament Documents, 413, n. 41.

118

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

4.11, it seems to be a statement that reinforces the exhortations previously given. ‘Command’ () is used frequently in the NT and occurs in the context of urging adherence to presented instruction222 and is not cited as a formulaic presentation. Yet Ellis is not totally alone. Others have made similar, generic observations. In a passing statement Easton states that it ‘may be a popular aphorism’,223 but his comment is more in reference to 5.5-6 as opposed to the larger unit as Ellis’s proposal implies. However, the boundaries are embraced for 5.5-10 within this alternating pattern of the discussion of support for widows. It is done so with reservation because it is difficult to establish any measure of presence with which to initially evaluate the structure.

5.2.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. The text does not reflect this criterion. No formula exists. The unit opens with ‘But’ () and quickly transitions to the context of ‘widows’ (). The contextual connection links back to 5.3 and 5.4 where widows are first introduced into the discussion. (ii) C2: Text largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. The passage does not reflect this criterion. It is not self-contained; rather it exists within a larger content discussion. As previously stated, the primary shift occurs between 5.2 and 5.3. The unit under evaluation displays no self-containment and is placed well within the larger passage (5.3-16). There exists a strong cohesion between 5.10 and 5.11 as well. The context moves from ‘older’ widows to the discussion of ‘younger’ widows. This illustrates the difficulty in establishing boundaries for the proposed segment. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. The text contains no theological issues. It does not express early orthodoxy but instead presents practical regulations for the community of faith. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. Like 5.1-2, vv. 5–10 reflect content of orthopraxy. Such instructions are detailed orders for the inclusion (or lack thereof) of widows worthy of provision from the local Ephesian believers. This unit is intently focused on exhortation and therefore is reflective of traditional content. The instructions are ethical in nature and provide guidelines for the church leaders to shepherd with authority and yet encourage through such daily decisions. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. Not only are there extrabiblical citations that discuss societal order and expectations,224 but examples 222. BDAG, ‘’, 760. 223. Easton, Pastoral Epistles, 152. 224. For example, in many ways the community regulations of 1 Timothy 5 reflect the collection

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

119

can be noted from the NT concerning the care for widows.225 This of course reflects OT teaching as well. Multiple contexts are replete with instructions and examples about the care of widows.226 (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. No poetic nuances are found. Even though the passage is structured in an alternating pattern, it merely demonstrates organization, but none that reflects poetic categories beyond a unique, yet customary arrangement of material. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. Several unique words exist within the segment. For example, the perfect passive  (from ) is only found in 5.5. The passive use describes real widows who have ‘been left alone’.227 In 5.7, the term , generally describing one who is beyond reproach, is used only here and in 1 Tim. 3.2 and 6.14. In 5.9, the apostle speaks of placing [widows] on a list (). The term only occurs here and describes enrollment or the specificity of selection due to qualifications.228 And in 5.10, the term ‘brought up children’ () is also a hapax legomenon. Such examples demonstrate the unit’s adherence to this criterion. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. Syntactically, there are only minor issues. For example, there is some question as to the relationship of  (v. 7) to its context as well as the antecedent for ‘they’. Since Paul has just spoken about widows in 5.5-6, it seems they are the topic in v. 7. However, v. 8 speaks of the ‘family’ responsibility. This could be the content because it fits the alternating pattern and is returning to the content of 5.4-5a. Nowhere is there a direct statement to widows.

5.2.3. Preformation Conclusion The segment’s greatest strength in terms of expected criterion is related to the larger categories of Content and Style. Regarding Content, the unit displays strong orthopraxy (C4). The material relates to community instruction with specifics targeted toward provision for widows in need. There are also similar passages (C5) that make such material a common NT theme, with OT roots. Stylistically, the unit displays ample unique words (C7), several of which are only used in the proposed unit, or only in the PE. Yet the segment lacks greatly in expected Structure. It is neither introduced formulaically, nor does the unit of household rules found in Sirach chapters 7 and 8. The regulations are not just familial, but also grouped according to societal categories. The instructions are presented to children and daughters (7.23-24), wives and mothers (7.26-27), the poor and sick (7.32; 35), the rich (8.2), and the poor (8.6). 225. Cf. Lk. 2.37; Acts 6.1-6; 9.36; Jas 1.27. 226. Cf. Deut. 10.18; 24.19-21; Ps. 68.5; Isa. 1.17; Mal. 3.5. 227. BDAG, ‘’, 659. 228. BDAG, ‘’, 520.

120

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

hold together with detailed organization. Also it is not dislocated, but instead weaves into the larger unit (5.3-16) with thematic alternation. In conclusion, the segment does not display all categorical criterion. According to this study’s hypothesis, 1 Tim. 5.5-10 is not embraced as a PT.

5.3. 1 Timothy 5.17-20              .               .             .           .

5.3.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The final proposed PT segment of 1 Timothy 5 is found within the unit 5.17-25. A shift occurs in content as the subject turns to elders, signified by the plurality of . Ellis proposes that 5.17-20 be considered tradition material in line with sources that stated congregational and household rules.229 Others view much of the material as driven from external sources and in a pattern similar to what was previously addressed concerning widows.230 Bartsch has noted that 5.19 suggests that the ‘original source’ document proclaimed that elders were granted immunity from wrongdoing, so Paul wrote to give instructions and correction to this faulty practice.231 Yet as seen before, such suggestions are primarily driven from presuppositions about the dating of the letter (i.e., a later date), or are conjectures based on the supposed circumstantial context. While such conjectures are not out of place, it does demonstrate the advantage of utilizing criteria to validate one’s position when claiming that a pericope exists as a tradition piece. As stated, the proposed tradition exists as part of the larger unit that concludes the chapter. It begins with the new content concerning elders (), and concludes with summation of that topic in 5.20. There is a shift in verbal structure between 5.20 and 5.21. As it stands, 5.17-20 is evaluated for tradition criteria. 5.3.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. The proposed unit has no introductory formula. It begins with a new contextual topic which separates it from 5.16, and it displays no opening presence that alters the unit as traditional material.

229. Ellis, History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective, 82, n. 117. 230. Quinn and Wacker, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 458. 231. Hans Werner Bartsch, Die Anfänge Urchristlicher Rechtsbildungen: Studien zu den Pastoralbriefen (Hamburg: Evangelischer Verlag, 1965), 100.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

121

(ii) C2: Text largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. Two primary reasons dissuade a reflection of this criterion. First, it is not self-contained. The beginning of the unit is easy to identify because it has a noticeable shift in subject matter. Verse 17 opens with ‘Let the elders who rule well’ (   ); a clear contrast from the context of widows in the preceding verse. But it is a difficult task to conclude the unit. While it is possible to conclude the sub-unit after v. 20 because of the personal charge in v. 21, the same patterned exhortation resumes in v. 22. This connection can be observed by noting the participial use in 5.17 and 5.20, and then by noticing the linguistic connection that links 5.20 () with 5.22 (). Hence there seems to be a literary flow that extends the unit beyond 5.20. It is a sub-unit, but the segment does not reflect expected dislocation. It has no autonomous presence to it. As is the case with 5.5-10, the unit seems nestled in general exhortation and instruction and does not interrupt the contextual flow in a manner expected of a PT. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy of central theological concepts. No elements exist to support this criterion. While the content reflects eldership, it does not bring emphasis to central theological themes or items pertaining to doctrinal conviction. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. The content, like that of 5.5-10, is expressive of this criterion. For the most part, it is related to community life and therefore reflects orthopraxy. However, its assessment is difficult. In the middle of the unit exists a citation from the OT (Deut. 25.4) and one text from Lk. 10.7.232 Obviously 1 Tim. 5.18 would require a different evaluative process; and the assessment of OT citations in the NT is purposefully not within the stated purview of the PT study.233 Regardless, the adherence to the requirements of this criterion is embraced since the general tone of the segment is instructional. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. External passages cannot be found except those directly cited from the OT and the NT. In regard to the NT citation, the segment under evaluation is 5.17-20, of which the citation of Lk. 10.7 is supportive material. Yet that account does not reflect the proposed traditional existence of 5.17-20. Since 5.18 is not evaluated as entity, no external passage mirrors the segment. (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. No primary traits reflect poetic nuances. The unit has an instructional presence. It displays no heightened organization beyond the OT citation. 232. See also Lev. 19.13; Deut. 24.15; and Mt. 10.10. Paul also cites Deut. 25.4 in 1 Cor. 9.9. 233. See Chapter 1 of the current study.

122

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

(ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. Minor vocabulary anomalies occur, but none out of the ordinary that would signal a traditional piece.234 The unit primarily reflects a normal structured exhortation in which multiple commands and instructions are given. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. There are no traits that reflect syntactical peculiarities. Verse 20 appears as a bit of a challenge with implications on the context of the continual sinning ( ) of elders and the range of meanings related to ‘confront’ (). Yet this is more an issue of the Ephesian circumstantial context as opposed to a syntactical decision. There is also a question concerning the modification of . In this regard the question is does it imply ‘public sin’ or ‘public confrontation’? The second interpretation is preferable because the same structure is modeled in the immediate passage (5.21;    ) and because ‘the problems were advanced and public, apparently requiring an equally public confrontation’.235 So the segment does require careful consideration, but it is not presented with atypical syntactical nuances.

5.3.3 Preformation Conclusion The only criterion that 1 Tim. 5.17-20 reflects relates to Content. The segment expresses community orthopraxy (C4) and demonstrates material that could be viewed as expected rules for leadership governance. In light of the circumstantial context regarding the false teachers, such exhortation is understandable. This is a strong criterion. However, the unit lacks any structural presence and displays no obvious stylistic tendencies. It is not heightened by an introduction, and it appears to be a sub-unit that nestles within the larger unit (5.17-25). Due to the fact that the unit does not possess any criteria related to Structure and Style, 1 Tim. 5.17-20 is not embraced as a PT. 5.4. 1 Timothy 5.24-25                           .

5.4.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The last proposed PT of 1 Timothy 5 also falls within the third major section of the chapter (5.17-25). The proposed tradition exists in 5.24-25 and is presented 234. For example ‘accusation’ (v. 19; ) is only used in the PE and Jn 18.29. ‘To convict, reprove’ (v. 20; ) has a special nuance in the Pastorals in that it denotes a public exposure that is often cited in defense by late-date proponents because of historical developments in later church history concerning church discipline (cf. Lk. 3.19; 1 Cor. 14.24; Eph. 5.13; Heb. 12.5; Jas 2.9). 235. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 314.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

123

within the contextual flow. The two verses are a contained and distinct unit, and they relate well to the larger unit of 5.17-25. Not only are they bound inextricably by ‘similarly’ or ‘in the same way’ () and ‘clear’ or ‘evident’ (), but, as displayed later in the study, it presents a very structured and paralleled presentation. That is why in the introductory flow of 5.24 ‘the author resumes the topic of sin with some proverbial-sounding comments whose relevance is not immediately apparent’.236 It has a ‘proverbial ring, appealing to common sense. This popular wisdom emphasizes the two advantages of a thorough examination of leader candidates.’237 The unit itself begins in v. 24 with a discussion concerning ‘some men’ ( ). This content is different from that which precedes it (i.e. 5.23: ‘Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses’). The unit that follows (6.1-2) also displays a different content. Hence the proposed segment is structurally bound, and no extension is proposed. As such, 1 Tim. 5.24-25 stands as a potential PT.

5.4.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. There is no formulaic introduction nor conclusion. The segment opens with a clear presentation concerning the sins of some men (   ). The unit concludes in normal fashion. (ii) C2: Text largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. The text begins abruptly. The opening statement claims that ‘The sins of some men are obvious’ (     ). The conclusion of 5.25 is also succinct. As such the unit has distinct boundary markers. Yet the sharpness of the statement, while connected contextually and thematically, disrupts the flow because of its pejorative entrance. This shows that the unit is self-contained yet in cohesion to the larger unit (5.17-25); but it is set apart distinctly and reflects a dislocation from its context. It is tightly packaged and could stand in isolation. Its unity is heightened because it expresses both a negative example (v. 24) and a positive example (v. 25), thus stressing a formal presentation that alerts the reader to its significance. Others note this as well. Guthrie comments, ‘These parallel observations, viewing human potentialities both negatively and positively, bring out forcibly the complexities involved in selecting suitable candidates for God’s work.’238 The content is stressed by its autonomous presence.

236. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 624. 237. Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus, 130. 238. Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 109.

124

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

(b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy of central theological concepts. The passage does not reflect this criterion. The content is more regulatory in nature as opposed to content that is doctrinally centered as generally anticipated in this criterion. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. 1 Tim. 5.24-25 expresses this criterion. The presented material is community orthopraxy. Although it is contextually related to elders, the positive and negative statements joined together present a rhetorical nuance, not only portraying a paraenetic conclusion, but also an epideictic surge in the presentation. According to Grassmick, epideictic rhetoric is ‘designed to urge an audience to affirm a point of view or set of values or aspirations in the present’.239 In part, the power of the content is connected to its structure. As Oberlinner states, ‘Man wird deshalb in V24 (und in V25, der positiven Umkehrun) an eine Sentenz zu denken haben, welche darauf hinweisen soll,daß die Menschen über ihr Tun beim Endgericht Rechenschaft ablegen müssen.’240 Hence the unit is not just about elders, but also about the impact of sin and the fruit of good works. This is an obvious biblical theme. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. Characteristics for this criterion are met. Several examples could be referenced. In Rev. 14.13b: ‘ “Yes”, says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them”.’ Likewise, in regard to the OT, many proverbs echo such sentiments. Prov. 10.9 states, ‘He who walks in integrity walks securely, but he who perverts his ways will be found out’ (NASB). Such paraenetic proverbs are teaching units and when placed at the conclusion of the larger unit (5.17-25), they forcefully solidify the point of the practical exhortation. (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. The stylistic features of 5.24-25 display a poetic nuance. Three observances point to this fact. First, there is a contrasting nature between 5.24 and 5.25. Verse 24 presents a structure, a negative example that speaks of sin, judgment, and the eventual visibility of actions. This is contrasted with v. 25, which speaks of good works, the results of those actions, and the eventual visibility of them. This movement starts the reader on a negative note, then directs to where the author desires responsive action. Second, parallelism is obvious. Hence:

239. John Grassmick, ‘Epistolary Genre’, in Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 234. 240. Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1994), 262.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

125

The parallel structure of vv. 24–25 is pronounced. Not only does v. 24a contrast with v. 24b, but v. 24a parallels v. 25a as v. 24b parallels v. 25b. Some sins Some good deeds

are visible; are visible;

the others become visible later. (v. 24) the others cannot remain hidden. (v. 25)241

In this light 5.24-25 functions as a unit to express the author’s intent. While the focus is still ministry driven, it is presented in a broad manner. ‘It is possible that these thoughts should be applied more widely; certainly they are true in a wider context.’242 In all probability the choosing of leadership serves as an example and instruction by itself. Even the process and warnings present a reminder as to the walk required of all who follow Christ. Third, the forced structure in 5.24 demonstrates clear poetic style and pattern. The opening statement, ‘The sins of some men are evident’ (     ), is a unique construction. Rarely is  (or in this case, the very unique structure ) in the initial position; yet it at times is placed first when appearing with correlatives.243 The forced structure is strategic in order to parallel  with , which is the balancing statement in v. 24. Such linguistic tactics demonstrate the unit’s poetic nuance and thus its criterion adherence. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. The unit displays no significantly abnormal words.  does occur only here and in Heb. 7.14. Yet its meaning is clear. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. In regard to meaning, the preferred syntactical structure provides a flow conducive to explanation. Although the syntax is pressed due to its poetic flavor, it is organized and presents no abnormalities.

5.4.3. Preformation Conclusion 1 Tim. 5.24-25 displays all categorical criteria. Structurally, it is a self-contained unit and is appropriately dislocated (C2). It is self-sustaining and it could exist easily as an autonomous unit. Regarding Content, it is sturdy in orthopraxy (C4). Such instruction was ethical in its charge, invoking a reminder of the consequential outcome of sin, and the results of good work. In its proverbial state, it is paralleled (C5). It is likely a common teaching cloaked in a Christian context. Stylistically, the unit displays a symmetrical presence (C6) and pressed poetical language. As it displays Structure, Content, and Style, 1 Tim. 5.24-25 is embraced as a PT.

241. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 320. 242. Barrett, Pastoral Epistles, 82. 243. Axel Horstmann, ‘Τις, Τι’, in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 363.

126

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

6. 1 Timothy 6 Four potential tradition texts are evaluated in 1 Timothy 6. Under consideration are: 6.1-2; 6.7; 6.10; and 6.11-16. Each proposed unit is provided contextual and segment boundaries. The text is then evaluated regarding the eight criteria of Structure, Content, and Style. Based on diagnosed criteria a text is assigned a preformation conclusion.

6.1. 1 Timothy 6.1-2                      .                      .    .

6.1.1 Contextual and Segment Boundaries 1 Timothy 6 is composed of five units: 6.1-2a, 6.2b-10, 6.11-16, 6.17-19, and 6.20-21. In terms of the structural divisions of the chapter, commentators generally agree on these ascribed divisions, although some place 6.1-2b as an addition to the previous exhortation since it addresses a specialized group within the community.244 1 Tim. 6.1-2 is arguably a distinct unit that is best understood as an extension of the categorical exhortations expressed in chapter 5. It exists as the final topic, providing instructions concerning slaves and the treatment of their masters within the community of faith.245 The unit begins with a shift in content, which distinguishes it from 5.25, and it concludes before the statement in 6.2b (   ), which serves as the bridge between the exhortations (5.1–6.2a) and the instructions concerning false teachers. In many ways, ‘this phrase is isolated from its neighboring verses. However,  provides some connection with the previous material and the emphasis on teaching does connect with some of the following material’.246 Ellis is convinced that 6.1-2 is of the more generic congregational and household rules that he presents as PTs.247 Others refer to the unit as a ‘piece of

244. This position is embraced by Welch, Roloff, Bush, Marshall, Mounce, and Van Neste and is structurally displayed in the various proposed outlines of 1 Timothy as articulated in the current study’s discussion on organizational structure in Chapter 4, Table 1. 245. For background information see W. W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery: The Condition of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian (New York: AMS, 1969); James Albert Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006); Francis Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1984). 246. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 67. 247. Ellis, History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective, 82.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

127

early Christian parenesis, the counterparts of which are found in the “rules for the household”.’248 Nevertheless, the unit is contained with boundaries. Since 6.2b appears as a transitional sentence it is omitted from the evaluation. Thus the segment is limited to 6.1-2a.

6.1.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. No evidence exists which supports this criterion. The segment opens with a command for ‘All who are under the yoke of slavery’ (    ). There is no formulaic introduction, and as the boundaries are set to conclude prior to 6.2b, no concluding statement exists. (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. In regard to this criterion, while the unit is enclosed, it shows no signs of expected dislocation. On the contrary, it seems patterned in its content introduction and resembles units that display a minor topical shift such as occurs in 5.1, 3, and 17. The same format occurs in 6.1. Some have attempted to argue dislocation as it stands in contrast to 5.24-25,249 but that argument holds more validation in regard to the results of the presence of 5.24-25. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. This segment does not exhibit this criterion. The content is more regulatory in nature as opposed to content that is doctrinally centered as generally anticipated in this criterion. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic concepts. Like other proposed units of exhortation, 6.1-2a does express this criterion. Its content is instructional and notes teaching related to the culture of community life. It follows the same pattern of categorically addressing groups within the community of faith with specific instruction. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. The unit reflects other contexts of teaching concerning slaves.250 In this regard the proposed unit does meet the criterion standard. Slavery and slave relationships are undoubtedly a common theme within the Greco-Roman culture as noted by the many diatribes relating to the sensitive subject matter.251 248. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 82. 249. Barrett attempts to see connections between 6.1-2a and 5.17-25 within the context of elder exhortation. He states, ‘Notwithstanding the opening words of the English translation (All who wear the yoke of slavery) it seems probable that this short paragraph is addressed not to slaves in general (though it would not be inapplicable to any slave) but particularly to elders who are slaves’ (Pastoral Epistles, 82). Yet this does not seem plausible since nothing is stated about elders. 250. Cf. Eph. 6.5-8; Col. 3.22-25; 1 Pet. 2.18-21. 251. Lock argues that some writers were teaching that slaves should receive better treatment

128

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

(c) Criterion of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. The text contains no noticeable symmetry. Although an expressed unit, it does not display heightened organization reflective of poetic style. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. There is no highly abnormal vocabulary. Most of the wording is Pauline with heavy emphasis used in the PE. Two words (and their derivatives) only occur in this passage and in Luke and Acts.252 (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. The text reveals no significant syntactical issues. While there is some struggle in the assignment of the last phrase (‘those benefiting from their act of kindness’), the more natural understanding refers to the fact that slaves should work even harder because their Christian master receives the benefit of their labor. This seems in harmony to Paul’s admonitions as in Eph. 6.5-8.

6.1.3. Preformation Conclusion 1 Tim. 6.1-2a displays two criteria reflective of Content. Specifically, it portrays material that is of general orthopraxy (C4) and content that is addressed elsewhere in the NT (C5). However, the segment lacks substantive evidence and recognition of the criteria needed in all categories. It displays no Structural reflection of traditional material. Instead it presents the final installment of exhortation to various groups within the community. Likewise, the segment has no Stylistic traits. As the unit does not meet criteria standards, 1 Tim. 6.1-2a is not embraced as a PT. 6.2. 1 Timothy 6.7           

6.2.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries The new content of 1 Timothy 6 begins at 6.2b and is noted by the command ‘Teach them and exhort them about these things’ (   ). The larger unit (6.3-10) is composed of two unique topics: 6.3-5, which deals with those who do not teach ‘sound instruction’ (and their characteristics), and 6.6-10, which focuses on general reflection of wealth and the apparent quest of the false teachers who desire material gain. The proposed PT, 1 Tim. 6.7, is wedged firmly in its local unit (6.6-8), which in turn parallels 6.9-10. Those who advocated false doctrine were discussed in 6.2c-5; but when combined from their masters by citing Seneca, Ep. 47 and Epictetus 1.13 (Pastoral Epistles, 65). For more discussion see S. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1905), 117. 252. The term  implies ‘service’ or ‘good deads’ and occurs in 1 Tim. 6.2 and Acts 4.9. The term  (‘to benefit from’) is used in the current context and with derivatives in Lk. 1.54 and Acts 20.35.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

129

in its larger context (6.2c-10), the passage contrasts the blessings of godliness and contentment (6.6-8) with false doctrines and warnings for those who strive after riches (6.9-10). The implication from the larger unit is that if one is striving after material gain, such endeavors do not reflect godliness. According to 1 Tim. 6.10, some had already done this and had ‘strayed from the faith’ (   ) and ‘pierced themselves with many pains’ (   ). The middle section (6.6-8) of the larger unit is where the proposed tradition resides. This sub-unit is very cohesive. 1 Tim. 6.6 sets itself apart from 6.5 with the insertion of  which is rendered ‘but’ or ‘now’. It is a very structured unit in that it redefines ‘profit’ () as used in v. 5 and introduces the fact that ‘contentment’ () should flow out of godliness (v. 6). Out of such ‘contentment’ a fact is stated: ‘we brought nothing into the world, and nothing will be taken out’ (v. 7). Following this, v. 8 repetitiously returns to v. 6, reinforcing that one who is godly is ‘content with’ () food and clothing. In the presentation, then, 6.6 and 6.8 surround 6.7 with the theme of contentment, and v. 7 anchors both statements in reality. Synthesis to the sub-unit’s organization is stated in this manner: Verses 6-8 have a basic unity, with verse 8 serving as a repetition and augmentation of verse 6. Both verses encourage contentment using cognate words in inclusion fashion (, v. 6; , v. 8). This binds the verses around verse 7 which acts as a ground to the call to contentment by emphasizing the ephemeral nature of material goods.253

Great value exists in 6.7 because it locks the entire unit together. Therefore this verse is a distinct unit that sets itself apart within its sub-unit. The short statement begins with ‘For’ (), then continues the thematic movement from v. 6. It is explanatory and thus validates what previously had been presented in v. 6. It is set apart from v. 8 by the use of ‘but’ (). Thus even the conjunctive movement stresses the significance of 6.7 ( [v. 6],  [v. 7],  [v. 8]). 1 Tim. 6.7 defensibly exists as a contained unit that is part of a larger structure that is well organized. 6.2.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. The passage has no formulaic properties. It is introduced with , but this appears to set the unit apart in its context and is not to be viewed as a formulaic introduction. It has no formulaic presentation. (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. The text is a self-contained unit that reflects appropriate contextual dislocation. The previous discussion of segment boundaries has developed the proposed unit’s beginning 253. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 69–70.

130

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

and ending, both within its own existence and that of the sub-unit. Not only is it bound in and of itself, but it is also bordered by 6.6 and 6.8, both of which amplify the unique structure and theme of v. 7. In terms of contextual dislocation, while it is part of the presentation of 6.6-8, it is unique because of its proverbial qualities. The text displays a heightened presence that serves to interrupt (or bring distinction to) the literary flow, yet not so much as to disrupt its continuity and thus display a lack of cohesion. Many have noted the prominence of the text. Marshall states that it is a ‘proverbial-sounding couplet’.254 Guthrie labels it as an ‘axiomatic’ phrase.255 Fee states that it is a sentiment from among the Stoics.256 And as a practical grounding Barcley states that ‘Paul appeals to our birth and our death to support his assertion concerning the value of godliness with contentment’.257 The point is that a sundry of commentators note the distinction of the unit. It is contained and heightened in the text because of its dislocation and presence. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. No significant orthodox or theological issues are evident. The content is more regulatory in nature as opposed to content that is doctrinally centered. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. The content of 6.7 is emblematic of this criterion, and it is supported by external passages that present the same proverbial, thematic ring. The message of the proposed tradition is one of a pragmatic nature and is true of all humanity. That is one reason the unit is often referenced as a proverb, a maxim, or an axiomatic poetic package. As to its genre, such statements are ‘sagacious sayings taken from everyday life. Some of them involve God and wisdom. Others are concerned with many other aspects of man’s existence.’258 This paraenetic proverb is used by Paul to stabilize the exhortation of the unit. He reminds the believers at Ephesus that godliness should result in contentment, not a quest for material things, because such ‘things’ will pass away. All humans will depart as they came. This practical teaching is reflective of life instruction under a Christian context. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. Appeals should be made to passages of similar expression and outlook. Texts such as Job 1.21, Eccl. 5.15, and Lk. 12.16-21 present common language and ideology.259 It is a common biblical theme. 254. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 645. 255. Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 112. 256. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 144. 257. William B. Barcley, A Study Commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 2005), 190. 258. A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963), 334. 259. In Pol., Philippians 4.1 Polycarp alludes to 1 Tim. 6.10. Cf. Hermas, Sim. 1.6 for an early Christian reference of similar vein.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

131

(c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. The unit is paralleled and proverbial. Two elements display its poetic standing. First, it is important to note that 6.7 is an ‘awkward sentence in Greek’.260 Yet that is precisely supportive of its poetic nuance in which grammatical and literary norms are often forced in order to present a memorable oration or a patterned rhythm. Such is the case in the current unit. The first part of the statement is difficult because literally it states, ‘For we carried nothing into the world (     ).’ The second part is straightforward as well: ‘and we can take nothing out either’ (    ). The complexity is found in its relationship to 6.8. If it is to explain why little is needed while in the world (as contentment is implied in 6.8), it seems not to do so. Thus the statement seems purposefully ambiguous. ‘Perhaps rather than understanding this as a statement that is logically precise and comprehensive in its application, we should be satisfied to see that it says something fairly general about temporality versus eternality and the relative values of each.’261 Thus the literary structure is a sign of its inserted proverbial force. It also reflects this criterion because its short paralleled presence has a noticeable proverbial measure to it which is separated by . As a maxim, it is purposefully succinct. The second reason it reflects a poetic structure is because poetry often presses literary boundaries. This is observed by evaluating the structure of the unit. The opening phrase is      . ‘For’ () sets the statement apart. It is followed by ‘we have brought nothing’ ( [] ). The negation is , which means ‘in no way’ or ‘nothing’. The verbal thrust is found in , which is an aorist active form of  that denotes ‘bringing or leading in’.262 The final prepositional phrase is    and is rendered with its object as ‘into the world’. Hence the statement is addressing that on entering into the world (i.e., being born), one brought nothing. The completed thought is introduced by . Following the pattern of poetic freedom,  is used in a unique contextual manner.263 The normal meaning of  would be rendered ‘because’, but this presents a strange meaning. While a variety of views could be proposed, it seems best to affirm that ‘Paul was using  in a weakened sense, meaning “and”. Although there is no exact precedent for this use,  in certain circumstances was weakening in its causal sense.’264 The unit concludes with an aorist infinitive () 260. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 343. 261. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 646. 262. BDAG, ‘’, 1, 295. 263. The difficulty of translation explains the textual variants among witnesses concerning  in 6.7. Bruce M. Metzger is correct: ‘The omission of any connective at all by several patristic writers (Ephraem, Orsisius, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril) doubtless reflects merely a rhetorical expedient when quoting a difficult text’ (Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 643). 264. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 343. Cf. BDAG, ‘ ’, 5 c, 732.

132

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

which when combined with  (‘nothing’) and  (‘to be able’) implies ‘[and] we are not able to take anything out of it [either]’. This statement parallels 6.7a and concludes the thought. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. The passage contains no highly irregular vocabulary, although it is interesting to note that both ‘brought’ () and ‘take’ () are used most commonly by Luke.265 (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. The unusual syntactical issues have been previously noted. Not only is the sentence awkward, but the most bizarre syntactical issue is the use of , which connects the distinct parts together. This unusual structure likely explains the multiple textual variants that exist at this junction in the sentence.266

6.2.3. Preformation Conclusion 1 Tim. 6.7 displays several strong criteria reflective of traditional material. In regard to Structure, the proverbial demeanor of the text provides quality selfcontainment (C2). Although tightly packaged in the literary flow, it is autonomous and could easily stand alone as a maxim. In reference to Content, the segment is an instructional proverb (C4) and can be understood as community exhortation. It also relates well to a few passages in terms of general content presentation (C5). Stylistically, the segment is presented with poetic symmetry (C6) and is notably organized. It also displays a few syntactical peculiarities (C8). As the segment displays criteria reflective of the major categories of Structure, Content, and Style, it is embraced as a PT. 6.3. 1 Timothy 6.10                    .

6.3.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries Like the previous proposed PT, this potential tradition unit also falls within the larger segment of 6.2b-10. Just as there was unity in 6.6-8, the same exists in 6.9-10. The local sub-unit (6.9-10) in which the current proposal resides is compact. 1 Tim. 6.9 notes a slight shift in content, which is noted by the conjunction  (‘but’). The subject matter moves to a discussion concerning ‘those who are rich’ as expressed through the infinitive . After expounding the pitfalls for those who desire () to get rich, 6.9 transitions abruptly, 265.  () occurs in Mt. 6.13; Lk. 5.18, 19; 11.4; 12.11; Acts 17.20, Heb. 13.11. The verb  () is utilized in Mk 8.23; Lk. 15.22; Acts 5.6, 9, 10, 15; Heb. 6.8. 266. The oldest extant witnesses affirm  (such as , A, F, G, 048, 061, 33, 81, 1739, 1881, and itg,r). The primary variations include  ,  , and simple readings of  and ’, all of which attempt to bring clarity to the rendering of a difficult text.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

133

yet with content consistency. The abruptness comes in that 6.10 is signaled with the presence of  (‘for’), which again is used in an explanatory manner. The proposed unit (6.10a) exists as the opening part of 6.10 which is composed of two parts. As previously stated, 6.10a opens with the conjunction  and exists as a complete sentence identified by a subject ( ), a verb form (), a predicate nominative (), and adjectival modifiers (  ). Such structure is normal and shows that it is a complete statement. This is also noticeable since the second half of the verse opens with a relative pronoun () and an indefinite pronoun (), which, when combined, can be rendered ‘some [people] who’. Functioning as the subject for its verbal form (), v. 10b is separate from v. 10a; thus it divides the verse into two complete sentences. The segment is focused on the evaluation of 6.10a, and the boundaries narrow the scope to that context.

6.3.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. The text does not display a formulaic introduction or conclusion. It opens with a brief transition with . (ii) C2: Texts largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. The text is fairly self-contained as expressed in its proverbial portrayal. Alongside its containment, it is arguably dislocated in the sense that it could exist as a standalone unit. While being part of the contextual theme, the unit stands out by shifting the style from a didactical instruction (v. 9) to an explanatory model (v. 10a) followed by an example that relates to Timothy’s current community (v. 10b). In many ways this models the flow as described in 6.6-8 where the preformed unit (6.7) is wedged between two distinct pieces and serves as the antidotal platform to which both of these statements are attached.267 (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. The text does not meet this criterion. The content is more regulatory in nature. (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. 1 Tim. 6.10a is presented as a pithy maxim and has a definite paraenetic pitch as it reflects a general truth. Contextually it links the preceding content to it. ‘This is a common proverb that Paul now quotes to strengthen his argument in verse 9 … This sentiment can be found throughout ancient literature.’268 As such the text adheres to this criterion expectation. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. Although no exact Scriptural parallel is found, the quest for financial gain is a theme in Proverbs and 267. Cf. Diogenes of Sinope in Diogenes Laertius 6.50. See also Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 85, nn. 17 and 18 for additional historical citations. 268. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 346.

134

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

is undoubtedly reflective of the contrast of temporary gratification (i.e., fruit of money) with that of eternality (cf. Mk 8.36). It is a biblical theme addressing prioritization of life. (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. Like other proverbial insertions, this segment reflects a brief, but proverbial symmetry. As in 6.7, the current unit presses the specificity of meaning and reflects a purposeful ambiguity, a sure sign of a paraenetic proverb that has a focused yet general truth. The complexity does not lie in the subject ( ) but in the predicate. It is understanding the ‘root of all evils’ ( []   ) that is truthfully ambiguous. Two items are worth noting. First,  is purposefully anarthrous. Second,    is plural. Hence, the love of money is ‘a root of all evils’. The parallel assuredly applies but it does so in a clearer manner when viewed in context with 6.9. It was a serious problem to the Ephesians. Some in their midst had a love affair with money, and it was causing them to stumble spiritually. So the proverb is a warning to those who needed it, and a reminder to those who did not. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. The term ‘love of money’ () only occurs in this context. It is a compound word made up of  (love) and  (silver); hence the meaning is clear. It is used in 4 Macc. 1.26 and 2.15. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. Syntactically, the unit is sound. Although ‘root’ (), is used figuratively, the general statement is clear in the context.

6.3.3 Preformation Conclusion 1 Tim. 6.10a meets established requirements in each of the major categories of Structure, Content, and Style. It is presented in a compact structure that displays a measure of self-containment and general independence (C2). In terms of Content, the unit is a teaching proverbial maxim (C4). Its content is bent toward ethical response in light of Christian conviction. Stylistically, it is presented beyond normal prose (C6) and reflects symmetry. And although clear in meaning, it contains a unique word used nowhere else in the NT (C7). As such, 1 Tim. 6.10a is embraced as a PT. 6.4. 1 Timothy 6.11-16               .                     .                                               

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

135

                       .

6.4.1. Contextual and Segment Boundaries 1 Tim. 6.11-16 is the third primary unit in the chapter. A shift is observed between 6.10 and 6.11 in that 6.10b concludes the response to the preformed unit of 6.10a. 1 Tim. 6.11 opens with a distinct address: ‘But you, O man of God’ (    ). The phrase is connected to the previous unit in that it is contrasting Timothy with those described as the rich who were chasing after money and had thus been led astray. The passage displays cohesion within the chapter, but now it launches into a distinct unit focused exclusively on Timothy. It concludes with the word ‘Amen’ in 6.16, which is the frequent finale of a doxology. This doxology is included because of an acknowledgement that the Lord will return at the appointed time. After the , 6.17 returns to a discussion concerning the rich (). Because of these identifiable opening and concluding markers, the structural divisions are set in that 6.11-16 exists as one unit and that it is set off by its unique charge and closing word of affirmation. Due to the sheer size of the proposed unit and with the larger boundaries established, it is important to evaluate the sub-structure of this unique unit and to establish cohesion within the proposed segment. Such information will also assist when evaluating the unit for tradition criteria. Perplexity comes in identifying the sub-units within the larger structure (6.1116) due to the content’s style and symmetry. Yet there seem to be three somewhat identifiable sub-units. The primary shift which occurs between 6.12 and 6.13 is one of style. While 6.11-12 display a succession of second-person singular verbs (six times), 6.13-16 present a primary thrust through infinitives and participles made up of one consecutive sentence. There is a strong connection between 6.11-12 and the previous context: ‘Verses 11-12 can be regarded as following on directly from what precedes, in that they counsel the man of God to set his aim on things other than getting rich, to cultivate godliness and not be diverted.’269 The symmetry (between 6.11 and 6.12) best supports the verses as a sub-unit. It appears also to be linked to the previous context, but only in the sense that it provides a literary bridge. To directly link it to 6.2c-10 seems unfounded since the verbal shift exists in 6.11-12, not 6.2c-10. In the former context, no secondperson singular verbs are used and the context is that of groups within the community. In 6.11 the subject has clearly moved to Timothy. Therefore it seems prudent to keep 6.11-12 as a sub-unit within the larger context (6.11-16). The opening of the next sub-unit (6.13-15a) is detected by noting that Paul places a pointed instruction toward Timothy: ‘I charge you in the presence of God’ (    ). This distinguishes it from the 269. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 653.

136

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

previous context, yet it is similar to statements elsewhere in the letter.270 It is also linked to the previous verse through a common phrase identifying the ‘good confession’ ( ). In 6.12 Paul notes that Timothy made the good confession ( ) in front of many witnesses. In 6.13 he states that Jesus made his good confession ( ) before Pontius Pilate. Hence Paul’s statement concerning Timothy’s confession appears to launch him into a reflection of Christ’s confession. The charge to Timothy extends through 6.15a and was to be kept until the appearing of the Lord. This concludes the direct charge to Timothy as well as defining the second sub-unit. Following the charge is a doxology that extends through 6.16. This final sub-unit (6.15b-16) is presented with high theological terminology that is reflective of 1 Tim. 1.17. It is a melodic, well-organized piece that flows from the previous sub-unit. Like most doxologies, it is oriented toward praise and reflective of theological convictions of the early community of faith. Collectively the three sub-units (6.11-12; 6.13-15a; 6.15b-16) are closely connected, although 6.11-12 stands as a more tightly-knit unit than the other two. Likewise the latter of two sub-units flow as one continuous thought and present a cohesive structure through their respective contexts (i.e., a charge and a doxology). The larger unit (6.11-16) is wedged between the teaching concerning godliness and money (6.6-10) and a statement concerning those who are rich (6.17-19). The proposed acceptance of the ascribed text as a tradition unit is broad in reference. The range of the tradition portion covers the gamut from phrase, to sentence, to verse, to sub-unit, to the entire pericope. What is noticeable is the consistency of most commentators to make a clear association of the text (with the usual statements of embraced portions) to a tradition background of some sort. Almost all students of the text have a consensus that the unit, in part or whole, is produced from a source (or sources) having a tradition background associated with Timothy’s profession of faith or his charge of ministerial duties. The most common ideology is that the unit has its origin of teaching surrounding baptism.271 In this case, the Sitz im Leben surrounds Timothy’s baptism in which ‘many witnesses’ ( ) heard his good confession ( ). Others are convinced that some or all of the material is related to a type of ordination discourse272 that most likely included baptismal

270. Cf. 1 Tim. 4.12, 16. 271. For discussions concerning a potential baptismal origin see Spicq, Les Épitres Pastorales, 569, and Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 142. 272. Roloff identifies several notations in 1 and 2 Timothy (1 Tim. 1.18; 4.14; 2 Tim. 1.6; 2.2) that he concludes are allusions to Timothy’s ‘ordination’. See Jürgen Roloff, Der Erste Brief an Timotheus, Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 15 (Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1988), 340–58.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

137

exhortations.273 Still others emphasize the liturgical presence of the passage,274 or even state that it is a persecution testimony.275 It must be admitted that the origin is indeed cloaked, but its heightened language makes the unit highly suspect as existing as a tradition unit. This inclination toward tradition material continues when evaluating the final sub-unit appropriately referenced as a doxology. This is the second such doxology in the letter (cf. 1.17). The similar structure is apparent and ‘substantial similarities here could attest to a common source, whether it be the Hellenistic synagogue or Paul’s knowledge of the Hellenistic world, the needs of the Ephesian church, or his own literary genius’.276 An initial overview casts significant possibilities on the unit, in part or whole, as being considered as a tradition unit; and it certainly is worthy of investigation because of the frequent citations that reference the unit as a PT. It is without doubt a complex unit with complicated sub-units, each expressing its own possibilities while maintaining cohesion. That cohesion demands that the three sub-units of 1 Tim. 6.11-16 be evaluated as one unit. Hanson agrees when he concludes: ‘The reference in verse 12 to making the good confession in the presence of many witnesses, and the liturgical-sounding language in vv. 15 and 16, all point in this direction.’277 1 Tim. 6.11-16 is thus treated as one unit under investigation.

6.4.2. Criteria Evaluation (a) Criteria of structure (i) C1: Formulaic introduction or conclusion. The passage contains no evidence of this criterion. While the unit opens with ‘But you’ ( ), it does not appear formulaic. Instead, the opening clause gives credence to the unit’s general containment and boundaries. In terms of conclusion, the segment ends in . Yet this seems in line with the doxology of 6.16 as opposed to a formulaic ‘conclusion’ to the entire pericope under investigation. As such the segment does not adhere to this criterion. (ii) C2: Text largely self-contained or contextually dislocated. The proposed unit demonstrates competency in its reflection of this criterion. Although the

273. Commentators who present emphasis on a baptismal discourse include ones such as Hanson (Pastoral Epistles, 44) and Knight (Pastoral Epistles, 142). 274. See Ernst Käsemann, ‘Das Formular einer Neutestamentlichen Ordinationsparänese’, in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem 70 Geburtstag am 20. August 1954, ed. Walther Eltester (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954), 261–68. 275. See Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J. K. S. Reid (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949), 25–30. 276. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 352. 277. Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 110.

138

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

opening charge of 6.11, ‘But you, O man of God’ (    ) is unique to Paul, it does not reflect a formulaic tradition introduction. Instead, it reflects an introduction heightening the contrast between Timothy and the lovers of money. The proposed unit is unique in its literary placement, and previous structural analysis demonstrates it to be a contained unit in its context. Yet it also displays a measure of dislocation. As a large structure, many have noted its abrupt occurrence. In their opening comments on the section, Dibelius and Conzelmann remark, ‘It is difficult to determine the position of these verses in relation to their context … But as a whole, the section appears to be an intrusion between verse 10 and 17. Are these verses, as a whole, a unit that was inserted here?’278 It has been demonstrated previously that there exists strong placement to the unit since 6.11-12 have identifiable connections to 6.6-10. Nevertheless, the unit under consideration reflects a noticeable disruption to the flow of the passage which supports the concept that the segment is an insertion. In other words there is ample data to show that the unit interrupts the contextual movement, but does so strategically. As such, the text meets the criterion and therefore reflects the Structure expected of a PT. (b) Criteria of content (i) C3: Emphasis on early orthodoxy or central theological concepts. The noticeable portion of the unit that reflects this criterion is 6.15-16. The doxology, like that of 1.17, is reflective of rich theology. Terms such as ‘immortality’ () and ‘dwelling in unapproachable light’ (  ) exemplify this standing. Also a professing tenor is woven throughout the unit in which Timothy and Jesus are each spoken of as having a ‘good confession’ ( ). Such terminology is in reference to an ‘acknowledgement of faith’.279 (ii) C4: Emphasis on orthopraxy and paraenetic content. The unit exists, in part, as a charge to Timothy. However, Easton correctly notes that all believers are in some manner ‘God’s man’.280 As such the content is instructional for all believers in the household of faith. Timothy’s charge is also a charge to all in Ephesus. As he is to remember his ‘good confession’, they are to remember theirs. Such sentiments reflect high paraenesis, reflective of strong emotion as the letter heads toward its conclusion. (iii) C5: Identifiable external parallel passages. The proposed text has parallel accounts. Although no texts (in totality) exist in parallel outside the PE, it is fascinating to observe the strong similarities between 1 Tim. 6.12-14 and

278. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 87. 279. BDAG, ‘’, 2, 709. 280. Easton, Pastoral Epistles, 165.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

139

2 Tim. 4.6-8.281 The interdependence of the two is obvious. In regard to the doxology (6.15-16), like 1.17, many similarities exist.282 Therefore portions of the passage demonstrate the criterion. (c) Criteria of style (i) C6: Poetic nuances. Poetically the unit is unquestionably unique. The opening portion of the unit displays an organized contrast that posture Timothy, a man of God (    ), against those who are lovers of money (6.2c10). Conversely, Timothy is not to strive after money, but instead is to ‘pursue’ () very specific virtues.283 Specifically Paul lists six distinct qualities, similar conceptually to other Pauline lists.284 The presentation is highly organized, with six words in v. 11 apparently grouped into pairs representing one’s relationship with God (, ), expressions of the Christian life (, ), and the correct response to a hostile world (, ).285 The listing is presented in a balanced manner to assist in aural presentation and probable memorization. Another highly organized section occurs in the concluding doxology. Distinct parallels exist between 1.17 and 6.15-16:

286

1 Tim. 1.17

1 Tim. 6.15-16

King of Ages Immortal Invisible

King of Kings The only one having immortality Who dwells in unapproachable light, who no one has seen or is able to see

The only God Be honor and glory for ever and ever, Amen.

Only sovereign To him be honor and power forever, Amen.286

281. The similarities are several: 1 Tim. 6.12-14

2 Tim. 4.6-8

1. ‘Fight the good fight’

‘I have fought the good fight’

2. ‘Keep the commandment pure’

‘I have kept the faith’

3. Timothy is to follow Jesus’ example, who also made the ‘good confession’.

‘There is laid up for me the crown of Righteousness’

4. Eternal life is held out as the ultimate reward

The Lord will reward Paul with a crown of righteousness

5. Timothy must persevere until Jesus Christ returns

God will give Paul his crown ‘on that day’

6. Discussion concerning His ‘appearing’

‘To all who have longed for His appearing’

282. 283. 284. 285. 286.

Cf. Rom. 11.36, 16.27; Eph. 3.21; Heb. 13.21; 1 Pet. 4.11; Rev. 4.11. The entire context is reminiscent of Eph. 4.22-24 and Col. 3.8-17. Cf. 2 Cor. 6.6-7; Gal. 5.22-23; Col. 3.12-14; 2 Tim. 2.22-25; 3.10. Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 262. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 352.

140

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

The comparison and poetical symmetry between the two is great. 1 Tim. 6.15-16 is highly patterned and unique in format. The structure and wording ‘give the impression of being about as far from Paul’s style and thoughts as anything in the Pastoral Epistles’.287 Yet it is virtually unquestioned that its content is well attested in Hellenistic Judaism and is based on ideas in the OT, possibly synagogue worship.288 Following the opening phrase ‘which he will make known at the proper time’ (   ), a series of well-configured phrases are presented in a climactic format describing God. The doxology ‘contains an elaborate structure and a rich series of names, titles, and predicates’.289 Specifically, seven phrases are presented. 290 Due to the unit’s display of poetic reflection and organization, it adheres to this criterion. (ii) C7: Abnormal vocabulary. The proposed unit also reflects unique vocabulary that displays several NT, Pauline, and PE hapax legomena. Specific to the NT, significant words appear only in this context. For example, in the virtue list of 6.11, ‘gentleness’ () occurs only here. Likewise in 6.16, the adjectival description of God as ‘unapproachable’ () is included only here. Terms exclusive to Paul are ‘appearance’ ()291 and ‘beyond reproach’ ().292 Distinct titles and uses of phrases occur also. For example, in the opening charge of 6.11, Timothy is addressed as ‘But you, O man of God’ (    ). The use of the vocative is at times expressive of passion. When taken in context the direct charge is best understood emotively. Also, in 6.13 the title ‘Pontius Pilate’ ( ) is used. While all the gospel writers use , the tribal name  occurs only Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 113. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 666. Neyrey, ‘Uniqueness and the Doxologies in 1 Timothy’, 80. The seven phrases are as follows: 1)      [The one who is the blessed and only Sovereign] 2)     [the King of kings] 3)    [the Lord of lords] 4)     [the only one having immortality] 5)    [the one living in unapproachable light] 6)        [whom no person has seen or is ever able to see] 7)       [To Him be honor and eternal dominion forever. Amen.] 291. For additional examples, see 1 Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 1.10; 4.1, 8; Tit. 2.13; 2 Thess. 2.8. 292. For additional examples, see 1 Tim. 3.2; 5.7; 6.14.

287. 288. 289. 290.

3. Identification of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

141

in Lk. 3.1, Acts 4.27, and in the current context. Such a synopsis of the language and use of 1 Tim. 6.11-16 demonstrates that this criterion is met. (iii) C8: Unusual syntactical structure. Many of the technical decisions relate to word meaning. However, a few additional unique syntactical issues reside within the segment. In 6.12, Timothy is admonished to fight the good fight ‘of the faith’ ( ). The question is one of reference. It either directs attention to Timothy’s ministry (within the Christian faith), or it is a contextual call to perseverance (i.e., faithfulness). It is difficult to decide due to the fact that the context presents both connection points. ‘Perhaps the ambiguity is intentional and instructive, for the life and the work of the minister are inextricably bound together.’293 Probably the greatest issue relates to the intended structural parallel between Timothy’s confession (v. 12) and that of Jesus (v. 13). The parallel is linguistically intended by noting ‘confessed’ () and ‘witnessed’ (), as well the follow-up phrase ‘the good confession’ (  ). In light of the context, it may simply establish a comparison of perseverance. However, if the unit is deemed as traditional material, the creedal language certainly heightens an interpretive parallel that stresses the ‘good confession’. It is this confession that was made before Pontius Pilate. In other historical creeds, such as the Apostles’ Creed, Pilate is mentioned by name.

6.4.3. Preformation Conclusion After criteria evaluation, 1 Tim. 6.11-16 adheres to the three major classifications of Structure, Content, and Style. Specifically, the unit expresses an organized structure (C2) of three sub-units, and the unit could stand alone as a confessional charge to Timothy. In terms of Content, the segment displays all three criteria. Portions of the unit reflect items of orthodoxy and express strong theological concepts (C3). Yet it is very practical. While it is directed toward Timothy, the unit openly charges him to recall his confession made in front of many witnesses ( ). This implies a public charge, and combined with the community dynamic in the epistolary model, it appears as if Timothy’s charge is an example not just to him but to all who would hear Paul’s admonition. As such it reflects content of orthopraxy (C4). The unit, in portion, also connects to external passages (C5), with special emphasis linked to the doxology at the end of the segment. Stylistically, the unit has portions of poetic resemblance (C6) and it is replete with unique vocabulary (C7). In addition, there are several syntactical challenges to the unit (C8). Thus, the unit presents strong data for criterion adherence. As it reflects the expected categorical criteria, 1 Tim. 6.11-16 is embraced as a PT.

293. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 355.

Chapter 4 PAUL’S UTILIZATION OF PREFORMED TRADITIONS IN 1 TIMOTHY 1. Overview 1.1 Summation of Identified Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy The study thus far has concluded that the following twelve passages in 1 Timothy express categorical criteria1 consistent with tradition material and should be considered PTs: (1) 1.8-10, (2) 1.15a-b, (3) 1.17, (4) 2.5-6a, (5) 3.1, (6) 3.16, (7) 4.8, (8) 4.9, 10b, (9) 5.24-25, (10) 6.7, (11) 6.10a, and (12) 6.11-16. Observations concerning the distribution of the traditions and their statistical accounting in conjunction with the rest of the epistle demonstrate a substantial utilization by the author. A cursory overview detects that the twelve traditions encapsulate 22 verses of the total 113 verses in 1 Timothy. To be more specific, the 22 verses account for 332 words of the 1,590 words in the letter. Statistically 20.88 percent, or roughly one-fifth, of the book is composed of PTs. While this is considerably less than Ellis’s count that propounds 43 percent as preformed,2 it corroborates the fact that Paul’s tradition use in 1 Timothy is considerable.

1. See ‘Appendix 2: Criteria Tabulation of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy’. 2. E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), 418. The primary difference between the results of this study and those of Ellis is based on two issues. Foremost is the difference in definition of what is considered a ‘preformed tradition’. This study has been intent on identifying units that display certain criteria that reflect general criteria established as common to tradition units. While Ellis espouses his own criteria, he applies the criteria in a manner that embraces what this study has deemed as content that is more reflective of common kerygmatic material as opposed to what seems to be an inserted unit. Hence the second difference, which is a natural byproduct of the first, is one of application. Ellis embraces larger portions of material such as 2.9-15; 3.2-13; and 4.1-5 – material that this study has surveyed and deemed as not reflective of tradition criteria. Although there is a great difference between his estimate (two-fifths of 1 Timothy) and that of this study (one-fifth of 1 Timothy), there is agreement in the fact that the tradition utilization is substantial. The current proposal is more in line, statistically, with Paul’s utilization of the OT (24.75 percent [cf. current study, Chapter 1, n. 4]).

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

143

Contemporary scholarship has greatly ignored Paul’s utilization of PTs in 1 Timothy. Instead it has expended more energy assessing issues of authorship, authenticity, and the assumed historical context of the PE. And while such discussions continue, a focused evaluation of each book’s uniqueness within the PE is frequently disregarded. The often portrayed assumption is that the letters are simply random topics with no structural markers and exist with no continuity of authorial thought. For example, A. T. Hanson’s comment reflects a common perspective: ‘The Pastorals are made up of a miscellaneous collection of material. They have no unifying theme; there is no development of thought.’3 While the current study agrees with Hanson that ‘material’, namely PTs, are utilized in the compilation of such letters, it rejects the notion that the material is miscellaneous and that there exists no unifying thought. The letters that comprise the PE indeed share common genre and setting. Yet each letter is distinct. To avoid each epistle’s nuance potentially leads one to miss the letter’s meaning. Regarding 1 Timothy, Paul’s use of PTs is such a nuance and demands an evaluation.

1.2. Purpose and Chapter Design The purpose of this chapter is in alignment with the thesis of the study. The thesis is that through the identification of PTs in 1 Timothy, it can be demonstrated that preformed units strengthen literary cohesion, provide rhetorical leverage, and present theological directives that combat counter-mission doctrine in the letter. Thus far the study has completed the act of PT identification in 1 Timothy. Through categorical criteria, twelve passages are embraced as PTs. The task at hand is to assess Paul’s utilization of those PTs and then demonstrate their significance in the letter. The current chapter is comprised of four primary divisions. Each division corresponds to the thesis of the study and reflects an assessment of the identified PTs in 1 Timothy. The first division evaluates the contribution of PTs to the literary cohesion of the letter. This will evaluate the structural components of the letter with attention to the function of PTs. The second division will assess the provision provided by PTs regarding rhetorical leverage. The third division will appraise the PTs’ role in affiliation to theological directives. The final division considers PTs as they relate to the argument of the letter. A PT utilization summary is provided at the close of the chapter.

3. Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles: Based on the Revised Standard Version, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 42. Hanson’s comment is not alone. Lewis Donelson states, ‘Commentators on the Pastorals simply do not detect any logical interplay among the types of literary material’ (Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986], 67).

144

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

2. Preformed Traditions and the Strengthening of Literary Cohesion In their classic work Halliday and Hasan explain cohesion by stating, Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it. When this happens, a relation of cohesion is set up, and the two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, are thereby at least potentially integrated into a text.4

Cohesion is ‘the action or condition of cohering; cleaving or sticking together’.5 In a literary context ‘cohesion’ refers to ‘the quality of a text which creates a sense that it “hangs together”, and makes sense … when material in a text has links to other material in the text’.6 Cohesion is something that is created in a textual pericope and assists in displaying connectedness. Such expression is frequently used in literary studies to imply that a written piece is holistic as opposed to fragmented. Subsequent studies often relate to organizational structure in an attempt to demonstrate compositional arrangement.

2.1. Contribution to Structural Cohesion 2.1.1. Historical Proposals of Structural Organization Prior to the 1970s a widely proclaimed tenet of critical scholarship was that the PE contained no significant order and were simply an accumulation of material on church order, presented randomly with little, if any, organizational thought.7 However, Jukka Thurén’s article on 1 Tim. 6.3-21 challenged that line of thinking by proposing a highly organized structural unit that noted four parallels between 1 Timothy chapters 1 and 6: (1) a  wish in 1.2 and 6.21, (2) a warning to those straying from the faith in 1.6-7 and 6.20-21, (3) a doxology in 1.17 and 6.15-16, and (4) an exhortation to Timothy in 1.18-20 and 6.11-16.8 Thurén’s article set in motion a flurry of studies evaluating the

4. M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan, Cohesion in English (London: Longman, 1976), 4. 5. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1991), s.v. ‘cohesion’. 6. Ray Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles, JSNTSup, 280 (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 8. 7. Dibelius and Conzelmann embody this sentiment as presented in their influential work in 1972. After identifying their understood structural complexities in 1 Timothy, they conclude: ‘All these observations justify the hypothesis that the regulations in 1 Timothy are not a uniform piece, but rather represent a collection of various materials’ (The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermeneia [Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972], 5). 8. Jukka Thuren, ‘Die Struktur der Schlussparanese 1 Tim 6,3-21’, Theologische Zeitschrift 26 (1970): 241–53.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

145

organization of 1 Timothy (and the PE in general) previously embraced by many as lacking order.9 The landscape has changed so drastically that Marshall presents the following evaluation: ‘There is a growing body of evidence that the Pastoral Epistles are not a conglomerate of miscellaneous ideas roughly thrown together with no clear plan, purpose, or structure. On the contrary, they demonstrate signs of a coherent structure and of theological competence.’10 This is apropos to 1 Timothy. If Marshall was correct over a decade ago, the body of evidence that exists today validates the ‘growing’ consensus that 1 Timothy expresses cohesion.11 For identifying the organizational structure of 1 Timothy, it is important to note significant outline proposals that have been presented over the last 25 years (see Table 1, on page 146). Out of the structural outlines shown in Table 1, one notable observation emerges: full unanimity does not exist. The reasons the structural outlines differ relate to perceived purpose, historical convictions, literary and theological assumptions, and a sundry collection of exegetical decisions that guide the association of words, phrases, and general content connections. Such is the nature of biblical studies. However, in spite of the obvious variety, a number of consistencies are present. 9. Articles that spawned from Thuren’s article pertaining to 1 Timothy include P. G. Bush, ‘A Note on the Structure of 1 Timothy’, New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 152–56; Greg A. Couser, ‘God and Christian Existence in the Pastoral Epistles: Toward Theological Method and Meaning’, Novum Testamentum 42 (2000): 262–83; J. T. Reed, ‘Cohesive Ties in 1 Timothy: In Defense of the Epistle’s Unity’, Neotestamentica 26 (1992): 131–47. These have contributed greatly to the growing movement that identifies a high level of organization to the epistle. John W. Welch has presented an elaborate chiasmus of 1 Timothy worthy of consideration; see John W. Welch, ‘Chiasmus in the New Testament’, in Chiasmus in Antiquity, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: Research Press, 1981), 226. Recent commentaries such as I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 11–40; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC, 46 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), cxx–cxxv; J. D. Quinn and W. C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 47–50; Jürgen Roloff, Der Erste Brief an Timotheus, Evangelish-Katholischer Kommentar zum neuen Testament, 15 (Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1988), 41–50 also have given more focus to the letter’s organization. This presents a move toward a display of structure when compared to works previously considered ‘standards’ (cf. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 5–7). Marshall’s commentary far surpasses other commentaries on structural analysis. Marshall’s ‘structural’ section of his commentary ‘may well be regarded as the most original part of the commentary’ (C. K. Barrett, ‘Review of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles’, Journal of Theological Studies 52 [2001]: 827–29). 10. I. Howard Marshall, ‘The Christology of Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles’, in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Literature in Honor of Michael D. Goulder, ed. Stanley E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 171. 11. Van Neste’s work, a central contribution to the current study, is unquestionably the most thorough and detailed presentation on cohesion and structure on the PE to date.

146

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Table 1. Proposed Outline Structures of 1 Timothy Welch (1981)

Roloff (1988)

1.1-20

1.1-20

1.1-7

Bush (1990)

Marshall 0(1999)

Mounce 0(2000)

Van Neste 0 (2004)

1.1-2

1.1-2

1.1-2

1.1-2

1.1-2

1.3-11

1.3-11

1.3-20

1.3-20

0

1.3–3.16

1.8-11

1.3-20

1.3-4

1.3-7

1.3-7

1.3-7

1.5-11

1.8-11

1.8-11

1.8-11

1.12–6.21a 1.12-17

1.12-17

1.18-20

1.18-20

2.1–3.13

2.1–3.16

1.12-20 2.1–3.15

1.12-17

1.12-17

1.12-17

1.18-20

1.18-20

1.18-20

2.1-15

2.1-4.5

2.1–3.13

2.1-8

2.1-7

2.1-7

2.1-7

2.1-7

2.9-15

2.8-15

2.8-15

2.8-15

2.8-15

3.1-13

3.1-13 3.1-7

3.1-7

3.1-7

3.1-7

3.8-13

3.8-13

3.8-13

3.8-13

3.14-16

3.14–4.16

3.14–4.16

3.14-16

3.14-15

3.14-16

3.14-16

3.14-16 4.1–6.2

3.16–4.11

4.1–6.21a 4.1-16

4.1-11 4.1-5

4.1-5

4.6-11

4.6-10

4.12-16

4.12–6.2

4.12–6.2

5.1–6.2a 5.1-10

4.1-5 4.6-16

4.11-16

4.1-5 4.6-10 4.11-16

5.1–6.2a

5.1–6.2a

5.1–6.2

5.1-2

5.1-2

5.1-2

5.3-16

5.3-16

5.3-16

5.11-16 5.17-25

5.17-25

5.17-25

5.17-25

6.1-2a

6.1-2a

6.1-2a

6.1-2

6.2b-21a

6.2b-21

6.2b-21 6.2b-5

6.3-21

6.3-10

6.3-10

6.2b-10

6.2b-10

6.3-21 6.3-10

6.6-10 6.11-16

6.11-16

6.17-21

617-19 6.20-21

6.17-19 6.11-16, 20-21 6.21b

6.11-16

6.11-16

6.11-16

6.17-19

6.17-19

6.17-19

6.20-21a

6.20-21

6.20-21

6.21b

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

147

2.1.2. Cohesion of Opening and Closing Divisions (a) Opening division established: 1.3-20 The single most evident agreement in the proposed layouts concerns the opening and closing of the letter. Setting aside the initial greeting (1.1-2) and the  formula (   ) of 6.2b (which seems to function more as a summation and hinge phrase), there is general agreement on this portion of the letter’s layout. To take it one step further, general agreement exists on the sub-units within such primary categories. In the opening section (1.3-20), the sub-units address the combating of heresy (1.3-7), the improper understanding of the law (1.8-11), the saving grace of Christ in Paul’s life (1.12-17), and Timothy’s position in contrast to the false teachers (1.18-20). This is noted by almost every commentator. Marshall presents this unit as a chiasm, and is careful to define ‘chiastic’ as any pattern in which sections correspond in inverse order. The movement is expressed as follows: A

Reminder to combat heresy, briefly described (1.3-7) B Explanatory comment, misunderstanding of law (1.8-11) B' Gospel of grace illustrated by Paul’s conversion (1.12-17) A' Timothy as teacher contrasted with the heretics (1.18-20)12

Marshall is not the first to make this observation. Welch notes this as well, yet without segregating the greeting (1.1-2). While his chiastic observance is presented in even more detail, he nonetheless presents an A-B-B'-A' pattern.13 (b) Closing division established: 6.3-21 The agreement on the beginning division is modeled in perspective concerning the concluding division. Following the  statement of 6.2b, the division concludes with 6.3-21. However, there are some who identify 6.21b (   ) as a closing farewell in parallel to the opening greeting of 1.1-2 as part of the epistolary model. Like 1.3-20, the closing division (6.3-21) is equally divided into four sub-units that address the opponents (6.3-10), a personal reminder to Timothy (6.11-16), words to the rich (6.17-19), and a final encouragement to Timothy (6.20-21). Unfortunately this concluding section is frequently said to exist in erratic and displaced order.14 Contrary to that opinion, 12. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 27. 13. Welch, ‘Chiasmus in the New Testament’, 226–27. 14. For example, Miller states, ‘It is no easy task to outline the remainder of chapter 6. Most commentators simply regard the section as a miscellany of diverse material’ (The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 93 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997], 88–89). Miller embraces such a statement and sees no compositional structure to 1 Tim. 6.3-21. Even Guthrie, who generally adheres to the text’s organization, says, ‘The concluding portion of the Epistle contains no clear sequence of thought’ (The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957], 110).

148

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

however, is the fact that the units exist as alternating patterns. As such it can be expressed in the following manner: False teachings concerning wealth Timothy’s address and encouragement

6.3-10; 6.11-16;

revisited in 6.17-19 revisited in 6.20-21

Presented in another format the rotation is expressed by the following: A

False teachings concerning wealth B Timothy’s address and encouragement A' Revisited: Teachings concerning the wealthy B' Revisited: Address and encouragement for Timothy

(6.3-10) (6.11-16) (6.17-19) (6.20-21)

The alternating A-B-A'-B' pattern is recognizable and appears to be an arranged presentation. This is not the first time such a device is used in the epistle. As previously addressed in Chapter 3 of the current study, the rotation of content is employed by the author extensively in 1 Tim. 5.3-16 regarding the support of widows. In that context the author moves back and forth between describing widows who should be supported and those who should not. Therefore it is no surprise that he revisits the topic of elders in 5.17-20 after previously addressing the topic earlier in the letter (3.1-7). (c) Contribution to opening and closing cohesion Regarding the two sections under observation (1.3-20; 6.3-21), PTs comprise a significant portion of both structures. Their presence is displayed in the following manner: A

Reminder to combat heresy, briefly described B Explanatory comment, misunderstanding of law B' The gospel of grace illustrated by Paul’s conversion A' Timothy as a teacher contrasted with the heretics A False teachings concerning wealth B Timothy’s address and encouragement A' Revisited: Teachings concerning the wealthy B' Revisited: Address and encouragement for Timothy

(1.3-7) (1.8-11) (1.12-17) (1.18-20) (6.3-10) (6.11-16) (6.17-19) (6.20-21)

[PT1] [PT2; 3] [PT10; 11] [PT12]

Both divisions utilize three PTs. Statistically, in 1.3-20, approximately 28 percent of the wording is preformed. In 6.3-21, approximately 42 percent of the wording is preformed. Such numbers are not provided to impress, but simply to state that the apostle chose to use PTs as a substantial part of each opening and closing presentation. More importantly it is critical to survey the placement of the PTs in each respective division. In the opening division (1.3-20), the initial sub-unit (1.3-7) begins with a charge to Timothy to stay in Ephesus to combat ‘certain ones’ () teaching strange doctrines. Specifically, Timothy is to ‘command’ or

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

149

‘instruct’ () certain men not to teach falsely (). This theme pivots truth against non-truth, which is embodied as Timothy against the false teachers. Following this admonition the author presents a series of PTs that describe (1) PT1 [1.8-10] the improper use of the law by false teachers, (2) PT2 [1.15ab] the purpose of the coming of Christ, and (3) PT3 [1.17] a praise to God because of who he is and what he has done. In this structure, all three PTs are initiated from the charge to Timothy to contend with false teachers who espouse doctrine incorrectly. In turn, the PTs present correct doctrine and thus demonstrate the error of those who do not embrace such truth. The closing division (6.3-21) mimics the overall display of the opening division. The initial sub-unit (6.3-10) begins with a charge against anyone () teaching strange doctrines (). This wording is clearly patterned from 1.3. Like its counterpart, three PTs respond to the improper teachings of the opponents. In this instance, the PTs describe (1) PT10 [6.7] the correct perspective of wealth, (2) PT11 [6.10a] the damage that comes about due to an allegiance to money, and (3) PT12 [6.11-16] the charge to the ‘man of God’ (  ) who is to ‘flee from these things’ ( ) and instead live out his calling of truth in praise to God for who he is and what he has done. Like the previous division, all three PTs are initiated by the conflict between truth and falsity. The PTs present correct doctrine as opposed to the opponents who believe and teach otherwise. With such observations intact, two conclusions are drawn concerning the PTs’ contribution to the cohesion of the opening and closing divisions. (i) Contribution 1: Strengthening of the opening and closing parallels of the letter. It is important to stress the term ‘strengthen’ in the above title for the simple reason that previous works have competently demonstrated parallels between the opening and closing divisions of 1 Timothy. Although failing to identify any contribution of preformed units, P. G. Bush, expanding on the work of Jukka Thurén, does an excellent job in identifying connections between 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Timothy 6.15 Specifically he notes the following six parallel markers: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1.17 and 6.15, 16 have creedal or benediction presentations 1.18 and 6.20 both position a deposit entrusted to Timothy 1.18 and 6.20 contain vocative references for Timothy 1.18 and 6.12 present the concept of ‘fighting the good fight’ 1.18 and 6.12 charge Timothy to recall others’ ‘witness’ and to be obedient 1.19 and 6.21 warnings are given concerning those who have turned away.16

15. Bush notes the ‘interesting insertion’ of 1 Tim. 6.17-19 into the final section and suggests that the text is misplaced, and is better suited as the conclusion to 6.3-10. Unfortunately, and as previously discussed, he does not identify the alternating pattern that 1 Timothy 6 expresses. Had he done so, it would have enhanced his argument for the existing parallel structure between the two chapters. 16. Bush, ‘A Note on the Structure of 1 Timothy’, 153.

150

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Bush’s presentation is very sound and gives primary emphasis to the units’ parallel use of doxology, the charge to Timothy, and the warnings presented to those who have strayed from truth. Such similarities between the sections demonstrate that a parallel exists. However, the parallel is greatly strengthened by including the consistency and organization of the PTs. At least three additional items should be added to Bush’s list of parallel structures that directly relate to the PTs. First, a parallel is present in that both sections substantially use PTs as a response to the opponents. Second, both units contain ‘lists’, embraced as PTs, that identify the error of the opponents regarding the former (PT1 [1.8-10]), and the truth of the godly concerning the latter (PT12 [6.11-16]; verse 11). Third, in PT2 (1.15ab) Christ is portrayed as bringing salvation into the world, and in PT10 (6.7) the preformed text states that no one will take possessions out of the world. The concentric teaching (which is the point of 6.3-10, 17-19) is that riches are of no good; only Christ (PT2 [1.15ab]) is of value. One is temporal, the other eternal. Such points demonstrate strong cohesion between the opening and closing of the letter. (ii) Contribution 2: Strengthening of a primary message of the letter portrayed through the opening and concluding parallels. The opening and closing divisions (1.3-20 and 6.3-21) appear to function as bookends that enclose the letter. Such parameters specify, or at least heighten, one central message of the book: the importance of the transmission of tradition and embraced truth of the church at large. The impetus for the letter, as previously articulated, is identified in the opening sub-unit (1.3-7) of the larger division (1.3-20). Paul charges Timothy to contend with the false teachers who are presenting doctrine counter to the beliefs of the church at large. To demonstrate this, Paul utilizes PTs to directly contrast the teachings of the opponents. Early on (1.12-20) the apostle makes it clear that his reception of the gospel is from Christ. He relates this in v. 11 when he states that the gospel was entrusted to him (          ). And while Paul is also a mediator, in type, to Timothy (his true son in the faith; cf. 1.18), the emphasis is on the origin of the authority in the concluding preformed section (6.13-16). ‘This progression from 1.12-20 to 6.11-16, 20, 21 fits in well with the function of the letter in passing on the Pauline tradition to a new leader having the gospel actualized in the next generation. That is a theme that can be seen in the structure of the book itself.’17 In one sense the entire text is about leadership succession. True Christian leadership is rooted in the doctrinal convictions of one’s faith in Christ concerning who He is and what He has done.18 The letter emphasizes leadership succession. Timothy was appointed to

17. Ibid., 154. 18. For an excellent resource on leadership succession as it pertains to the PE see Perry L. Stepp, Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle, New Testament Monographs, 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005).

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

151

stay in Ephesus because Paul could not, and someone was needed to combat the espoused heresy. To combat such falsity Paul reiterates the truth of the church as contained in the PTs. It is a direct affront to the opponents who are espousing false doctrine. In doing so he transmits the convictions of the church, embeds them in the heart of the next-generation leader, and reminds all within the grasp of the epistle that truth will not be compromised and that those who have done so will be corrected. The opening division instills this combatant perspective to the purpose of the letter, and the concluding division rounds out the message by reminding Timothy to ‘fight the good fight for the faith’ (     ). This process is anchored by the use of PTs.

2.1.3. Cohesion within the Middle Divisions of the Letter (a) Proposed middle divisions While cohesion is identifiable at the bookend-beginning-and-ending of the letter, an evaluation of the middle portions demonstrates that cohesion is exemplified there as well. However, commentators are divided as to the specificity of the middle divisions. For example, Roloff (see Table 1) proposes two primary middle divisions: 2.1–3.16 and 4.1–6.2. This position is generally embraced by Bassler as well as Quinn and Wacker.19 In this model 2.1–3.13 is identified as an indirect exhortation which is followed by 3.14-16, a previously described subunit, that concludes the first half of the book. The second half of the book then begins at 4.1 and extends through the end of the letter. The greatest weakness of this proposal is that it does not recognize the transitional nature of 3.14-16. This text is unique in that it arguably reaches back to the previous material as well as looks forward to the sections to come. This is noted in two primary ways. First, 3.15 connects well with 2.1–3.13 because of the idea of the behavior of the church.20 These units (2.1-7; 2.8-15; 3.1-7; 3.8-13) are critical instructions presented categorically that address order and conduct within the ‘household of God’ ( ). Yet it also anticipates material to come. This set-up occurs through grammatical connections.21 Others such as Mounce present three middle divisions: 2.1–4.5; 4.6-16; 5.1–6.2a. In this understanding 2.1–4.5 is the longest structure in the letter and concludes with the word of the Spirit (4.1-5) concerning the false teachers. Mounce summarizes his position by stating: ‘Paul, who has given his instructions on the true understanding of law, grace, and salvation (1.3–2.7) and on 19. Jouette Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996), 7–8; Quinn and Wacker, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 47. 20. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 141. 21. Two primary grammatical connections are noted: (1) 3.15 introduces the phrase ‘the living God’ ( ), which establishes a natural link to 4.10, the only other such reference in the letter, and (2) the heavy use of second person in 3.14-15, which links to 4.6 and is primarily used throughout the remainder of the letter.

152

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

church behavior and leadership (2.8–3.13) and has paused to put his instruction into proper perspective (3.14-16), now concludes by pointing out that these types of problems should have been expected.’22 As he understands 4.1-5 to conclude the section, he presents 4.6-16 and 5.1–6.2a as distinct units. Two problems are prominent with this model. First, as discussed regarding Roloff’s structural understanding, it omits the transitional nature of 3.14-16 and instead relegates the passage to a concluding portion of the former unit. Second, and more importantly, it does not recognize the cohesion that exists between 4.1-5 and 4.6-10. Although the two units are distinct, two reasons make a sectional division unlikely. First, the two are linguistically connected. This is seen in the fact that 4.6 directs the reader to 4.1-5 to find the reference to . ‘The instructions in the first paragraph (vv. 6–10) are clearly given vis-à-vis the false teachers.’23 Second, both units have linguistic parallels. They open with future verbs and are thematically connected due to the concluding statement of 4.5 ‘the word of God’ ( ) and the opening statement of 4.6 ‘words of the faith’ (  ). Such uses strengthen the connection of the two sub-units. (b) Central division established: 3.14–4.16 The preferential structure of the middle divisions of the letter is predicated on a center of the letter, 3.14–4.16, which best adheres and explains the transitional nature of 3.14-16 as well as keeps the structural continuity between 4.1-5 and 4.6-10. Bush’s proposal, while not primarily focused on providing a detailed structure of 1 Timothy, is rooted in Welch’s proposition of a well-defined chiastic presentation in 1 Timothy. It ‘is clearly chiastic, as if to inculcate the form itself alongside of the practical advice and counsel which this letter communicates’.24 Presented in this manner the components of this center unit are as follows: A

The Christological hymn B The prophecy of false doctrine B' The charge to minister A' Timothy’s ordination affirmed

(3.14-16) (4.1-5) (4.6-10) (4.11-16)

This presentation is grounded in the connection of the sub-units in 1 Timothy chapter 4 as well as the central role that is apparent in 3.14-16, with special emphasis on 3.16. ‘At the center stands Paul’s most intimate admonitions and personal declarations to Timothy (3.14–4.16), headed by an elegant Christological hymn (3.16). Before and after this central panel, Paul advises Timothy 22. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 233. 23. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984). 24. Welch, ‘Chiasmus in the New Testament’, 226.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

153

regarding the proper administration of certain ecclesiastical affairs (2.1–3.13; 5.1–6.2), both sections being practically identical in length and format.’25 Welch’s general structure has gained acceptance in recent years. Some writers such as Richard Gibson have expanded on his work.26 Marshall references Welch’s general approach as a ‘thorough-going chiastic structure’, yet he does not agree with Welch’s proposed break between 3.13 and 3.14 and calls it ‘doubtful’.27 Mounce identifies the centrality of 3.16 and references it (3.14-16) as the ‘heart of the corpus’.28 (c) Contribution to central division’s cohesion Following Welch’s basic structure, a significant work has recently established a very good base from which to evaluate the cohesion of the central division as it relates to the opening and closing divisions of the letter. Building on Bush’s proposal, Greg Couser elaborates the parallel patterns between 1.3-20 and 6.2b21, but also that of 3.14–4.16. It is expressed in Table 2, on page 154. Couser points out that the entire unit of 3.14–4.16 serves as a hinge that connects the previous sections with what is to come. He states, 1 Tim. 3.14–4.16 makes the connection between the   of 1.4 and  so as to make sense of the author’s presentation of  as the antidote to the perspective of the false teachers in 6.2b-10 … 1 Tim. 1.3-20 and 6.3-21 constitute distinct literary units. Moreover, this parallelism should be informed by 3.15–4.16 since it provides the link between key concepts.29

Van Neste also acknowledges such strong connections. He concludes that all three sections display (1) instructions for Timothy, (2) teachings addressed toward false teachers with an ensuing rebuttal, and (3) exhortation for Timothy with a closing call to faithfulness.30 This led him to make the following conjecture: 25. Ibid. 26. Richard Gibson, ‘The Literary Coherence of 1 Timothy’, Reformed Theological Review 55 (1996): 53–66. 27. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 32. In spite of Marshall’s brief criticism (i.e., ‘doubtful’), he nowhere discusses why the break is not preferential. Yet the break is permissible for two reasons. First, the content notably shifts. As the specificity of the deacon qualities conclude (3.8-13), 3.14 makes an abrupt transition addressing God’s household on a grander scale. Second, there is verbal shift from the third-person plurals of 3.8-13 to first-person singular of 3.14-15, which sets the scene for the announcement of the prominent hymn. Interestingly, prior to Marshall’s comments he had asserted the work of R. C. Blight who proposed five main sections, which brings emphasis to a mid point like that of Welch (Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 25). Blight’s emphasis, however, directs attention to 4.1-16 as opposed to 3.16 (Richard C. Blight, A Literary-Semantic Analysis of Paul’s First Discourse to Timothy [Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1977), 86–95. 28. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, cxxxv. 29. Ibid., 274–75. 30. Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 141–42.

154

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy Table 2. Comparison of 1 Timothy 1.3-20; 3.14–4.16; and 6.2b-2131

Item

1 Timothy 1.3-20

1 Timothy 3.14–4.16

1 Timothy 6.2b-21

1.3-11

3.14–4.5

6.2b-10

Key Aspects of 1. Attacks OT perversion of 1. Attacks asceticism of 1. Corrects ‘money-love’ the Defection ‘some’ (1.3, 6) ‘some’ (4.1) of ‘some’ (6.3, 10) and Pointed 2. Promotion of God’s 2. Instruction for Living  2. , set alongside Response  (1.4), with   (= the ‘words of Christ its Christological core ), which is grounded Jesus’, as the Alterna(1.15), as the Alternative in the Christologically tive (6.3, 5, 6) focused     (3.15-16), as the Alternative

1.12-17 Personal Call/ 1. Paul placed  Charge from  by Christ God Jesus (1.12)

4.6-10

6.11-16

1. Timothy exhorted to be a 1. Timothy exhorted to good   confess the same   (4.6)  (6.12, 13) to which Christ bore witness

2. The God-designed intent 2. The God-designed intent 2. The God-designed intent of Paul’s response to for Timothy’s response for Timothy’s response God’s saving work to God’s saving work to God’s saving work (1.11, 15, 17). To be a (4.10, 14; cf. 1.18). To (6.11-13, 15-16). ‘Keep  of Christ’s be a  …   the commandment patience for all those (4.12) in his pursuit of spotless, etc.’ (6.14), yet to believe   , for it alone which the context . At the same holds God’s promise suggests is equivalent time this makes Paul of      to the   an encouragement for  (4.8; cf. 4.16).   (6.12) Timothy and the reverse This makes Timothy, or the   image of the OT-based in his steadfast, holistic  (6.6). This antagonism, i.e., he adherence to the truth, makes Timothy, in his used to be a blasphemer the reverse image of the focus on ‘real life’/ (1.12) like Hymenaeus ascetics. ‘godliness with contentand Alexander (1.20). ment’, the reverse image of the wealth-obsessed antagonists. 1.18-20 Stand Strong 1. The charge at Ephesus in Your Oppoenjoined ( sition by   Holding to  ; 1.18) Your Call with an explicit reference to the antagonists (1.20).

4.11-16

6.17-21

1. Call to fulfill the charge 1. Call to fulfill the at Ephesus (; charge at Ephesus 4.11) with an implicit (; 6.17; cf. reference to the antago13) with an explicit nists (1.12). reference to the antagonists (6.17-19, 21).

31. This table is adapted from Couser, ‘God and Christian Existence’, 276.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

155

[These structural similarities in addition to the syntactic, lexical, and thematic parallels previously noted all suggest that 1.3-20, 3.14–4.16, and 6.3-21 can be seen as parallel sections which have a high level of coherence with each other. These three major sections, occurring at the beginning, middle, and end of the letter, then contribute strongly to holding the entire letter together.32

Thus it seems appropriate to identify the three primary divisions with corresponding PTs: A

A' A

A' A A'

Reminder to combat heresy, briefly described B Explanatory comment, misunderstanding of law B' The gospel of grace illustrated by Paul’s conversion Timothy as a teacher contrasted with the heretics The Christological hymn B The prophecy of false doctrine B' The charge to minister Timothy’s ordination affirmed False teachings concerning wealth B Timothy’s address and encouragement Revisited: Teachings concerning the wealthy B' Revisited: Address and encouragement for Timothy

(1.3-7) (1.8-11) (1.12-17) (1.18-20) (3.14-16) (4.1-5) (4.6-10) (4.11-16) (6.3-10) (6.11-16) (6.17-19) (6.20-21)

[PT1] [PT2; 3] [PT6] [PT7; 8] [PT10; 11] [PT12]

It is important to survey the placement and function of the PTs in the central division (3.14–4.16). Like the opening and closing divisions, three PTs are present. They also represent a significant portion of the wording. The PTs subsume 25 percent of the division, a substantial part of the presentation. The PTs contribute to the cohesion of the division in two ways. They also provide a critical link to the letter’s opening and closing. (i) Contribution 1: Validation for leadership contrast. The material within the center division of the epistle (3.14–4.16) epitomizes the letter as a whole. The unit is provided cohesion through the PTs, which validate the sharp contrast in leadership between Timothy and the opponents. Specifically, PT6 (3.16) provides a theological anchor for the conflict as it establishes the core beliefs of the faith. The hymn is very pronounced in saying that such convictions are ‘common confession’ (). It presents truths that are at the very center of what it means to be Christian. Timothy, as the designated leader in Ephesus, along with properly appointed elders and deacons, has been left to uphold such truths of common conviction. And those with whom he must battle apparently do not believe such truths. Following PT6 (3.16), a contrast is presented concerning the opponents (4.1-5) as portrayed through the very words of the Spirit. They are ones who have fallen away from the faith and instead have embraced ‘demonic teachings’ ( ) as opposed to 32. Ibid., 142.

156

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

teachings of ‘common confession’ (). PT6 (3.16) then serves to develop a leadership contrast between the convictions of those who embrace what is commonly believed versus those that do not. This develops as the division progresses. Following the prophecy of false doctrine (4.1-5) Timothy is charged to minister (4.6-10). In this section two PTs are utilized. PT7 (4.8) is a response to the ‘myths fit only for the godless and gullible’33 (   ), which literarily is the assumed position of the false teachers as described in 4.1-5. PT7 (4.8) states the purpose of godliness: value for this life and the life to come. The PT again provides a leadership contrast and displays a tension between two entities. Those who embrace the common convictions of the church respond in accordance to the PTs; those who adhere to the teachings of the opponents do not. PT8 (4.9-10) solidifies this point further. As a trustworthy statement, it reminds Timothy (and those who stand with him) that hope resides in the living God, as opposed to worldly fables. Godliness points to the eternal and not just to the present. This PT again provides a contrast to the beliefs of the false teachers. In this manner, the PTs of the center division (PT6 [3.16]; PT7 [4.8]; PT8 [4.9-10]) validate the leadership contrast of the letter. As previously defined, ‘cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another’.34 In this case, the PTs are the antithesis of the teaching of the opponents and thus provide cohesion to the center division. ‘The crux of the entire letter is, therefore, the sharp contrast which Paul draws at the center between false teachers who work destruction … and the good minister who promotes the promise of life, both in respect to the present existence and future life.’35 (ii) Contribution 2: Connection of the center division to the opening and closing of the letter. As previously presented through the work of Couser, the first (1.3-20), third (3.14–4.16), and fifth (6.3-21) divisions of the letter share a striking parallel. 36 This parallel is strengthened through the consistent manner in which the PTs are used. They bolster the perspective that the center section (3.14–4.16) is the heart of the epistle. Couser is correct in identifying three general movements of each division. In each primary division (1.3-20; 3.14– 4.16; 6.3-21) there is a presentation of a key defection of the opponents’ error (1.3-11; 3.14–4.5; 6.2b-10) followed by a personal charge to Timothy (1.12-17; 4.6-10; 6.11-16) that results in a command to stand strong in his calling (1.1820; 4.11-16; 6.17-21). Interestingly, the PTs provide the basis for the statement of the errors in each division (PT1 [1.8-10]; PT6 [3.16]; PT10 [6.7] and PT11 33. 34. 35. 36.

NET. Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, 4. Welch, ‘Chiasmus in the New Testament’, 228. See Table 2: Comparison of 1 Timothy 1.3-20; 3.14–4.16; and 6.2b-21, above.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

157

[6.10a]) as well as the answer to the errors addressed in the personal charge to Timothy (PT2 [1.15ab] and PT3 [1.17]; PT7 [4.8] and PT8 [4.9-10]; PT12 [6.11-16]). It may be expressed in Table 3. Table 3. PT Placement and Function in Primary Divisions of 1 Timothy Item

Key Defection. Opponent’s Error

1 Timothy 1.3-20

1 Timothy 3.14–4.16

1 Timothy 6.2b-21

1.3-11

3.14–4.5

6.2b-10

Improper use and understanding of law

Improper view of godliness as displayed through Christ and his work

Improper view of finances and the temporal

PT1 (1.8-10)

PT6 (3.16)

PT10 (6.7); PT11 (6.10a)

1.12-17

4.6-10

6.11-16

Embrace a proper view Answer. Pro- Understand the coming vided in Per- of Christ and praise God of godliness sonal Charge PT2 (1.15ab); PT3 (1.17) PT7 (4.8); PT8 (4.9-10) Stand Strong 1.18-20

4.11-16

Live out your confession and focus on God’s truth PT12 (6.11-16) 6.17-21

The PTs are vital not only to the cohesion of the central division (3.14–4.16) but also to the cohesion between the central division and the opening and closing of the letter. In this manner they provide consistent connection points that provide content that either points out the errors of the opponents or instills correct instruction for the community of faith.

2.1.4. Cohesion within the Supporting Divisions of the Letter (a) Supporting divisions established: 2.1–3.13 and 5.1–6.2 With the three paralleled sections set, the remaining middle sections are now defined. Between 1.3-20 and 3.14–4.16 is 2.1–3.13. While the opening division (1.3-20) primarily addresses Timothy in the context of his opponents, this division’s focus is on church order. Specifically it addresses prayer and salvation (2.1-7), public worship instruction for men and women (2.8-15), qualifications for elders (3.1-7), and the qualifications for deacons (3.8-13). This division (2.1–3.13) is followed by 3.14–4.16, which again has primary focus on Timothy and his opponents. The final division is wedged between 3.14–4.16 and 6.3-20. It addresses order for the community of faith. Its emphasis is on the treatment of those who are older and younger (5.1-2), instructions for the support of widows (5.3-16), instruction regarding elders (5.17-25), and exhortation for slaves (6.1-2). This division is followed by the concluding division of the letter (6.3-20), which returns to Timothy and the false teachers.

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

158

Thus the overarching organization of the letter is presented as follows: A B C [A] B' A'

(1.3-20) (2.1–3.13) (3.14–4.16) (5.1–6.2) (6.3-21)

Timothy and the False Teachers Church Order for Various Groups Timothy and the False Teachers Church Order for Various Groups Timothy and the False Teachers

This simple model best reflects the structure of the epistle. The order alternates from a thematic topic addressing the situation of the false teachers, to an emphasis upon church order for various groups in the community. There is strong cohesion that exists between the opening, middle, and closing divisions. This cohesion is strengthened through the use of PTs. Evaluation is necessary to establish cohesion in the supporting divisions. (b) Contribution to the supporting division’s cohesion The volume of PTs in the supporting divisions (2.1–3.13; 5.1–6.2) is not as great as the previous divisions. This observation is quite noticeable when presented: A B C [A] B' A'

(1.3-20) (2.1–3.13) (3.14–4.16) (5.1–6.2) (6.3-21)

[PT1; PT2; PT3] [PT4; PT5] [PT6; PT7; PT8] [PT9] [PT10; PT11; PT12]

= 79 PT words = 28.83% = 32 PT words = 9.49% = 68 PT words = 24.54% = 27 PT words = 7.18% = 126 PT words = 42.85%

Yet the PTs in the supporting divisions contribute to the cohesion of each respective division. Regarding 2.1–3.13, two PTs are identified: PT4 (2.5-6a) and PT5 (3.1). It is important to note the function and placement of each PT in the division. The division itself consists of four sub-units: (1) 2.1-7 discusses prayer and salvation, (2) 2.8-15 presents instruction for men and women in worship, (3) 3.1-7 gives qualifications for elders, and (4) 3.8-13, the qualifications for deacons. In this division both PTs (PT4 [2.5-6a] and PT5 [3.1]) function in the same capacity: to connect the surrounding exhortations to common confession. In the first instance, PT4 (2.5-6a) is nestled in the exhortation concerning prayer.37 As Paul has previously instructed prayers for all people, a plea to truth validates the exhortation. It connects the command to a commonly confessed belief. Not only does this PT substantiate what he had previously presented (2.1-4), but it also assists in bringing cohesion with what is to come. As 2.8-13 continues the exhortation in the context of worship, the PT functions as a bridge to connect the entire framework together. In this manner the information that is 37. A more detailed evaluation of PT4 (2.5-6a) is presented in the following assessment of ‘Sub-unit Cohesion’ in the current chapter.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

159

presented after the PT (2.8-15) is provided a connecting point. In fact, the initial wording of 2.8 concerning prayer ‘’ serves as a hinge for 2.9-13, which is linked to the preceding content as expressed by ‘likewise’ (). The second PT of the division (PT5 [3.1]) also functions in this capacity. This PT is a short maxim that is introduced as a trustworthy statement. The maxim itself serves as an introduction to the specific content to come (3.2-7; 3.8-13). In this case the saying sets the scene by honoring those who desire to serve in church leadership. The PT then gives credence to the exhortation (3.2-7; 3.8-13) and the specific character qualities required of those who desire to serve in leadership as demonstrated by the embraced PT. In both instances in this division (2.1–3.13) the PTs (PT4 [2.5-6a] and PT5 [3.1]) assist in cohesion by grounding the exhortation in tradition. This same function is identifiable in PT9 (5.24-25). This PT resides in the fourth division of the letter (5.1–6.2). Although the only PT in the division, it substantiates the practical exhortation of its sub-unit (5.17-25).38 The proverbial expression of the PT is the summation of the teachings concerning elders. Like the PTs of the second division (2.1–3.13) this PT functions as a statement of common belief that cements the practical teachings as valid and invites the community of faith to affirm the instruction. Thus the division’s cohesion is strengthened through the use of the PT.

2.1.5. Summary 1 Timothy is presented with a structural organization that displays strong cohesive ties throughout the book. It appears in a chiastic arrangement with five divisions that alternate between a content emphasis addressing Timothy and the opponents (divisions 1 [1.3-20], 3 [3.14–4.16], and 5 [6.3-20]), and church order for various groups (divisions 2 [2.1–3.13] and 4 [5.1–6.2]). This primary cohesiveness of divisions 1, 3, and 5 is solid. When combined with the contributions of the PTs the model is strengthened. Specifically, the PTs contribute to the cohesion of this portion of the structural organization in the following ways: (1) they strengthen the opening and closing parallels of the letter, (2) they enhance the primary message portrayed through the opening and closing parallels, (3) they validate the leadership contrast that exists throughout, and (4) they strongly connect the center division to the opening and closing of the letter. The cohesion of the supporting divisions (2.1–3.13; 3.14–4.16) are also strengthened through their existing PTs. Their primary function in these divisions is to substantiate the practical exhortation in affirmed tradition of the community of faith. Such grounding anchors the community instruction in common material and bolsters the specific teaching, connecting it to familiar 38. A more detailed evaluation of PT9 (5.24-25) is presented in the following assessment of ‘Sub-unit Cohesion’ in the current chapter.

160

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

material dispersed through the letter. Through such observation, it is concluded that PTs serve as participatory agents and thus strengthen the cohesion of the structural organization of 1 Timothy.

2.2. Contribution to Sub-unit Cohesion While the previous section addressed the contribution of PTs to the cohesion at the larger structural level, this assessment investigates PTs’ contribution to cohesion at the sub-unit (and at times sub-sub-unit) level. Cohesion, in this manner, focuses on the components of a particular sub-unit organization and assesses the relationship of one sub-unit to another. Four select PTs will serve as examples of this functionality. Specifically, the following PTs are evaluated: (1) PT 2 [1.15ab], (2) PT4 [2.5-6a], (3) PT9 [5.24-25], and (4) PT10 [6.7].

2.2.1. Example 1: PT 2 [1 Timothy 1.15a-b] The PT of 1 Tim. 1.15ab, the first ‘faithful Word’ saying, exists in its local sub-unit of 1.12-17, the third of the four primary sub-units that make up 1.3-20. This sub-unit displays a different tone from what comes before (1.8-11, vicelist) and after (1.18-20, instruction to Timothy). In contrast 1.12-17 exhibits a thanksgiving motif. Such genres are frequently noted with  (‘grace’), which occurs at the beginning of 1.12.39 The PT stands as the centerpiece of the sub-unit and actually connects, or bridges, two distinct portions together (1.12-14 and 1.15c-16). In review, 1.12 opens the sub-unit context, which is focused on Paul’s relationship with Christ and the apostle’s life as a model of God’s saving grace.40 This connects with the following two verses (1.13-14) and establishes the fact that Paul was a great sinner saved by God for His purpose. Following the tradition, 1.15c-16 concedes that Paul, the worst sinner, is a product of the Lord’s mercy. In between such statements (1.12-14 and 1.15c-16) resides the PT. Since the faithful saying states that ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners’, it connects Paul’s conversion (1.12-14) with his life as an example of God’s grace (1.15c-16). The ‘saying’ proves why even Paul could be saved. He could be saved because of Christ’s purposeful coming. Lau writes, ‘It serves as the linchpin of the entire section, in which, by means of the Pauline reminiscence, he has succinctly expressed the source of salvation (God’s mercy and grace) demonstrated in Christ’s work.’41 Thus 1.15a-b brings great continuity 39. Blight, Literary-Semantic Analysis of Paul’s First Discourse, 41. 40. The ‘I/me’ statements occur nine times in 1.12-17, as well as   which occurs four times. 41. Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in the Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), 71.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

161

to the passage by relating two content structures within the sub-unit, holding the parts together.42

2.2.2. Example 2: PT4 [2.5-6a] 1 Timothy 2.5-6a is a PT that exists in the larger unit of 2.1-7. This unit contains four movements: 2.1-2; 2.3-4; 2.5-6; and 2.7. The context opens with 2.1-2 and a stated ‘First of all’ exhortation (   ) to pray for all men ( ). Contextually, all () includes kings and those in authority. Prayers should be presented for them so that believers may live godly lives. The subsequent section (2.3-4) states that such practices are good and pleasing to God, who desires all () men to be saved. The tradition unit (2.5-6a) then explains () that there is (1) one God, (2) one mediator, and (3) one ransom, (4) for ‘all’ () people. The link that occurs connects the previous two sub-units to PT 4 (2.5-6a) and accents the word all.43 ‘Not to pray for everyone is to treat the death of Christ with contempt.’44 The PT is critical to the sub-unit in that it provides the explanation for why prayers should be given for ‘all’. The reason is this: the benefits of Christ’s death on the cross apply to all who believe. The practical ramifications for the Ephesian believers are that some for whom they pray may yet come to faith in Christ. The sub-unit concludes with 2.7, which is the summarization of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles (), thus substantiating how far-reaching the gospel extends, namely, even to the Gentiles. The discussion may be expressed in this manner: 2.1-2 [PT4]

Instruction:

Pray for all men including all in authority

2.3-4

Reason:

God desires all people to be saved

2.5-6

Rationale:

There is one way of salvation for all people

2.7

Illustration:

Paul’s ministry is to all people, including Gentiles

Expressed in this manner, one is able to see the function of the tradition unit in the sub-unit structure. In essence it provides a theological rationale for the exhortation to pray for all people. It also appears to resolve an assumed

42. Tight linguistic symmetry also exists in what precedes the tradition unit and what comes after it. Surrounding the PT is a participial form of  (cf. 1.13 and 1.15b), which emphasizes Paul’s embodiment of ‘mercy’ (cf. 1.13 and 1.16; ) in spite of his blatant sin. 43. Joachim Jeremias and August Strobel, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus – Der Brief an die Hebräer, 12th ed., Das Neue Testament Deutsch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 20. 44. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 89. Fee also concurs: ‘This clause, of course, makes explicit what was only implicit in the first two clauses, revealing Paul’s reason for citing the whole. God’s desire for all to be saved is evidenced in the creed itself with its statement that Christ’s death was for all people’ (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 65–66, original bolding and italics).

162

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

tension in the text surrounding the command to pray for all people. PT4 (2.56a) validates such a charge, which arrives with the beginning of 1 Timothy chapter 2. The exhortation in 2.1-2 provided some measure of tension, which is why the author followed up with 2.3 in which he reminds the readers that such action is ‘good’ () and ‘pleasing’ () to ‘God our Savior’ (  ). The implication is that the God who is their Savior can also be the Savior to others through the one Mediator, Jesus Christ. The treatise therefore is explained and brought into a measure of resolution through the PT. There is an evident measure of cohesion through the sub-unit, and it comes about through the inserted PT.

2.2.3. Example 3: PT9 [1 Timothy 5.24-25] PT9 (5.24-25) is found in the sub-unit structure of 5.17-25, which may be further divided into the following components: 5.17-20; 5.21-22; 5.23; and 5.24-25. The sub-unit opens by revisiting the theme of elders, previously addressed in 3.2-7. In this division (5.17-20) elders are spoken of as worthy of double honor (v. 17), which is illustrated through two scriptural references concerning remuneration and support (v. 18), the importance of avoiding accusation unless warranted (v. 19), and instructions regarding those (presumably elders) in sin. The entirety of 5.17-20 is focused on elders, including their treatment and expected function in the community. The following division within the sub-unit is 5.21-22. This portion of the text moves to an authoritative injunction in which Paul charges Timothy to carry out such instructions and not hastily designate ones for leadership; he is to avoid sin and steer clear of defilement. The unit is followed by 5.23, a unit frequently said to be displaced as it shifts to a diversion by Paul encouraging Timothy to utilize wine for his ailments. Although abrupt, it seems to have been triggered by the command to keep ‘pure’ in 5.22, which can also imply a cleansing connotation. The final portion of the sub-unit is where the PT exists. In a succinct manner the two verses present the consequences of sin (5.24), paralleled by the implications of good works (5.25). It is presented as such:

[PT9]

5.17-20 5.21-22 5.23 5.24-25

Good elders and those in sin Keep the commands and avoid sin Utilize wine for ailments Sin follows as do good deeds

In terms of the flow of the content, the tradition unit of 5.24-25 is critical to the entire sub-unit in that it provides a summary for the content. The emphasis of wording concerning those who rule ‘well’ () in 5.17 and the final statement of the tradition in reference to the ramifications of ‘good’ () works cannot be coincidental. The alternating movement of content throughout the

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

163

sub-unit demonstrates polarities of actions that are encapsulated and summarized in the final PT.45 This summation also has syntactical support in that an observation of the verbal movement reveals that 5.17 opens with a third-person verbal imperative () and concludes with a string of three third-person indicative verbs (5.24-25; , , ). All other verbs occur in the second person. It appears that the sub-unit is purposeful in directing attention to a succinct conclusion that reflects the entirety of the pericope. This conclusion occurs through a PT. Thus it lends cohesive presence to the contextual flow. Not only does it provide a literary cap to the content, it does so in a proverbial manner that elevates the exhortation and instills continuity.

2.2.4. Example 4: PT10 [1 Timothy 6.7] The final example of the PT’s contribution to sub-unit cohesion is found in 1 Tim. 6.7. PT10 (6.7) is found in 6.3-10, which is the first of four sub-unit sections that make up 6.3-21. Specific to 6.3-10 are two divisions within the sub-unit: 6.3-5 and 6.6-10. The opening section (6.3-5) addresses the opponents’ false doctrine. Their conceited actions and self-centered ways have led them to suppose that godliness is a means to financial gain (    ). This is followed by 6.6-10, which is composed of two parts: 6.6-8 and 6.9-10. The latter is an address to those who long to be rich, and it reminds them of the snares of such passion. The author cites a tradition piece that tragically summarizes that some in the Ephesian community of faith have fallen into such snares because their love for money sprouted great evil. Prior to this 6.6-8 notes three things: (1) godliness combined with contentment brings great gain (v. 6), (2) physical wealth will not depart with someone when they die (v. 7), and (3) food and shelter should bring contentment (v. 8). Interestingly the PT (6.7) is purposefully surrounded by similar content. The specific argument is presented in 6.6: great gain is found in godliness, but only when combined with contentment. Following the tradition is 6.8, which again pictures contentment: food and shelter should bring satisfaction. Wedged between these great truths is the tradition unit that elevates the argument and in essence answers ‘Why?’ The additional truth presented by the tradition is that material goods are temporal. A godly life should be content because it looks to the hereafter, not to the present. The embraced tradition solidifies this point and serves as the climax for the argument. 2.2.5. Summary These four traditions (PT 2 [1.15ab], PT4 [2.5-6a], PT9 [5.24-25], and PT10 [6.7]) provide examples reflective of PT’s contribution to cohesion in the 45. J. P. Meier presents a basic chiastic structure that attempts to emulate the contextual flow (Meier, ‘Presbyteros in the Pastoral Epistles’, CBQ 35 [1973]: 336).

164

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

local sub-unit. Of those reviewed, PT 2 (1.15ab) acts as a hinge that connects material before and after it. PT4 (2.5-6a) provides resolve and rationale for its surrounding content. PT9 (5.24-25) presents a summary to the unit. PT10 (6.7) functions as the climax of the argument. Initial findings of the PTs not reviewed present a variety of functions. PT1 (1.8-10) serves as the example of the opponents’ error. PT3 (1.17) demonstrates the result from a proper understanding of salvation in Christ. PT 5 (3.1) is the introduction for the sub-units to come (3.2-7; 3.8-13). PT6 (3.16) is the climax of the sub-unit and the catalyst for the following unit. PT7 (4.8) validates the topic of the sub-unit. PT8 (4.9-10) provides a conclusion. PT11 (6.10a) explains the content. PT12 (6.11-16) is a charge that links the content together and uses Timothy as an example of all who profess Christ. Table 4 presents PT functionality and cohesion through subunit structures. Table 4. Sub-Unit Function of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy PT

Topic/Theme

Sub-unit

Sub-unit Divisions

PT Function

1. 1.8-10

Law impropriety

1.8-11

8-10; 11

Example

2. 1.15ab

Christ saves sinners

1.12-17

12-14; 15ab; c–16; 17

Hinge/connects

3. 1.17

Praise Him

1.12-17

See above

Result

4. 2.5-6a

One God, Mediator

2.1-7

1-2; 3-4; 5-6; 7

Resolve/rationale

5. 3.1

Noble call to lead

3.1-13

1; 2-7; 8-13

Introduction

6. 3.16

Mystery of godliness

3.14-16

14-15, 16

Climax/hinge

7. 4.8

Value in godliness

4.6-10

6-8, 9-10

Substantiation

8. 4.9,10b

Hope in living God

4.6-10

See above

Conclusion

9. 5.24-25

Consequential works

5.17-25

17-20; 21-22; 23; 24-25

Summary

10. 6.7

Temporary wealth

6.3-10

3-5; 6-8; 9-10

Climax

11. 6.10a

Financial love affair

6.3-10

See above

Explanatory

12. 6.11-16

Timothy’s profession 6.11-16

11-12 with 13-16

Reminder

2.3. Contribution to Thematic Cohesion Regarding literary cohesion, it is established that the PTs support and strengthen the organizational structure of the letter. They also provide cohesion within their respective sub-units. But they also provide thematic continuity to a number of subjects. While there are many examples that provide documentation, two are noteworthy. These examples are typical of the manner in which PTs contribute to another level of literary cohesion by creating thematic connection points throughout the epistle.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

165

2.3.1. Example 1: Thematic Connectors Concerning Character Traits Following the opening charge to Timothy (1.3-7) in which he is charged to stay and contend with ‘certain men’ who are teaching false doctrines, the apostle launches into the discussion concerning the opponents’ incorrect teaching of the Law. He then states the first PT (1.8-10) for the purpose of contrasting those who are of correct doctrine with those who are not. Timothy and those associated with him are in agreement with the doctrines of the faith (e.g., 1.15ab; 2.5-6). Those who are not in agreement are generically described in this opening tradition as those who live a lifestyle contrary to that of godliness. The ultimate example of godliness is Jesus Christ (3.16). With such a backdrop, thematic connections now unfold in the letter. The reader is not surprised at all when Paul heightens the literary scene by drawing attention to another ‘faithful Word’ that ‘appears’ to be more proverbial than theological. In this instance (3.1) the notation is in reference to those who desire to serve in positions of leadership. The statement says that the one who desires to serve ‘desires a good work’ (  ). What transpires after this is a list of qualifications that stand in contrast to those who are not following sound doctrine (1.8-10). Later, in conjunction with additional PTs (6.7; 6.10a), Paul provides a litany of characteristics associated with false teachers. The descriptions can be compared as follows: Elders (3.1-7) Able to teach (v. 2) (), good desires (v. 1) (), not greedy (v. 3) (), not to be arrogant (v. 6) (), avoid the devil’s traps (v. 7) (), does not fall into reproach (v. 7) (), aspiring to serve (v. 1)

False Teachers (6.3-10) Teaches incorrectly (v. 3) (), foolish desires (v. 9) (), love of money (v. 10) (), conceited (v. 4) (), entrapped with riches (v. 9) (), fallen to temptation (v. 9) (), aspiring for riches (v. 10)46

It is interesting to note that an elder is not to be ‘newly converted’ (). The implication is that he is able to defend the knowledge of the faith. In contrast, false teachers are ‘conceited and understand nothing’ (  ). The connections between the units are strong. Lexically, their cohesion is expressed through common themes set up by PTs. In 1.8-10 the scene is set in regard to the false teachers with which Timothy must contend. They are the ones who are not sound in doctrine. In part, Timothy must contend with them by utilizing elders who desire to serve in this noble work (3.1). These men must meet qualifications in contrast to those who teach incorrectly and whose lives pattern counter-mission doctrine. The PTs assist in the text’s thematic movement. 46. For similar layouts see Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 473; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 153; Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 108.

166

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

2.3.2. Example 2: Thematic Connectors to Introduce Statements Another point of thematic cohesion is frequently overlooked. Certain phrases cause the reader to make connections to important teachings. On three occasions (PT2 [1.15ab]; PT 5 [3.1]; PT 8 [4.9-10]) the phrase    is used to introduce traditional material. While the identity and meaning of those statements have been identified, what has not been stressed is the value of the repetitive nature of the phrase. Literarily, repetition is a powerful tool that heightens and accentuates a given word, phrase, sentence, or general motif. Since repetition is based on frequency it also brings familiarity to the reader. ‘Repetition is often used for the sake of emotional impact.’47 Ryken also comments on the benefits of literary repetition by stating, ‘All of literature relies on various forms of repetition, but the Bible has even more of it than most literature, probably because so much of the Bible was originally oral literature.’48 The working assumption of the phrase is that the statements were ‘faithful’ words not because they were deemed as such for the first time in Paul’s address to Timothy, but because they were recognizable as faithful and true sayings. The implication then is that such units had previously been embraced before their inclusion. When Paul inserts a string of such statements, it is a ploy to bridge familiar ground with his audience. By appealing to that which has previously been agreed upon he is soliciting affirmation from his audience and in doing so is pivoting the primary audience against the opponents. 2.3.3. Summary PTs exist throughout 1 Timothy. Previous lists have displayed their presence and disbursement. As literary insertions, their content develops thematic connection points for consistent threads to weave a repetitive message. Two examples have displayed this function. The character traits that are to reflect true spiritual leaders (3.2-7, 8-13) are the basis for much of the wording that describes the utter failure of the opponents and those who follow them (6.3-10). The consistent introductions (as used in PT2 [1.15ab]; PT5 [3.1]; PT8 [4.910]) of certain traditional material highlight the commonality of conviction. The notations serve to remind the audience of what is believed and what is to be obeyed. These are but two examples that provide thematic cohesion in the text. Yet many more exist. For instance, PT1 (1.8-10), a discussion concerning the improper use of the law, connects well to the various descriptions presented of the false teachers in 1 Tim. 4.1-5. Likewise, the term  is used in PT6 (3.16), but later appears in PT7 (4.8) and PT12 (6.11-16). PTs often serve 47. Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1991; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 1996), 142. 48. Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature … And Get More Out of It (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 195.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

167

as springboards for later literary developments in the text. As such they thematically connect content and unite unit structures and in doing so assist in the overall cohesion of the letter.

2.4. Literary Cohesion Summary In summation of this first major section, it can be concluded that the PTs contribute to the literary cohesion of the letter. The tradition units are placed throughout the letter and assist in strengthening the structural organization of the epistle. This cohesion strongly unites the five primary divisions of the book, with divisions 1 (1.3-20), 3 (3.1–4.16), and 5 (6.3-21) existing in similar arrangement. The PTs also provide cohesion to their respective sub-units. Although not all were viewed in detail, four PTs (PT2 [1.15ab]; PT4 [2.5-6a]; PT9 [5.24-25]; PT10 [6.7]) serve to illustrate the various ways in which they can contribute contextually. Tradition pericopes also establish thematic cohesion by introducing various subject matters and by promoting repetitive ideas, phrases, or previously communicated exhortations. Succinctly stated, PTs strengthen the literary cohesion of 1 Timothy in three ways: (1) they support the growing consensus and the embraced organizational structure of the letter, (2) they function central to sub-unit arguments, and (3) they demonstrate thematic repetitions. In doing so it is concluded that the PTs strengthen the literary cohesion of the epistle.

3. Preformed Traditions and the Provision of Rhetorical Leverage Contemporary critical scholarship has expended a great deal of effort in the field of rhetorical studies.49 As it applies to biblical studies, many who have focused on rhetorical criticism have presented significant contributions in evaluating a literary unit for words and phrases with the purpose of illuminating how a particular author presents material to accentuate and heighten the meaning of the message.50 The term ‘rhetoric’ is generally viewed as the art ‘of using language so as to persuade or influence others’.51 While the term ‘literary’ is more focused on what exists and how it is organized for presentation, the study

49. For general overviews and implications see Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction, 2nd edn (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983); Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1983); Mark Allan Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990). 50. For theoretical and interpretive issues concerning rhetorical criticism see Dennis L. Stamps, ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter, New Testament Tools and Studies, 25 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 219–39. For a historical summary see Duane Frederick Watson and Alan J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method (New York: E. J. Brill, 1994), 101–09. 51. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1991), s.v. ‘rhetoric’.

168

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

of the rhetorical nature of a literary unit seeks to identify how words, phrases, structure, or techniques are utilized for the author’s intended purpose. Thus far the study has concluded that PTs exist in 1 Timothy and have been used to strengthen the literary cohesion of the letter and to strengthen the cohesive nature of the book. But the use of traditions in 1 Timothy is also connected to rhetorical functions. Harding writes that the epistolary model is ‘conscious of literary style and public readership … looking beyond the implied epistolary context to the wider public’.52 This ‘wider public’ relates to the rhetorical presentation of the letter. Rhetorically, PTs provide insight into the association between the author and audience. The utilization of tradition units demonstrates that the contextual situation in Ephesus was no private matter. ‘The content of these letters is clearly not meant to be private. The subject matter concerns the proper public ordering of a community, and therefore these documents were from the beginning public documents and meant to be so.’53 Paul deliberately utilized PTs because they provided him leverage by which to engage his multiple audiences of the letter. The use of tradition pieces contributes to this strategic part of the rhetorical presentation of the epistle. In one sense the simple fact of identifying the tradition units demonstrates this. However, it is more than that. Since it is rhetorical, it provides the author with a distinct advantage. Specifically the use of PTs provides rhetorical leverage in that they allow the author to (1) appeal to authority, (2) develop a rapport with his addressed audiences, and (3) persuasively argue against the implied audience of the false teachers. Each of these areas necessitates surveying in order to demonstrate the rhetorical leverage provided by the PTs in 1 Timothy.

3.1. Leverage 1: Authoritative Appeal The first and primary benefit of the rhetorical leverage provided by PTs is that it supplies authority. In his analysis of Greco-Roman theorists, Heikki Koskenniemi summarizes three characteristics of epistolary literature (primarily nonliterary papyri): 1. 2. 3.

philophronesis; letters are the expression of a friendly relationship between the writer and the addressee parousia; the writer addresses the recipient as though physically present homilia; the writer continues the discussion previously started when the two parties were present.54

52. Mark Harding, Tradition and Rhetoric in the Pastoral Epistles (New York: Peter Lang, 1998), 85. 53. Frances M. Young, ‘The Pastoral Epistles and the Ethics of Reading’, in The Pauline Writings: A Sheffield Reader, ed. Stanley Porter and Craig A. Evans (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 270. 54. Heikki Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des Griechischen Briefes bis 400 N. Chr. (Helsinki: Suomalaien Tiedakatamie, 1956), 35–47. For a summarization of

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

169

While Koskenniemi’s summarization substantiates the traditional GrecoRoman literary/rhetorical teaching by an analysis of the ‘Sender’, ‘Receiver’, and ‘Content’, it is especially applicable to 1 Timothy. In regard to philophronesis (, ‘to show kindness’) the relationship is between the apostle Paul and Timothy, Paul’s ‘true son’ in the faith (1.2). The backdrop of the letter is one of concern as the two have a relationship established and built through their mutual work in the faith. In regard to homilia (, ‘a speech, sermon, content’) the material is centered on Timothy’s purpose for being in Ephesus: ‘to instruct certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer’ (1.3). Paul’s instruction to Timothy affirms the truth to those who are holding fast to the faith.55 It is the reference to parousia (, ‘presence’) that merits evaluation. Here the obvious is frequently overlooked: the author is not present with the recipient(s). But by using PTs the apostle supplements his absence and reinforces his authority as if he were there. Thus Paul validates his own position of authority and also that of Timothy.

3.1.1. Paul’s Authority in Absentia The apostle’s absence revolves around the basic understanding and purpose of the epistolary concept. Epistles are a type of distance education, a long-distance mode of communication when two parties are separated by time and space. Robert Funk addressed this subject matter years ago in dealing with form and significance of the apostolic ‘parousia’. Funk concluded that the apostolic ‘presence’ is carried out through (1) Paul’s own presence, (2) the dispatch of an emissary, and (3) a letter.56 In the current context Paul is not present, Timothy has been appointed as emissary, and the apostle now communicates to the emissary instructionally. Generally epistles ‘served the same purposes as oral communication: (1) to provide information or instruction, (2) to make requests or issue commands, and (3) to maintain or deepen the relationship between the correspondents’.57 Paul frequently addresses a specific situation or people with whom he has a personal relationship; however, he communicates in such a manner that acknowledges his apostleship, the authoritative representative of the church.58 Koskenniemi’s presentation, as referenced currently, see Harding, Tradition and Rhetoric in the Pastoral Epistles, 86–87. 55. This point will be covered more thoroughly in this current chapter in the section that addresses the function of PTs in explicating theological directives. 56. Robert W. Funk, ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance’, in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 258. 57. John Grassmick, ‘Epistolary Genre’, in Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 223–24. 58. James L. Bailey and Lyle D. Vander Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 23.

170

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

It is important to acknowledge Paul’s absence, Timothy’s presence, and the apostle’s instruction in written form because it is Paul who utilizes tradition units in his presentation to Timothy. But why did he need to utilize tradition units? It is because they represent an authority beyond the apostle himself. The traditions stand as the agreement of the church at large, which Paul communicates through his writings under the superintendency of the Holy Spirit. It is not just Paul’s word to Timothy that is to be communicated in the current context. He is appealing to and communicating the authority that gives him the right to a position of apostleship. That position now grants him the ability to address the problem of false teachers in Ephesus. Ultimately his appeal to tradition signifies an appeal to the very word of God. As tradition is equated with the common agreement of the church, it is an affirmation of God’s revelation, a corporate injunction on what He has made known. The utilization of tradition represents the mode of authority that is at the heart of the genre: ‘its claim to speak a word given by God’.59

3.1.2. Timothy’s Authority in Ephesus Assuming such a backdrop, one must ask, What rhetorical leverage is gained through the use of PTs? Since the use of the traditions is an appeal to authority it (1) supports Paul’s apostleship and his written instruction, and (2) strengthens Timothy’s endowed position for the current battle against the opponents in Paul’s absence. Regarding Paul’s position, it could be argued that he needs no defense; but he frequently chooses to assert his authority in a rather forward manner. The following passages illustrate this point. In 2 Cor. 10.8 Paul appeals to the authority from the Lord for his actions. In Gal. 2.6-8 he appeals to God’s calling as the justification for his ministry to the Gentiles. Later, he appeals to the affirmation from James, Peter, and John and their acknowledgment of his ministry (2.9-10). Indirectly he is embracing the affirmation of those three (2.9a; ‘those reputed to be pillars’). In Eph. 3.2-3 Paul states, ‘Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation.’ The common thread in the aforementioned examples is Paul’s frequent appeal to God as the source of revelation that grants authority to those on whom it is bestowed. In 1 Timothy, Paul’s appeal to tradition is an appeal to the revelation given to the church by the apostles and prophets, a revelation embraced by all who believe.60 As such the traditions stand as transmitted authority, and Paul’s utilization of them has great bearing on the difficulties Timothy must address. Not only is Paul joining the fight against the opponents in absentia; he is empowering Timothy by his own position, which is rooted in the calling of 59. David L. Bartlett, The Shape of Scriptural Authority (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983), 32. 60. Cf. Eph. 2.19-22.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

171

God and in the doctrinal convictions of the church at large. Hence the use of the PTs provides great rhetorical leverage by strengthening Paul’s written words and by authorizing Timothy to confront heresy not simply with his own words, but with the words of his mentor and the very revelation of God as affirmed by those in Christ.

3.2. Leverage 2: Audience Rapport The second rhetorical leverage provided by PTs is that it allows the author to establish a strong rapport with his audiences. The affirmed traditions purposefully enlist the primary addressees to stand in affirmation with the author. In 1 Timothy, the primary audiences are Timothy, the church leaders, and the church at large. From the beginning of the letter they are encouraged to join Paul in ‘opposing’ those who do not stand in the place of such traditions. This literary tactic strongly unites the author with his audience.

3.2.1. Greco-Roman Approach to Rhetoric In more formal Greco-Roman rhetorical schools, the ‘author–audience’ relationship was an important part of the rhetorical process. In this regard frequent appeal was made to embraced material intent on providing ‘common ground’ and orienting the audience to the position of the author. This formal practice is best illustrated by evaluating the Aristotelian teaching of rhetoric of which Paul was aware. The Aristotelian approach to the understanding of rhetoric traditionally embraces three types of rhetoric in relationship to the audiences addressed: (1) judicial, (2) deliberative, and (3) epideictic.61 By ‘judicial’ is meant the process of dealing with that which is just (). Also called forensic rhetoric, this type employs the determination of that which is truth or counterfeit based on events in the past. By ‘deliberative’ is meant the process of dealing with that which is expedient (). Deliberative is also ‘political’ and is focused on the course of actions that should or should not be taken in the future. By ‘epideictic’ is meant the process of dealing with that which is honorable (). Epideictic is also referenced as ‘ceremonial’ and is intent on the skill and argumentation in the present. This final category is most intriguing. A primary characteristic of the epideictic approach is that the orator frequently places emphasis on what the audience already knows and values. In this approach the author purposefully utilizes words and teachings embraced by the audience and stresses such items in order to place them within the scope of the argument. Mark Harding identifies this when he states, ‘The hymnic and liturgical material of the NT belong broadly to this species of rhetoric … Why

61. D. L. Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957).

172

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

precisely, do the letters of the Pauline corpus, and other NT letters include this material? One answer is that they function epideictically, i.e., they are reminders of what the addressees already and regularly affirm in their meetings.’62 G. B. Caird in referencing this rhetorical strategy states that this device ‘establishes rapport between author and reader and gives confidence in a background of shared assumptions … a reminder of what is held in common’.63

3.2.2. Preformed Traditions and ‘Common Ground’ This establishment of shared aims is one of the primary functions of Paul’s use of PTs in 1 Timothy. Besides the traditions implying an appeal to authority, they also persuasively embrace the audience with ‘common ground’ truth. The traditions reaffirm the relationship with the addressed audience in order to create a dichotomy between the addressed audience and the opponents. This is precisely why William Richards states in reference to such traditions that the passages ‘seem to be texts that the community overhearing this epistolary conversation would recognize as Paradoseis’.64 Paul’s message in 1 Timothy includes a variety of PTs that were common proverbs, teachings, confessions, hymns, or catechetical statements that were embraced by the community. While it is impossible to prove that the traditions were audibly identifiable to the recipients, ample evidence exists that they were read aloud. It is a safe assumption that highly familiarized words would have been warmly received from those who embraced them as truth. ‘The Pastoral Epistles, meant to be read aloud, utilize the very sound of the words (Klangfiguren) and phrases to charm the audience, emphasize certain points, and unite or contrast ideas. At times the effect can be attributed to the material taken from other sources and incorporated into the letters, or to the natural effect of lists and grammatical relationships.’65 At best these orations with their common concepts, many with rich doctrinal orthodoxy, were understood and perceived to be tradition. As they were ‘heard’ as tradition and reiterated to the believing community, they were certainly ‘received’ with enthusiasm because the attacks from the false teachers were no private matter. Paul’s letter presented through Timothy was public and was presented as a counterattack. It was not just defensive; it was also offensive with purpose and strategy. As directed by the Holy Spirit, Paul’s words confronted those who were teaching in direct opposition to the instruction and revelation of God.

62. Harding, Tradition and Rhetoric in the Pastoral Epistles, 191. 63. G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 32. 64. William A. Richards, Difference and Distance in the Post-Pauline Christianity (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), 166. 65. Benjamin Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), 12.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

173

If the letter was read publicly or circulated, it would serve the primary audiences of 1 Timothy. It was a challenge to Timothy to stay the course, to hold true to what he had believed from the beginning and had confessed before many witnesses (6.12). To the elders and deacons, they must be able to hold firmly to the ‘deep truths of the faith’ (3.9). That also is why it was imperative that the elders must not include recent converts (3.6). To the believers in Ephesus it was a challenge to listen to those who espouse truth consistent with the teachings they had heard from the beginning. It was a reminder that the confessions they now heard in Paul’s letter were the same ones they themselves had made and heard simply because they were the teachings of the church. The utilization of PTs provides the author rhetorical leverage with his primary audiences. It establishes rapport between Paul and Timothy as well as establishes communal bonds between Paul and Timothy and the church leaders. Stanley notes, ‘In cases where the speaker is already viewed favorably by the audience, quotations from a source deemed reliable by both parties can serve to highlight the bond between them, thus enhancing the audience’s receptivity to the speaker’s message.’66 As the leaders confess together and are reminded of the great truths of the faith, they are strengthened in their unified approach against those teaching counter-mission doctrine. In essence the PTs present ‘truth’ against those who are ‘anti-truth’. The traditions are divisive in the sense that they sharply divide those who stand with the authority embedded in the PTs and those who do not. It promotes an ‘us’ against ‘them’ mentality and dictates that the spiritual battle is between those who side with the truth of the church and those who side with the false teachers. This dichotomy is clear because of the circumstantial context. The use of PTs implies that Paul viewed confrontation with his opponents with poise and assurance. ‘It was with confidence in God that Paul approached heresy. . . Paul was not writing like a frightened person. He had the authority of a confident proclaimer, of an ambassador of the King of kings.’67 He stood with the conviction of the church at large.

3.3. Leverage 3: Implied Audience The third rhetorical leverage provided by PTs is seen in Paul’s persuasive argument against the implied audience of the false teachers. Indeed, 1 Timothy is addressed to a primary audience. The opening of 1.2 states that the letter is written to Timothy. But as he resides as Paul’s emissary, the letter extends through Timothy to the church at Ephesus. This includes the leaders of the church as well as general believers. Each letter’s content moves beyond the direct recipient and expands in scope. ‘Among the consistent proposals for the theme of the Pastoral 66. Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 13–14. 67. Ajith Fernando, Leadership Lifestyle, Living Studies (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1985), 78.

174

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Epistles is the idea that Paul is providing instructions to Christians in Asia Minor and Crete.’68 It is community instruction. While Timothy is the primary audience, church leaders and the church at large are also recipients of the message. But there also exists an implied audience.

3.3.1. Implied Audience Identified The rhetorical strategy involves an implied audience. Young asserts: The letter would appear to be indirectly addressed to communities in order to confirm the authoritative position of their leaders as inheritors of the tradition and authority of Paul. So, the text-type slips from the surface genre of personal letter to the implied genre of manual of instruction. Furthermore, the need for this manual seems to relate to an implied, specific crisis, a situation in which that tradition is under threat from teachers of ‘gnosis falsely so-called’.69

It is the implied audience of the ‘specific crisis’ that is frequently ignored in the study of 1 Timothy. While many have evaluated the opponents of Paul and the statements concerning the opponents within the text itself,70 few have identified the probable readership of the false teachers. This use of the PTs goes well beyond an appeal to authority and purposeful rapport building. The utilization of the traditions is a persuasive argument against the secondary audience of 1 Timothy. These ‘implied’ readers are none other than the opponents themselves, and those who might be inclined to follow them. 1 Timothy contains stylistic features of other Greco-Roman letters. However, it is important to note a peculiarity in regard to its readership. Letters can be gauged in terms of content and purpose. ‘At the expository end we find letters intended for the utilitarian purpose of conveying information. At the other end of the spectrum we find letters that go beyond this practical purpose and assume literary qualities. The literary term epistle is normally reserved for letters that lean toward this end of the continuum. Often they are written with publication or at least oral reading in view.’71 One such ‘style’ is a literary function that the author uses to allow the primary recipient (Timothy) and the primary audience (church leaders and the church in Ephesus) to note that an implied audience is included in his presentation. Those who have viewed the PE, 1 Timothy in particular, as being pseudepigraphal have traditionally cited texts that appear to be inappropriate in light of

68. James M. Howard, Paul, Community, and Progressive Sanctification: An Exploration into Community-Based Transformation within Pauline Theology, Studies in Biblical Literature, 90 (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 169. 69. Young, ‘The Pastoral Epistles and the Ethics of Reading’, 276. 70. For a thorough presentation addressing the study of Paul’s opponents, see Stanley E. Porter, ed., Paul and His Opponents, Pauline Studies, 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005). 71. Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), 431.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

175

the assumed, close-knit, collegial relationship that should exist between Paul and Timothy. For example 1 Tim. 1.1 states, ‘Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior’. While the opening words reflect normal Pauline identification by name and claim of apostleship (cf. 2 Cor. 1.1; Eph. 1.1; Col. 1.1), the fact that he would extend the statement to include ‘by the command of God our Savior’ (    ) seems out of place in an address to a close friend and colleague. Some point to such statements to ‘prove’ that Paul did not write 1 Timothy.72 Assuming Pauline authorship, this argument poses obvious questions. Did Timothy really doubt Paul’s apostleship which led Paul to verify it as a command of God? Did the Ephesian elders who embraced Paul and wept at his departure (Acts 20.36-38) suddenly need instruction about the origin of the apostle’s authority? Paul’s words echo the answer, ‘Certainly not’ (Rom. 7.7). The primary recipient (Timothy) and the primary audience (church leaders and the Ephesian believers) needed no explanation as to Paul’s position and apostolic authority. But this is not a statement that proves pseudepigraphy either. It is a statement that invariably is used as a literary tactic that expresses cognition of a secondary audience.73 ‘Paul must be aiming at those who did not want to listen to him and were not so prepared to embrace what he said.’74 The implied audience of false teachers (and those inclined to follow them) needed to be directed toward authority and truth, and Paul strategically acknowledges their presence as implied readers. The ‘epistolary’ assumption is that the letter ultimately will be received by these opponents either through oral hearing or written transmission. It is also probable to assume that all of the ‘false teachers’ have yet to surface. Paul knows, however, that many will hear the message, so he must carefully address them and acknowledge that they also have an unknown following. Thus the implied audience, while not directly addressed, is forcefully spoken to through indirect discourse.

3.3.2. Implied Audience Addressed Many passages exemplify this literary device used by Paul. In 1 Tim. 2.7, following a discourse on the importance of praying for all people, Paul emphasizes that he was appointed () a preacher to the Gentiles ‘in faith and truth’ (   ) . Apparently this was in contrast to those false teachers who were in some manner exclusivists in salvific teachings. Timothy was certainly not

72. For example, A. T. Hanson identifies this, along with the unique phrase ‘Christ Jesus our hope’ (    ), as a ‘mark of third-generation Christianity’ (Pastoral Epistles, 55). Likewise, Miller adds that it is ‘a surprising way to begin a personal letter, especially between two close and intimate friends’ (Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 57). 73. See Appendix 3: Primary and Implied Audiences in 1 Timothy. 74. John Calvin, 1, 2 Timothy and Titus, Crossway Classic Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998).

176

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

against Gentile inclusion. He had ministered with Paul at length in the Gentile world, and Timothy’s father was Greek (Acts 16.3). Such a statement indirectly addresses those who would not pray for ‘all’ people and who misunderstood that the one God has made available one mediator, Jesus Christ (PT4 [2.5-6a]). The listening audience must have included false teachers and those who follow them. Paul speaks to them through PTs and their surrounding context. Another example is found in PT6 (3.16) and its surrounding context. In 3.15 Paul informs Timothy that if he is delayed from coming to Ephesus, he is writing so that people know how to conduct themselves as part of the household of God. Specifically he states that the church of the living God is ‘a pillar and protector of the truth’ (    ). Truth is at stake with the opponents. ‘This is why the church must understand that salvation is not through mythical reinterpretation of the law available only to a select few, but through faith as seen in Paul, the chief example of a sinner saved by grace.’75 Timothy knew that the church was charged with protecting the truth. In fact Timothy had already been instructed by Paul, prior to this letter, to stay in Ephesus to proclaim the truth to the false teachers (1 Tim. 1.3). Timothy knew his job description. Previously the leaders had been reminded of their role in articulating the truths of the faith (cf. Acts 20). PT6 (3.16) functions as an insertion targeted toward the implied audience. It reminds them of a conflict over truth. It reminds them that godliness has been revealed in Jesus Christ. It reminds them of the fact that God’s rightful personnel are ready for battle. Timothy is under orders to prepare local believers to stand on the side of the traditions of the church and to walk in a true expression of godliness as opposed to those who do so only for gain. The ‘opponents’ are literarily in the background, but the author writes in recognition of their presence. It can be argued that Paul uses this literary tactic to write, in part, to an implied audience. This audience of false teachers stands ‘peering over the shoulders’ of the primary recipient and audience. The tradition units provide Paul with a distinct rhetorical leverage to present his case. Besides the tradition units appealing to authority and establishing rapport with the primary audience, they also supply the author with a persuasive argument against the opponents and those who are tempted to follow their teaching. They are emotive pieces used to lead false teachers to repentance, placing them in proper standing before the living God. As Richards writes, ‘It is precisely these teachers who are to be [Timothy’s] primary target for “conversion”. If they can be turned, as Paul himself was turned, then Timothy will have more than enough allies in the commission to “sound teaching” with which he is charged.’76 Paul’s desire was that even his opponents return to the truth. Since each PT stands as the tradition of the church, great pathos is attached to each 75. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 222. 76. Richards, Difference and Distance in the Post-Pauline Christianity, 195.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

177

presentation. Pathos, one of the traditional ‘three proofs’ of Aristotelian rhetoric and a Greco-Roman art of persuasion, is a tactic that purposefully arouses the audience ‘to be favorably disposed towards the speaker and his purpose in speaking’.77 While pathos is often thought of as a concluding emotional appeal, it can be a strategic ploy throughout a work to attach a constituency to the persuasive appeal. In the case of 1 Timothy, Paul utilizes tradition units to speak to the opponents. In doing so, he is passionately reminding them of their error. He is rehearsing statements that they may have made in their own profession of faith. He is calling them to the centrality of the gospel they have betrayed by seeking after earthly gain and by following after myths and genealogies instead of the living God. Also the apostle is pleading with those who might be tempted to follow false teaching by inserting PTs that will prick their ears, emotionally stir their hearts, and cause them to realize the consequences of their actions.

3.4. Rhetorical Leverage Summary In summary the use of PTs provides the author with significant rhetorical leverage to address the purpose of the letter. As an appeal to authority the tradition units substantiate Paul’s position and validate Timothy’s role in confronting the opponents. This is not just Paul’s and Timothy’s word and position against the opponents. The false teachers stand in opposition to the church at large. The traditions provide the writer an opportunity to build strong rapport with his primary audience because they posit ‘common ground’ of the tenets of the faith. In doing so the audience is reminded of what false teachers oppose. The use of the PTs helps develop delineation between what is true and what is false. And the author’s rhetorical leverage is bolstered through the use of tradition units by using them to make emotional appeals to confessions, hymns, and pieces of material associated with their former walk of faith. Such material might appeal to the hearts of ‘inside’ opponents, the implied audience, by drawing them to repentance. Each tradition unit is strategically inserted to address the errors of these false teachers. As will be seen, each tradition inclusion is a vital confrontation against those who do not stand in the revealed truth of God.

4. Preformed Traditions and the Presentation of Theological Directives against the Opponents 4.1. Theological Directives Defined Frances Young opens her book The Theology of the Pastoral Letters by stating ‘Theology is always earthed in a context.’78 While true, the statement creates a 77. Harding, Tradition and Rhetoric in the Pastoral Epistles, 208. 78. Frances M. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Epistles, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1.

178

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

particular conundrum. On the one hand a key assumption of this study is that theology is rooted in revelation. That means that God has directly intervened in human affairs and has revealed Himself and His desires, using real people, circumstances, and language. His greatest revelation is embodied in His Son, Jesus Christ. As the writer of Hebrews says, ‘In these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe’ (Heb. 1.2). Thus theology’s origin is always divine (2 Pet. 1.20-21). On the other hand Young is correct in asserting the ‘earthen’ metaphor of theology, which in many ways is not a metaphor at all because a ‘context’ is always reflective of a cultural setting. Etymologically, ‘culture’ is from the Latin word cultivare which means ‘to till the soil’; hence the earthen origin. The connection in English terminology has come to imply the working application or development of a defined segment of humanity. Thus when theology is spoken of as being bound in a contextual manner, the implication is that revelation has a specific function as described and applied in a specific place and is therefore locked in that locale. It must first and foremost be understood in that context prior to an extraction of meaning and application elsewhere. In terms of relevancy for the current study the discussion of inserted ‘tradition’ into a particular context is even more perplexing. The implication is that revelation had previously been embraced in another point of time. It was then packaged and reinserted into other contexts. Such a statement in no way diminishes the direction of the Holy Spirit, the teaching and affirmation through apostolic authority, or the auspices of the apostle Paul and his amanuensis in the crafting of the letter to Timothy. In fact, it does just the opposite. The very nature of the identity of ‘preformed traditions’ implies that such units were imported for a reason. The working premise, then, is that the tradition units are by their very existence strategic insertions into the current context of 1 Timothy. The appeal throughout this study has been that the revealed context of 1 Timothy is one of a combatant aura and should be interpreted in such light. Young is correct in stressing the following: The theology is often implicit rather than explicit. It has even been seriously suggested that the Pastorals have very little theology … However, any attempt to read these letters soon runs up against the fact that they come from a particular social context in which there is an encompassing theological perspective which colours all the material which at first sight appears to be ethical or practical rather than theological in its principal thrust. To discuss the theology of the Pastorals is there to engage in a reconstruction not only of their context but of their tradition. Explicitly there is a lack of theological concern, but their fundamentally theological character may be seen in the way they map out life lived under God.79

While a full reconstruction is not possible, it is possible to identify points of contact within the letter that cast a backdrop on the circumstances in which 79. Ibid., 2.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

179

Paul addressed Timothy. This backdrop almost exclusively resides in passages that give insight into the opponents (i.e., ‘certain men’, ) as identified in 1 Timothy. After a brief evaluation of the opponents, attention is turned to an assessment of each PT as it relates to an affront of them. The intent is to show how each tradition piece applies to the faulty teaching of the antagonists. Yet it serves also as a declaration of truth to those who need doctrinal reaffirmation. Truth always completes both. It confronts and affirms.

4.2. Opponents Identified and Evaluated The polemic in 1 Timothy is ultimately between sound doctrine and false doctrine (1.3; ). The implication is that the false teaching referenced in 1 Timothy is heretical and is contrary to the instruction of the apostles and the belief of the church at large.80 While there is no formal discourse on the movement (if indeed it can be called that), the following passages give glimpses into the heresy of the false teachers: 1.3-4; 1.6-10; 1.19-20; 4.1-3; 6.3-6; and 6.20-21. It is important to note that the false teachings of the opponents are not articulated in detail and thus some degree of speculation is required. However, there exists enough substance in identified passages to imply their general philosophy. The brevity of this sheds light on the need for and the purpose of the embedded traditions, and validates them as arsenals against such teaching. Following the opening greeting (1.1-2), two subsequent sub-units give insight into the circumstances in Ephesus. In 1.3-7 Paul’s charge to Timothy is to stay in Ephesus and command () certain men not to teach false doctrines (). The fact that Timothy is commanded to interact with the false teachers may imply an internal relationship. The directions seem to ‘imply that the false teachers were members of the community and, at least in principle, therefore subject to the church’s authority’.81 In part this is validated through Paul’s mention of Hymenaeus and Alexander (1.20), which promotes the understanding that there are known opponents. Fee argues persuasively that several factors suggest that such opponents were errant and wayward elders.82 He points to three factors. First, the opponents were teachers (1.3, 7; 6.3) and ‘teaching’ was a function of eldership. This is heightened when noting the emphasis of overseers in regard to character and qualifications. Second, it appears that an apparent reception to their teaching was found among several prominent women, which included some of the younger widows (cf. 2.9-15 and 5.13). Third, it is probable that the ‘church’ of Ephesus consisted of several house churches (cf. 1 Cor. 16.19; 1 Tim. 2.8). If this is correct, it is likely that dispersed elders could more easily propagate 80. BDAG, ‘’, 399. 81. Philip H. Towner, 1–2 Timothy & Titus, IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 22. 82. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 8.

180

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

false doctrine, which in turn would explain the urgency of the letter. Regardless of specificity, ‘the problem of false teaching was to be solved on the basis of principle rather than personality’.83 If error was taught, then error must be confronted with truth. The term  is somewhat veiled as it occurs only here (1.3) and in 6.3. However, ‘the compound verb form contains the adjective “other” (heteros), which connotes “another of a different kind”.’84 They were teaching doctrine counter to the truth, counter to the mission of the church in Ephesus, and counter to the church of God. The teachings of a ‘different kind’ are recorded as ‘myths’ () and endless genealogies () which promote ominous controversies (1.4). The myths and genealogies are not described; they simply are said to oppose the truth. Such teachings are not the truth and yet the opponents clamored after them. And ‘those to whom Timothy is to give the word are presented as preferring these myths and genealogies to the divine training that is in faith’.85 According to 1.7, it seems that such instruction is somehow associated with the Hebrew Bible because these opponents desired to be teachers of the Law.86 Paul’s mentioning of  leads to a presentation of the purpose of the Law. It is also possible that Paul was being viewed as antinomian, which prompted him to include the melodic insertion reflective of the Decalogue in order to counteract that perception (PT1 [1.8-10]). The text is strangely silent of direct statements concerning the opponents until the opening of chapter 4. In 4.1-3, the apostle presents the most aggressive attack on those who teach inaccurate doctrine. In this encounter four specific facts are noted about the false teachers. First, they follow deceiving spirits ( ), which produce demonic teachings ( ). This is referenced in an apocalyptic style as a teaching from the Holy Spirit. What is important to observe is that the origin of their leadership is in conflict with the leadership of the Spirit of God. Second, they are hypocritical liars ( ). Karris states that one of the key weapons of the author is ‘name-calling’.87 But the force of the word denotes much more than an ascription. It elicits deceit. ‘The force of the word here, then, is to express the fact that what was said appeared to be true but was in fact in contradiction of the truth … Such conduct is what is the opposite of what is expected of

83. Robert G. Gromacki, Stand True to the Charge: An Exposition of 1 Timothy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982), 23. 84. Ibid. 85. Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2002), 27. 86. Many understand them to be Jewish Haggadah (e.g., Ceslas Spicq, Les Épitres Pastorales [Paris: J. Gabalda, 1947], 20–21). 87. Robert J. Karris, ‘The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles’, JBL 93 (1973): 549.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

181

believers.’88 Third, they forbid marriage. Nothing in the text suggests the origin of this teaching. Fourth, they give orders to abstain from certain foods. In this regard it is possible that the teachings germinate from Jewish dietary laws. The final section of the letter portrays the false teachers in 6.3-10, 20, 21. Specifically, the opponents are referenced in such ways: (1) v. 3, advocating a different doctrine, (2) v. 3, not agreeing with the words of Jesus, (3) v. 3, not conforming to the teaching that accords with godliness, (4) v. 4, being conceited, (5) v. 5, pursuing godliness for profit, (6) v. 20, embracing false ‘knowledge’, and (7) v. 21, straying from the faith. What is interesting to note about this litany of traits is that the list is a combination of what they believe (i.e., different doctrines), how they are personified (i.e., conceited), and what they do (i.e., pursue godliness for profit). As Sumney notes: ‘It is important to observe that these verses focus on the opponents’ motivation and character, not on the content of their teaching. Such polemical accusations are intended to make these teachers unacceptable. This passage exemplifies the connection 1 Timothy makes between proper teaching and the conduct of one’s life.’89 Table 5 identifies both direct and implied ascriptions of these opponents. Table 5. Opponents’ Ascriptions and Characteristics in 1 Timothy Direct Ascriptions

Text

Statement/Context



1.3

Teachers of false or counter doctrine



1.4

Occupied with myths



1.4

Devoted to genealogies



1.4

Promoters of useless speculation

 

1.6

Strayed from the ‘goal of instruction’ (v. 5)



1.7

Desire to be ‘teachers of the Law’

 

4.1

Followers of deceiving spirits

 

4.1

Occupied with demonic teaching

 

4.2

Hypocritical liars

 

4.3

Instructing people not to marry

 

4.3

Requiring abstinence from certain foods



6.3

Advocates of false or counter doctrine

 / 

6.3

Adhering to instruction of Jesus Christ

  

6.3

Adhering to instruction about godliness



6.4

Conceited

  

6.4

Lovers of debate and disputes

88. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 540. 89. Jerry L. Sumney, ‘Servants of Satan’, ‘False Brothers’ and Other Opponents of Paul, JSNTSup, 188 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 265.

182

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

   

6.5

Pursuing godliness as a way of making profit

 

6.20

Pursuing ‘false knowledge’

 

6.21

Strayed from the faith

Possible Implied Characteristics

Text

Context/Explanation

Viewed Paul as antinomian

1.8-11

Paul’s detailed summary of the Law

Jewish exclusivists (1)

2.1-2

Emphasis on prayer for ‘all’ people

Jewish exclusivists (2)

2.7

Emphasis on ministry to ‘Gentiles’

Former leaders

3.2-13

Emphasis on leadership characteristics

Exploiters of widows

5.6, 15

Statement on followers of pleasure and Satan

4.3. Opponents’ Character Recapitulated In summary the general tenor of the descriptions of the opponents throughout the letter implies that they were at one time associated with the believing community since the terminology appears more internal than external. The opponents were possibly former leaders of the community although this is conjecture based on the existence of two proper names and an emphasis on leadership. What is certain is that the false teachers do not exhibit the characteristics desired of leaders who aspire to serve in such capacities. The opponents are likely of Jewish origin since they have a desire to teach the Law. In their assumed position of authority, they teach the Law inaccurately. It is also possible that they are Jewish exclusivists since the author goes to great lengths to instruct prayers for non-Jewish leaders and to defend his ministry to the Gentiles. Their inclination to the Law may have something to do with their instruction concerning the abstinence of certain foods. Also they adhere to restrictions about marriage and are apparently engaged in the pursuit of myths and genealogies. While the origin of such teachings is unknown, they are not in line with a life of godliness. Their ‘godliness’ is for financial gain, which may have taken its toll on some in the community of faith. They are delineated from the true believing community; followers of Christ follow His words, which the false teachers were not doing. Such a review is beneficial in that it surfaces the specificity of the text and the probable implications concerning the false teachers. What is clear is that they are in error. That is why Timothy has been commanded to engage them in spiritual battle. Yet it is the contention of this study that the beginning of the battle is embedded in the letter itself. Not only are the PTs placed throughout the address, thus providing great cohesion to the letter, they are strategic in their content, which corresponds to the circumstantial context of the Ephesian community. An evaluation of the traditional units proves most interesting as each tradition component functions as a theological directive against the

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

183

opponents. ‘A cardinal weapon which the author employs is tradition … under the rubric of “sound teaching”.’90 A tradition-by-tradition evaluation displays this quite clearly.91

4.4. Theological Directives for the Twelve Identified Preformed Traditions PT1 (1.8-10) is driven from the opponents’ improper teaching of the Law. In response to their inaccurate instruction, Paul states that ‘the Law is good if someone uses it properly’ (       ). The opponents are not using it properly. As the statement above is part of the PT, the confession surrounds the purpose of the Law. One must ask, ‘How is the Law good?’ The answer is that the Law is good if it is used properly (). This term is a wordplay that means the Law is good if it is used as it was intended. Paul then goes on to explain the intended use in the verses which follow. 1 Timothy 1.9-10, a negative reflection of the Decalogue, identifies sin that soon will be contrasted with the ‘just person’ and the ‘healthy teaching’ in 1.10b-11a. The improper teaching of the Law by the false teachers apparently does not direct their hearers to understand the purpose of the Law. That lofty purpose should direct one to Christ (Gal. 3.24). This point is reinforced by none other than Paul himself. He was saved from such sin and is therefore a living example of the grace of God (1 Tim. 1.13-14). The position of PT1 (1.8-10) gives a directive to adhere to sound doctrine. The Law points to Christ, and by faith in Christ one is led to God’s gracious gift of salvation. Any teaching concerning the Law that does not point to Christ is faulty. PT2 (1.15ab) is a logical follow-up to PT1 (1.8-10). A proper instruction of the Law points one to Christ. The false teachers in 1 Timothy did not stress this purpose: As Jesus Himself said, ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them’ (Mt. 5.17). PT2 (1.15ab) follows the same argument and expands the discussion of the Law by stating that a ‘proper’ understanding of the Law embraces the ‘faithful Word’ (  ) of 1.15a which is ‘worthy of full acceptance’ (  ). The statement that ‘Christ came into the world to save sinners’ (1.15b) is inserted strategically here to combat the ‘false’ teachings of those who were teaching the Law improperly. Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and is reflective of the very grace of God in human flesh. He came to save ‘sinners’ () who stand under condemnation of the Law’s wrath. PT3 (1.17) expresses praise to God because of the work of Christ on Paul’s behalf. The context, however, remains the false teacher’s improper instruction of the Law. The doxology of 1.17 addresses the only ‘King’ () in a true sense of allegiance and in acknowledgement that the ‘only God’ ( )

90. Karris, ‘Background and Significance’, 549, n. 3. 91. Table 5, above, summarizes the following discussion.

184

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

is the one who provided Christ as the sacrifice for sinners (1.15a-b). As the opponents falsely teach the Law, it is clear they have a displaced allegiance to the only true King. Elsewhere they are ascribed as ones in line with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings (4.1). Their teachings concerning the Law apparently ignored God’s means of salvation through Christ. Paul’s words of ‘praise’ model what should be expressed by all believers in response to the grace of God in Christ. In doing so, allegiance to Christ is affirmed and opponents are challenged to reject what is false and to stand with the truth that is ‘deserving of full acceptance’ (1.15a). PT4 (2.5-6a) is a direct confrontation against those who would deny the applicability of the grace of God. The unit of 2.1-7 displays many connections to the ‘faulty teaching’ context described in 1 Timothy 1. After the celebration of praise (PT3 [1.17]), Paul identifies two individuals (Hymenaeus and Alexander) who have ‘shipwrecked’ their faith (1.20). Immediately following are instructions concerning prayers for all people. The emphasis on ‘all people’ (2.1,  ) is a progressive theme through the sub-unit which eventually comes to fruition in PT4 (2.5-6a). The confrontation that occurs through the tradition unit is to remind the reader of the doctrinal truth that God is one, His Mediator is Christ, and salvation is available for all people since He gave Himself as a ransom for all (2.6, ). Apparently some were opposed to extending salvation to the Gentiles. This is also validated through Paul’s immediate defense of his ministry to the Gentiles. The PT then serves as a doctrinal truth that is a reminder to all who believe; but it also serves as a poignant doctrinal confrontation to those who espouse exclusivity. PT5 (3.1) is a short proverbial unit introduced by the phrase   , the second such use in the letter. It affirms those (literally ‘someone’) who aspire to serve; it is a noble task. Although PT5 (3.1) concludes with the short maxim, what immediately transpires is an organized presentation of qualities descriptive of general traits required and expected of those who would serve in such offices. What is often overlooked is the direct attack this makes on the opponents. The traits described of true leaders of God (3.2-7) are presented as the same traits lacking in the lives of the opponents (6.3-10). They are confronted through the ‘positive’ traits described in those who serve with the right motive and passion. Such ones are to be above reproach (3.2), able to teach (3.2), not quarrelsome (3.3), not lovers of money (3.3), and not recent converts (3.6). Other traits are identified as well, but those identified here are in direct opposition to the false teachers of 1 Timothy. They are conceited (6.4), teach falsely (1.3), love debates and disputes (6.4), love money (6.5), and wander from the basics of the faith (6.21). The comparison is quite obvious and is formulated as an attack against the opponents who thrust themselves into leadership positions and desire to be teachers of the Law. The real ‘leaders’ are the ones who set their hearts on serving and have the qualities required for such a noble task (3.1). This is a trustworthy statement that confronts those who practice differently.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

185

PT6 (3.16) may stand as one of the greatest doctrinal treatises in the entire NT. It is a packaged presentation of the life of Christ that stands as a common confession (). The term  extends the meaning of confession to encapsulate what is undeniable and most certainly true.92 It is a belief held by the Christian community concerning Jesus, and it contains information about the great ‘mystery of godliness’ ( ). Such community convictions confront the opponents because as a hymn of truth it proclaims what the church believes. It teaches basic doctrines about Christ. The opponents do not adhere to this truth, but rather embrace myths and genealogies instead of the revealed truth of Christ and His work. Truth always confronts what is not truth. PT7 (4.8) confronts the opponents in that it stresses the benefits of godliness in the present life and in the life to come. Timothy has been instructed to have nothing to do with ‘myths’ (), the same word used to describe the opponents in 1.4. Instead, those following the way of truth are to train in ‘godliness’ () because of its eternal benefits as opposed to those who crave temporary things. The opponents are ascribed repeatedly as ones who are focused on the present and are caught up in events of no significance. The confrontation then is to focus on and strive for eternal things. Eternal ‘life’ () is ‘to come’ ( ), and the opponents fail to emphasize that by how they live. A godly life is one that lives each day in light of eternity. PT8 (4.9-10) is set up by the final    formula that occurs in 1 Timothy. Like 1.15, this one is worthy of full acceptance (  ). Continuing the thought of PT7 (4.8), PT8 (4.9-10) states that the hope of the believer is in the living God. He is the ‘Savior of all men’ (  ). This is similar to the phrase ‘God our Savior’ (  ) found in 1.1 and 2.3, a phrase unique to the Pastorals. This phrase is reminiscent of OT passages that refer to God as the deliverer of His people. Interestingly, this is the same language used in the NT hymn in Lk. 1.47, which has clear OT roots. A profession of God as Savior casts one’s trust in Him as opposed to trust in myths and genealogies. The life of the believer is worthy of great laboring and striving (4.10a). Such teaching calls the opponents to the reality of the community of faith. The opponents stand in error, and their focus is temporal. The believer professes God as Savior and hopes in Him. PT9 (5.24-25) is a paralleled proverbial statement reminding believers that God sees and knows all. Simply stated, sin will eventually be exposed. Likewise, good works will be known. The sins of the opponents are known by some. Prominent false leaders such as Hymenaeus and Alexander have been called to account and handed over to Satan. Might others be hiding such actions and practices in Ephesus? Only God knows. Such actions will one day be known to others. This confrontation challenges the actions of the opponents. At the same 92. BDAG, ‘’, 709.

186

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

time it acknowledges the omniscience of God and the providential timing of His revelation of such deeds. Faithfulness is desired in the heart of a believer. The opponents display no such faith. PT10 (6.7) is another proverbial statement that is placed in the contextual flow to remind readers that there is profit in godliness when combined with contentment. The implication of the PT is that worldly ‘wealth’ is confined to this world, and nothing of material status ‘gained’ here will depart when one dies. This confronts the opponents in that they see godliness as ‘a means to financial gain’ ( , 6.5). PT10 (6.7) questions the motives of those who passionately pursue financial gain to the detriment of others. This affront is doctrinal in nature in that it stresses the eternal perspective into which all believers are called to walk. The false teachers are not living in this light, and the error of the teaching must be corrected. PT11 (6.10a) follows the same basic argument as PT10 (6.7). The maxim is universal in its presentation: ‘For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evils’ (       ). This establishes the fact that the quest by the opponents for financial gain is an unbridled passion that skews the Christian perspective on the value of wealth. The follow up to 6.10a insists that ‘some’ () who have gone this route have ‘wandered away from the faith’ (   ). While the general context is describing those who desire to get rich, the movement of the unit concerning finances and wealth stems from the exploitation by the opponents and their quest for wealth as articulated in 6.5. Like the other tradition units, PT11 (6.10a) appears to function as an offensive move against the opponents and those who would follow their practice. PT12 (6.11-16) is the longest and the final PT in 1 Timothy. As a tradition piece that most likely reflects Timothy’s profession of faith, the unit focuses on the importance of perseverance in the faith. The charge is made ‘to flee’ () the pattern of the opponents and ‘pursue’ () godly attributes. Timothy is to ‘fight the good fight of faith’ (     ) and ‘take hold of eternal life’ (   ), remembering his own confession as well as that of Jesus Christ’s before Pilate. The Lord will return, and until then all praise is due to the only sovereign God. This extended PT, while a personal charge to Timothy, also directly confronts the opponents with their previous confessions. Assuming that the opponents were once part of the community of faith, such words of confession were likely to reflect in some manner their own professions of faith. The challenge for all through PT12 (6.11-16) is to remember the basics of the faith and live in a manner that reflects them.

4.5. Summary It has been demonstrated that each of the PTs has been inserted for the purpose of combating counter-mission doctrine espoused by false teachers. At

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

187

times their counter-mission doctrine is articulated plainly. At other times their false doctrine is implied. Sometimes the ‘fruit’ of their doctrine is expressed in how they live their lives and how they instruct others to live theirs. Interestingly each tradition piece succinctly exposes an error of the opponents, which is arguably validated through their revealed patterns and practices as ascribed in the letter. The theological directives of the PTs are summarized in Table 6. Table 6. Preformed Traditions as Theological Directives against Opponent Errors PT

Text

Perceived Error of Opponents93

Theological Directive of PT

1.

1.8-10

Improper teaching of the Law

Adhere to sound doctrine

2.

1.15a-b

Improper teaching of the Law as it relates to the purpose of the first advent of Christ

Embrace Christ as the fulfillment of the Law and understand the need for the Incarnation

3.

1.17

Allegiance to deceiving spirits and Praise and follow the ‘one’ God demonic teachings

4.

2.5-6

Salvation only for some

Salvation is available for all through faith in Christ

5.

3.1

Unapproved ‘leaders’ teaching counter-doctrine

Approved leaders serve in a noble position and must teach sound doctrine

6.

3.16

Teachers of false doctrine who do not profess the truth

Commonly confess the revelation of Christ to which all believers agree

7.

4.8

Temporal gain is the highest pursuit Godliness has value for the present life and the life to come

8.

4.9, 10b

Pleasure is found in debate and chasing after myths and genealogies

Hope is in God the Savior

9.

5.24-25

Sin can be hidden and character does not matter

God knows and sees all, and character and faithfulness must be at the heart of a leader

10.

6.7

Improper pursuits of financial gain Live in contentment

11.

6.10a

A position of leadership and authority can be used to deceive others

Pursue a passion for the eternal not the temporal

12.

6.11-16

Teachers no longer ‘believe’ what they once ‘confessed’

Remember who you are, what you confess, and live a godly life that expresses it

93

93. For a validation and backdrop to the perceived errors of the opponents, see the current chapter, section entitled ‘Opponents Identified and Evaluated’.

188

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

5. Preformed Traditions and the Argument of 1 Timothy: Combat Counter-Mission Doctrine The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate Paul’s utilization of PTs in 1 Timothy. Three conclusions are made. First, it has been concluded that the apostle uses the PTs to strengthen the literary cohesion of the text. This observation has noted ‘what’ has occurred through the use of the traditions. The PTs contribute to the structure of the epistle. They are central to the sub-unit positions, and they provide thematic connection points. Second, it is determined that the PTs give the author rhetorical leverage with which to present his message. In essence this demonstrates ‘why’ the units make a difference. Specifically the use of PTs is an appeal to authority and as such it empowers Timothy for the task of confronting false teachers. Also the use of the traditions provides rhetorical leverage by developing a rapport with the addressed audiences (Timothy, church leaders, Ephesian believers) and by presenting an emotive appeal to the false teachers. Third, the use of PTs is a presentation of theological directives intent on confronting the doctrinal errors of the opponents. This use addresses ‘who’. While the PTs encourage the truth of those in the right, they challenge those in the wrong. The final portion of this chapter presents the ‘argument’ of 1 Timothy to demonstrate ‘how’ the identified PTs contribute to one’s understanding of the book. This is the culmination of how the author uses PTs to contribute to the letter. Traditions have assisted in literary cohesion, in rhetorical leverage, and in the continuance of critical theological directives woven throughout the letter. The argument should be reflective of all such contributions, expressing the impact of PTs in the meaning of the text. According to Stanley Toussaint, an argument is ‘not a summary of the contents of a book, nor a detailed outline, nor a sermon, nor a list of assorted applications, but a purpose statement along with an explanation of how the contents of the book relate to that purpose’.94 In that regard, the previously presented organizational structure of the epistle presents the general movement of the text and the primary boundaries. The presentation reflects the outline and provides an explanation to document the content and its purpose where applicable. At times the content needs no elaboration. At other times, however, the content’s purpose is readily identifiable as it relates to the general message of the text. Further, it can be expounded upon as it connects to the author’s presentation of the message. The intent of the following section is to discern Paul’s purposed meaning through the revealed organizational structure rather than tracing a logical argument.

94. Stanley Toussaint, ‘How to Write an Argument of a Book’, unpublished Bible Exposition Department notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d.

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

189

Special attention is given to the contribution of the PTs in the content unity of the text. The argument demonstrates that Paul utilizes PTs to combat countermission doctrine.95 This theme is justified in light of the letter’s content, the general flow of the presentation,96 the volume of PTs utilized, and the overall message of 1 Timothy.

5.1. Overview of 1 Timothy Following a brief salutation (1.1-2), Paul immediately moves into the first division of the epistle. The five major sections of the epistle are: (1) 1.3-20; (2) 2.1–3.13; (3) 3.14–4.16; (4) 5.1–6.2; (5) 6.3-21a. A succinct blessing of ‘grace’ concludes the letter (6.21b). The five primary sections of the letter involve a message that alternates between instructions concerning Timothy and false teachers (sections 1, 3, and 5), and church order for various groups (sections 2 and 4). There is a general chiastic arrangement to the book with great parallels existing between sections one (1.3-20) and six (6.3-21a). These two sections function as perimeters of the total message and cue the reader to the overall organization of the letter. The message flows toward a climax in section three (3.14–4.16), which also parallels the opening and closing sections. Supporting sections two (2.1–3.13) and four (5.1–6.2) include material that directly relates to the conflict created by false teachers. This conflict generates the purpose of the letter and the author wastes no time in addressing it in the opening section.

5.2. Section One: 1 Timothy 1.3-20 Timothy was left behind in Ephesus to stop false teachers from spreading erroneous doctrine. While Timothy is the primary recipient of Paul’s address, Paul is also addressing leaders and other believers in Ephesus. Additionally, he is aware that those teaching false doctrine will also receive this message. Paul addresses Timothy but does so in full awareness that others are listening. Timothy is charged with combating heresy that focuses on myths and genealogies that lead people to speculation rather than rooting them in God’s plan of redemption by faith. In the life of a believer, faith should be evident through a life of love; but those following the false teachers have wandered from that defined path of truth. These so-called teachers desire to teach the Law, but they are in error in their teachings. They speak from ignorance and miss the primary function of the Law, which is good if it is used correctly

95. For the sake of clarity the only chapter and verse notations provided in the argument proper are presented in the primary structural levels. PTs are noted for the sake of emphasis. Supporting documentation and citations have been purposefully avoided in order to present the organization of content as it pertains to the message of the epistle. The support is to be found throughout Chapter 3 of this study. 96. See Appendix 4: Organizational Structure of 1 Timothy.

190

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

(PT1 [1.8-10]). When used in the intended lawful manner, its purpose is to lead sinners to repentance. The false teachers are teaching the Law to ‘believers’, but their inaccuracies do not point people to the gospel. Paul has been entrusted with that gospel, and he is a living example of God’s grace. In fact God’s grace is found in the very core of what every Christian believes: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (PT2 [1.15a-b]). Everyone who confesses such truth concerning Christ embraces ‘sound teaching’ as opposed to ‘false teaching’. Every transformed life is a walking example of God’s grace and mercy. As a result, He, the only God, is worthy of praise (PT3 [1.17]). Timothy knows that, and he knows what has been entrusted to his care. He is to fight diligently and contend for the faith because the battle is fierce and some have shipwrecked their faith. Hymenaeus and Alexander are examples. They have been handed over to Satan so that they may be taught not to blaspheme. The ultimate desire is that they will repent and return to the Lord.

5.3. Section Two: 1 Timothy 2.1–3.13 The second primary section shifts from the theme about Timothy and the false teachers to one of church order and the giving of instructions for various groups within the body of believers. However, it is important not to divorce this section from the preceding one. The false teachers’ impact on the believing community has been far-reaching. Their teachings have wreaked havoc in public worship, even causing divisive perspectives on prayer. According to the apostle, prayer is to be presented on behalf of all people, including those in authority, regardless of their gender, status, religion, or ethnicity. It pleases God when His people are concerned for the spiritual welfare of others. God’s desire is that all people come to a knowledge of the truth, not just some ‘elite’ group. To reinforce his point, Paul reminds his audience that there is one God and he has provided one mediator, who gave himself for all people (PT4 [2.5-6a]). Although false teachers instruct otherwise, this includes Gentiles, Paul’s primary ministry. Prayers, therefore, should bring unity in worship, not division. In the same way, the women in the church who have been led astray by false teachers should seek to present themselves in a manner that promotes the unity of the faith. Evidently some women had begun to teach within the church inappropriately and were usurping authority over men. Paul’s connection to the pattern of creation and the deception of Eve implies that reversals existed in the church at Ephesus and should be corrected. The schism within the congregation had already led to the excommunication of two leaders. This scenario prompted the identity of new guidelines for those who are in such prominent, influential positions. Paul reminds believers that the church at large acknowledges that those who aspire to serve in such capacities desire a good work (PT5 [3.1]). But true leaders do not pattern themselves after false teachers. Instead overseers of the church are to be able to teach the truth,

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

191

not be quarrelsome, and have the ability to manage. Such ethical qualifications would set in motion healthy parameters to ensure that false teachings would not infiltrate church leadership. Deacons, like overseers, must be leaders of respect. Their ethical qualifications must be pure and in keeping with the deep truths of the faith. In fact, ‘testing’ provides one more step in identifying authentic leaders who will not lead others astray, as do the ‘false leaders’ who have brought about the need for such an address. The end result of Paul’s criteria is to produce effective leaders who will serve well. He concludes by stating, ‘Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.’

5.4. Section Three: 1 Timothy 3.14–4.16 The third division of the letter moves the pendulum back to similar themes addressed in the first section. Here, Paul instructs Timothy and addresses certain errors of false teachers. As the pinnacle of the epistle, he presents intimate admonitions and declarations. Instructions on righteous living are not just for those in leadership. All believers are to conduct themselves in a worthy manner. This model stands in contrast to the model presented by the false teachers. A believer’s walk should be reflective of one’s worship of Christ. Paul’s hymn reminds Timothy of the pillar of the foundation of truth: Jesus Christ (PT6 [3.16]). In turn Timothy is charged to implant such truths in those entrusted to him. Teaching doctrinal truths of Christ also means confronting error. Sadly the Holy Spirit testifies some will follow false doctrine, not truth. Although the church is the receptacle of the truth of God, deceptive and devastating error can arise within her walls. The presence of false teachers proves this prophecy true. Such error is of demonic origin and does not embrace what is good and from the hand of God. The false teachers promote injunctions on marriage and certain foods. God has intended that such items be embraced with thanksgiving. Yet an ignorant heart, as taught by false teachers, does not respond to God’s blessings. Unceasing repetition of the simple gospel message is the primary way to combat error. Training in godliness is stressed in contrast to the lack of godliness in false teachers. Godliness is of value in the present, but also for the life to come. Those who walk with Christ live in the present in light of what is to come (PT7 [4.8]). All believers embrace this truth by laboring and striving for it. Christians fix their eyes on the living God, the Savior of all men (PT8 [4.9-10]). This confession focuses attention not on temporary gain, but on the gain that is to come. Timothy’s life should bear this out. He is to be an example for all who believe. He is to be attentive to the reading of Scripture, for it is there that God’s Word is proclaimed. He is to teach truth as he was called to do so long ago. Passionately he is to pursue such things in order to attend to proper doctrine. Some have been led astray by the error of the false teachers. Timothy must overcome that with

192

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

truth, for truth, by nature, combats error. Those in need of the gospel message are dependent on it.

5.5. Section Four: 1 Timothy 5.1–6.2 Thematically, the fourth primary division moves back to a presentation regarding church order and instruction for various groups. Like section two the emphasis is on distinct entities in the believing community. While appearing more ‘practical’ in orientation, the instructions are rooted in the damage done by false teachers. These instructions are more of a reaction to their malicious manners. Relationships within the church are precious. Older members are to be treated with respect and honor. Younger men and women are to be treated as brothers and sisters. The familial context is at stake in such relationships. The unity of the faith is essential, and the truths affirmed in relationships should reflect the impact of the gospel. The church is to support and provide for widows who are in desperate need. Those who are young have other means of provision. Those whose hearts are not right with the Lord as expressed through their actions should not be supported. But those who have nothing are to be supported and honored. This expression of love is ‘religion in practice’. All are to be instructed in the truth, for many have already turned aside to follow Satan, and his followers have exploited many and led them into error. The elders who direct the affairs of the church are due double honor. The church must not entertain accusations against overseers without a plurality of witnesses. Sin must be addressed publicly and the challenge for all is to live in a manner that produces good deeds. That provides witness to the application of truth and healthy doctrine. Timothy is not to execute the teachings of God with partiality. Instead he is to select qualified leaders carefully and take care of himself physically in order to attend to such matters. Sin, like good works, will show itself eventually. Those in positions of leadership should produce good works, not for their own gain, but for the benefit of others (PT9 [5.24-25]). Such leaders will properly shepherd the flock of God and protect it from the error of those intent on distorting the truth for personal gain. Slaves are to respect their masters. In doing so, they honor God. In turn, believing masters should correctly treat those entrusted to them. This service honors masters who are believers in Christ and reflects the impact of Christ in their lives. The end result is that ‘God’s name’ and Paul teachings are not slandered. The false teachers of Ephesus have already displayed enough slander to the unbelieving community.

5.6. Section Five: 1 Timothy 6.3-21a The final division returns to Timothy, false doctrines, and false teachers. Reflective of sections one and three, the final section addresses the major

4. Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

193

purpose of the letter: Timothy is to stop the false teachers. He is to contend with those who teach counter-mission doctrine. His life is to reflect godliness, not for personal gain, but to build up others in Christ. The teaching and application of false doctrines leads to controversies, quarrels, envy, strife, and general godlessness that seeks after financial gain. Such has been the result of the false teachers. Instead, believers are to remember that they came into the world with nothing, and they will take nothing out of it (PT10 [6.7]). This serves to remind them that life is temporal. A passion for money will lead to all sorts of evils (PT11 [6.10a]). False teachers were exploiting people for gain in the name of godliness. Instead, the fruit of godliness leads to contentment, which should offset many griefs associated with the constant thirsting for the things of the world. Timothy, the man of God, should flee the quest for the things of this world (PT12 [6.11-16]). Sound doctrine, unlike that of the false teachers, pursues righteousness. Timothy is charged to keep the faith. As Paul cites such traditional material, Timothy is reminded of his confession of faith that he made in the presence of many witnesses. Such grounding should remind all believers of what they believe and in whom they trust. False teachers have forgotten. But even they should have an opportunity to reflect on their journey and once again turn to the living God since His appearing will come very soon. One’s hope should be in God, not in wealth. It is God who truly provides, and he commands us to be rich in good deeds and to lay up treasures in heaven. The ability to do this is found in being firmly rooted in the truths of God, not in the false teachings espoused by the opponents of God. Timothy knows this, and he is charged with protecting what has been entrusted to him. It was entrusted to the false teachers as well, but they did not protect it. They trusted in carnal knowledge and in doing so have wandered from the faith. As they listen to Paul’s words in the background, will they hear? Will they respond? Timothy and the leaders in Ephesus are ready to meet them in spiritual battle. Paul extends one final statement: ‘Grace be with you’ (   ). The term  is a formulaic ending in Christian letters. Paul broadens his desires for his listening audience by evoking God to show ‘favor’ to them. To Timothy, he desires strength and courage to fight the good fight. For the leaders, he desires them to stand in truth and partner with Timothy to contend against doctrine counter to what is embraced by the church at large. To believers in Ephesus he longs that they be rich in good works driven from deep faith. To the implied audience, the false teachers who stand in the background, Paul desires repentance. Their ‘favor’ will come when again they return to hope in the living God and live a life conducive to sound doctrine. This  is extended to all hearers of the letter as the plurality of ‘you’ () implies.

194

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

6. Preformed Tradition Utilization Summary This portion of the study concludes that PTs support and strengthen the letter’s structural organization, are germane to the doctrinal teachings, emotive in regard to persuasion, and at the heart of the meaning of the book. Four emphases are addressed. First, PTs strengthen literary cohesion of the epistle. The letter is not one of disjointed subjects, but one that has a general organization supported by the tradition units. Second, the traditional units provide the author rhetorical leverage. This common practice in the Greco-Roman model grants the writer credibility and weight in his presentation. Third, the units serve as theological directives throughout the composition; the themes on which the traditions focus are doctrinal concerns related specifically to the Ephesian context. Fourth, the PTs present a combative strategy that garners the force of the letter’s organization, doctrinal convictions, and rhetorical portrayal. 1 Timothy as a whole is a combatant against counter-mission doctrine that utilizes PTs.

Chapter 5 CONCLUSION 1. Summary and Conclusion The emphasis of contemporary critical scholarship regarding the PE targets issues of authorship and the ideological and theological atmosphere of the letter’s origins. This may have occurred to the detriment of evaluating the author’s use of traditional material. It is fair to conclude that Paul’s use of such material has not been thoroughly explored. This is particularly true of 1 Timothy. This lack of attention continues in spite of the consensus that traditional material exists in his writings. Early in this study the traditional material was preferentially designated as ‘preformed tradition’. This title was favored for two reasons. First, it implies an understanding that the referenced unit was formed prior to its inclusion into a particular text. This conviction embraces the idea that a unit, either literarily or orally, existed prior to its crafting into a NT letter. Second, ‘tradition’ implies that previously it had been embraced by the church at large. It was part of the belief structure of Christianity and was thus transmitted to those of the faith in order to anchor them in what was in agreement concerning the teachings of Christ, His apostles, and all who follow Him. Historically, scholarship has produced methods in which to identify PTs with specific focus on texts that are of a creedal, confessional, or hymnic nature. Many times these methods of identification were geared toward one particular text or genre (i.e., hymns) of traditional material. Yet a survey of criteria used to identify such pieces displays a measure of similarity and overlap. When synthesized and defended as valuable for PT identity, eight criteria were proposed by which to recognize the units. The criteria for identification reflected three major categories: (1) Structure, (2) Content, and (3) Style. As a text was evaluated, PTs were expected to express at least one criterion of each category. Structurally, a PT expresses a formulaic introduction or conclusion (C1) or a high level of selfcontainment or noticeable contextual dislocation (C2). In regard to Content, tradition units reflect a substance of orthodoxy (C3) or orthopraxy (C4), both of which are frequently mirrored in other texts (C5). Stylistically, passages were expected to display some measure of poetry (C6), unique authorial vocabulary (C7), or syntactical peculiarities (C8). These criteria were set as the markers by which to identify PTs.

196

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Through a process of evaluation utilizing criteria validation the study has demonstrated that the following passages are tradition units and are thus accepted as PTs: (1) 1.8-10; (2) 1.15a-b; (3) 1.17; (4) 2.5-6a; (5) 3.1; (6) 3.16; (7) 4.8; (8) 4.9, 10b; (9) 5.24-25; (10) 6.7; (11) 6.10a; and (12) 6.11-16. This tabulation is not simply an accumulation of facts, but expresses the features of a PT through individual criterion. In this regard each passage ‘looks’, ‘sounds’, and ‘acts’ like generally embraced PTs. Specifically they reflect at least one criterion expressive of Structure, one of Content, and one of Style. Of course, there could be more in each major category. This constitutes the bulk of the study, justifying each unit’s existence and formation, and identifying each one’s expression of tradition criteria. Observations concerning the distribution of the traditions reflect an organized and intentional utilization by Paul. In terms of chapter divisions the twelve passages are used in all primary sections of the letter, with a noticeable emphasis in the beginning, middle, and end of the epistle. These twelve PTs contribute to 1 Timothy in four ways: (1) literary cohesion, (2) rhetorical leverage, (3) theological directives, and (4) argument. Each of these is worthy of review. First, PTs contribute to the literary cohesion of the letter by strengthening the understanding of the organizational structure of the epistle. This is best observed by placing the traditions in their context and identifying the strong parallels that exist between the opening, center, and conclusion of the letter. On closer evaluation, the parallels establish a broad chiastic movement to the letter. The letter is presented in five distinct divisions: (1) 1.3-20; (2) 2.1–3.13; (3) 3.14–4.16; (4) 5.1–6.2; (5) 6.3-21a. While this assessment of the structure is not totally new, it is substantiated by the PTs, thus giving validity to the proposition. Understanding the structure of the letter is important because ‘a perception of relative incoherence will inevitably shape the way we approach these letters, the way we understand them and the way we explain them’.1 PTs also strengthen the cohesion of their respective sub-units and provide thematic links throughout the letter. Regarding their role in sub-units, the PTs function in a variety of ways. They serve as examples, illustrations, and hinges that connect two subjects together. They also provide rationale for an argument, or present the climactic position of the unit. In reference to thematic connections provided by PTs, they frequently establish and introduce topics that are repeatedly visited throughout the letter. For example, the term ‘godliness’ () occurs eight times in the epistle.2 Of the eight uses, three of those serve as the central word for a PT,3 and the other five are either 1. Richard Gibson, ‘The Literary Coherence of 1 Timothy’, Reformed Theological Review 55 (1996): 53. 2. 1 Tim. 2.2; 3.16; 4.7; 4.8; 6.3; 6.5; 6.6; 6.11. 3. 1 Tim. 3.16; 4.8; 6.11.

5. Conclusion

197

in the context of a tradition unit4 or in direct discussion concerning the false teachers.5 This theme supports the crux of the letter that ‘godliness’ is a foil against false teachers. Godliness should be demonstrated personally in the conduct of each believer. ‘It is through the practice of true godliness that false teaching will be eliminated.’6 Although an individual matter, it is also a corporate issue. It should display itself in church order and community life. Order is critical to combating the opponents. ‘This is not a random order, but an arrangement that points to the fact that as the church is properly conducted and ordered it will be able to deal effectively with false teaching.’7 The second contribution PTs make to 1 Timothy is that the author utilizes them as significant rhetorical leverage in presenting his message. He does this in three ways. First, traditions are used as an appeal to authority. As ‘tradition’ exemplifies what is commonly embraced by the believing community at large, so the author presents his own words along with the weight of all believers. In terms of doctrinal authority, such an appeal was rooted in the conviction of the revelation of God. The errors of the opponents were errors because they broke with tradition. Second, PTs allow the author to build strong rapport with his primary audience. Such affirmations of truth re-establish the common ground they shared. This built a strong dichotomy between the church at large and those teaching erroneous doctrines. Third, rhetorical leverage is gained by confrontation with the ‘implied’ audience. Throughout the letter false teachers are the unidentified readers. They are addressed literarily through focused statements to Timothy, but by implication they are the ‘unidentified readers’ who question Paul’s authority and doctrinal truth. Not only do they question Paul’s authority, but by doing so, they stand against commonly held convictions of the church at large. Paul’s use of PTs is an emotive ploy, expressive of high pathos, in an attempt to draw attention to the opponents’ errors. They are addressed throughout the book, yet indirectly. The PTs give Paul the opportunity to affirm those in truth and aggressively confront those in error. The third primary function of the PTs in 1 Timothy is that they are used as theological directives. Each tradition unit throughout the letter functions in some form or fashion as a doctrinal treatise. Some are noticeably direct. For example, the first ‘Faithful is the Word’ tradition in 1.15 is a summary of the gospel: ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.’ Others appear to be more pragmatic. In 6.7 the tradition states, ‘For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.’ An initial reaction to this proverbial tradition is that it seems to present a maxim that teaches the simple facts of life and death. Yet a detailed

4. 5. 6. 7.

1 Tim. 2.2; 3.16; 4.7; 4.8; 6.6; 6.11. 1 Tim. 6.3 and 6.5. P. G. Bush, ‘A Note on the Structure of 1 Timothy’, New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 156. Ibid.

198

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

reading of the surrounding context demonstrates that it follows direct teaching against the false teachers (6.3-5) and unites a discussion concerning ‘godliness’ (6.6) and ‘contentment’ (6.8), two distinct characteristics not prevalent in the doctrine and practice of the opponents. The opponents were supposing ‘godliness’ to be a venue for financial gain (6.5). Thus there is theological teaching within the immediate context. Such examples demonstrate the manner in which PTs function in 1 Timothy. They function as theological directives for those who stand in error; but they affirm those already positioned in the faith. The final contribution of the PTs in 1 Timothy is that they assist in directing the argument of the letter. In many ways, the message of the letter is approached through observing the literary cohesion, rhetorical leverage, and theological directives. The argument displays a single purpose related to and driven by the existence of false teachers in Ephesus. The content in the letter is directly related to the presence of false teachers and the havoc they have bestowed on the believing community. The argument shows that the purpose of the epistle is articulated by Paul in his initial statement to Timothy: ‘As I urged you when I was leaving for Macedonia, stay on in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to spread false teachings nor occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies’ (1.3-4a). Fee is on target when he says, ‘Everything in the letter has to do with 1.3 … this expresses both the occasion and the purpose of 1 Timothy.’8 While Fee failed to see the great contribution of the PTs, he is correct in asserting that the impetus for the letter originates from the presence of Paul’s opponents who were contrary to sound teaching. Paul delivers his message by using PTs. This move enables him to combat counter-mission doctrine in a unique manner.

2. Areas of Future Study The thesis of this study is that through the identification of preformed traditions in 1 Timothy, it can be demonstrated that preformed units strengthen literary cohesion, provide rhetorical leverage, and present theological directives that combat counter-mission doctrine in the letter. The message of the letter is theological. Paul says to pursue ‘godliness’ (6.11) and to ‘fight the good fight’ (6.12). Both aspects imply being rooted in doctrinal truth. Godliness is to be the fruit of sound teaching. Fighting the good fight is contending for and embracing the tradition. To this end, all aspects of 1 Timothy are driven from the purpose of accepting and living out PTs. This study has kept within the ascribed boundaries set forth in Chapter 1.9 However, this undertaking has revealed other areas for further investigation. 8. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 7. 9. See Chapter 1, ‘Limitations of the Study’.

5. Conclusion

199

Each component of the study, barring the history of the investigation of PTs, has produced such topics. Regarding criteria, ample leeway exists to develop further detailed models for the function of each criterion. It seems especially true as it pertains to the specificity of self-containment and dislocation. This will require an analysis of a given author’s tendencies toward literary continuity and a more thorough picture of what constitutes dislocation. This study also assumed, through a reasonable defense, that PTs will in some manner look (structure), sound (content), and act (style) like other PTs. What if they do not? What if they display only one criterion? There is ample room for further study. This study evaluated only Paul’s use of PTs in 1 Timothy. But what about 2 Timothy and Titus? Does Paul differ from book to book in his use of traditions? If so, why? Does Paul differ from James? Does James differ from Peter? The current criteria that have been set forth and the methodology used could readily be applied to the aforementioned questions to produce results that could give insight into the contributions of various authors and works. This would seem to be a fruitful labor and a worthy endeavor because it may have bearing on the general structure of other books and ramifications for literary and rhetorical analysis. As there continues to be great interest in such fields, future works will unfold beneficial studies that will assist the church at large.

Appendix 1 PREFORMED TRADITION CRITERIA AND CATEGORICAL EXPLICATION I. STRUCTURE

Criterion 1: Criterion 2: Structure Explication: II. CONTENT

Criterion 3: Criterion 4: Criterion 5: Content Explication: III. STYLE

Criterion 6: Criterion 7: Criterion 8: Style Explication:

The term ‘structure’ refers to the manner in which something is arranged, interrelated, or organized. In regard to tradition pericopes the implication is that the unit exists in a recognizable form with distinction. In other words its structure will produce a definite ‘look’ that sets it apart from the context. Formulaic Introduction or Conclusion Texts Largely Self-Contained or Contextually Dislocated The intent is to identify opening or concluding phrases that draw attention to the unit. Units will likely be contained with an identifiable beginning and ending. As inserted pieces it is expected tradition units will disrupt the unit or structural context in some manner. The term ‘content’ refers to the material that is contained, dealt with, or addressed in a purposeful manner. In regard to tradition pericopes the implication is that the unit addresses certain subject matter common to other tradition pieces. In other words its content will produce a definite ‘sound’ frequently presented by other such passages. Emphasis on Early Orthodoxy or Central Theological Concepts Emphasis on Orthopraxy and Paraenetic Content Identifiable, External Parallel Passages The intent is to anticipate passages that reference doctrinal content (orthodoxy) that frequently utilize descriptive wording to emphasize Christian truths. Community teaching is also common with emphasis on godly living. Similar and thematic parallel passages are expected. The term ‘style’ refers to the manner of expression and characteristics in which something is presented. In regard to tradition pericopes the implication is that tradition units will display certain traits that are common to other such pieces. In other words it is expected that a tradition unit will ‘act’ like a tradition piece. Poetic Nuances Abnormal Vocabulary Unusual Syntactical Structure The intent is to look for patterns that express stylistic traits such as poetic nuances. This implies all forms of poetic functions (rhythm, parallelism, metaphor, etc.) Vocabulary not characteristic to the author is expected. Unique syntactical arrangements of words, sentences, and phrases are expected due to packaged symmetry.

Appendix 2 CRITERIA TABULATION OF PREFORMED TRADITIONS IN 1 TIMOTHY Structure

Content

Style

Text

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

Preformed Tradition Qualification

1.8-10 1.15a-b 1.17

9 9 9

9 9 9

– 9 9

9 – –

9 9 9

9 – 9

9 9 9

– – –

Yes Yes Yes

– – –

– 9 –

– 9 –

9 – –

9 9 –

– 9 –

9 – 9

– – 9

No Yes No

9 9

9 9

– 9

9 –

– 9

9 9

– 9

– 9

Yes Yes

– –

– 9

– –

– 9

9 –

– 9

9 9

9 –

No Yes

9 – – – –

9 – – – 9

9 – – – –

– 9 9 9 9

– – 9 – 9

9 9 – – 9

– – 9 – –

– – – – –

Yes No No No Yes

6.1-2a 6.7 6.10a

– – –

– 9 9

– – –

9 9 9

9 9 –

– 9 9

– – 9

– 9 –

No Yes Yes

6.11-16

–

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

Yes

2.1-2 2.5-6a 2.15–3.1a 3.1 3.16 4.1-5 4.8 4.9, 10b 5.1-2 5.5-10 5.17-20 5.24-25

Structure

Content

Style

Criterion 1 (C1)= Formulaic Introduction or Conclusion Criterion 2 (C2)= Texts Largely Self-Contained or Contextually Dislocated Criterion 3 (C3)= Emphasis on Early Orthodoxy or Central Theology Concepts Criterion 4 (C4)= Emphasis on Orthopraxy and Paraenetic Content Criterion 5 (C5)= Identifiable, External Parallel Passages Criterion 6 (C6)= Poetic Nuances Criterion 7 (C7)= Abnormal Vocabulary Criterion 8 (C8)= Unusual Syntactical Structure

Appendix 3 PRIMARY AND IMPLIED AUDIENCES IN 1 TIMOTHY

Paul As recorded by secretary or amanuensis

Timothy [Primary Recipient]

Believers

Overseers

Believers

and

Deacons and all Believers in Ephesus Believers

[Primary Audience]

Believers

Believers Believers

Hymenaeus and Alexander

Those Teaching False Doctrine The Opponents [Implied Audience]

Appendix 4 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF 1 TIMOTHY 1.1-2 Greetings 3.14–4.16 3.14-16 All believers are to live a life of godliness, which is reflective of Jesus Christ.

2.1–3.13 2.1-7



1.3-20 1.3-7 Stay in Ephesus and combat the false teachers and their erroneous doctrines. 1.8-11 They teach the Law incorrectly. The Law is good. It makes sin known and Christ needed. 1.12-17 Christ came to save sinners, even Paul. God should be praised by those He has saved. 1.18-20 Timothy—fight the good fight. The opponents are real. Their teachings are damaging. Theme: Timothy and False Teachers A

Since salvation is available in Christ, pray. There is one mediator, even for Gentiles. 2.8-15 Men are to pray without quarrels. Women are to look and act in reverence for God. 3.1-7 Serving the Lord is an honorable endeavor. Overseers should love the Lord with their lives. 3.8-13

4.1-5 False teachers instruct error from Satan. God provides truth and that which is good. 4.6-10 The gospel combats error. Training in godliness benefits life now, and the life to come.





Serving the Lord is an honorable endeavor. Deacons should love the Lord with their lives. Theme: Church Order for Various Groups B

4.11-16 Timothy’s life is to model godliness. He is to pursue doctrinal purity and fight false teaching. Theme: Timothy and False Teachers C

5.1–6.2 5.1-2 Older believers are to be treated with honor; younger believers as brothers and sisters.

6.3-21a

5.3-16 Worthy widows should be supported. All are to be instructed in the truth in order to avoid error. 5.17-25 Quality leaders should live with integrity. They should protect the flock from error. 6.1-2



6.3-10 Believers follow Christ and are content in Him. They do not passionately go for worldly gain. 6.11-16 Sound doctrine pursues the things of God. Timothy is re-minded of his faith profession.



Slaves should respect their masters as to the Lord. In doing so they uphold God’s name. Theme: Church Order for Various Groups B'

6.21b. =>?@ABCDE?FGHI?JKFLMN

6.17-19 Believers are to hope in God, not wealth. They are to do good and take hold of life that is true life. 6.20-21a Timothy, like all leaders, has been entrusted with the things of God. He must protect the truth. Theme: Timothy and False Teachers A'

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aland, Barbara et al., eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Alford, Henry. The New Testament for English Readers: Containing the Authorized Version, Marginal Corrections of Readings and Renderings, Marginal References, and a Critical and Explanatory Commentary. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Lee and Shephard, 1875. Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. Bailey, James L., and Lyle D. Vander Broek. Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. Balge, Richard D. ‘Exegetical Brief: 1 Timothy 2:6 – the Testimony Given in its Proper Time’. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 98 (2001): 291–92. Barcley, William B. A Study Commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy. Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 2005. Barker, Glenn W. ‘1 John’. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12, 292–358. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981. Barrett, C. K. The Pastoral Epistles in the New English Bible. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Barrett, C. K. ‘Review of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles’. Journal of Theological Studies 52 (2001): 827–29. Barth, Markus. ‘Traditions in Ephesians’. New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 3–25. Bartlett, David L. The Shape of Scriptural Authority. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983. Bartsch, Hans Werner. Die Anfänge Urchristlicher Rechtsbildungen: Studien zu den Pastoralbriefen. Hamburg: Evangelischer Verlag, 1965. Bassler, Jouette. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Bengel, Johann Albrecht. Gnomon of the New Testament, vol. 2. New York: Sheldon, 1864. Bernard, J. H. The Pastoral Epistles: With Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980. Bettenson, Henry Scowcroft. Documents of the Christian Church. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1963. Black, Matthew. ‘The Doxology to the Pater Noster with a Note on Matthew 6.13b’. In A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White, 327–38. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Blight, Richard C. A Literary-Semantic Analysis of Paul’s First Discourse to Timothy. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1977. Blomberg, Craig L. From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction from Acts to Revelation. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2006. Blowers, Paul M. ‘The Regula Fidei and the Narrative Character of Early Christian Faith’. Pro ecclesia 6 (Spring 1997): 199–228. Bock, Darrell L. ‘Use of Old Testament in the New’. In Foundations for Biblical Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools and Resources, ed. David S. Dockery, K. A. Matthews, and Robert Bryan Sloan. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

Bibliography

205

Bock, Darrell L. The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2006. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Bruce, F. F. The Book of Acts. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Büchsel, F. ‘λύτρον’. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 4, 340–56. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. Buckland, W. W. The Roman Law of Slavery: The Condition of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian. New York: AMS, 1969. Bush, P. G. ‘A Note on the Structure of 1 Timothy’. New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 152–56. Caird, G. B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. Calvin, John. 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. Crossway Classic Commentary. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1998. Campbell, R. Alastair. ‘Identifying the Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Epistles’. JSNT 54 (1994): 73–86. Carrington, Philip. The Early Christian Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957. Carson, H. M. Colossians and Philemon. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960. Champion, L. G. Benedictions and Doxologies in the Epistles of Paul. Oxford: Kemp Hall, 1934. Charlesworth, James H. ‘A Prolegomenon to a New Study of Jewish Background of the Hymns and Prayers in the New Testament’. JJS 33 (1982): 265–85. Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Prolegomena for the Study of Christian Origins. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Charlesworth, James H. ‘Jewish Hymns, Odes, and Prayers (Ca. 167 B.C.E.–35 C.E.)’. In Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 411–36. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1986. Clark, D. L. Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Collins, Raymond F. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2002. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1975. Coppes, Leonard J. ‘‫’קבל‬. In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, vol. 2, 783. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980. Couser, Greg A. ‘God and Christian Existence in the Pastoral Epistles: Toward Theological Method and Meaning’. Novum Testamentum 42 (2000): 262–83. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975. Cullmann, Oscar. Les premières confessions de foi chrétiennes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1943. Cullmann, Oscar. The Earliest Christian Confessions. Trans. J. K. S. Reid. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. Cullmann, Oscar. The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1956. Cullmann, Oscar. Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1957.

206

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Cullmann, Oscar. Early Christian Worship. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1978. Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983. De Jonge, Marinus. ‘Translating [] in the New Testament’. In History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, ed. SangWon (Aaron) Son. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. De Villiers, Peter G. R. Heroes at Home: Identity, Ethos, and Ethics in 1 Timothy within the Context of the Pastoral Epistles. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 141. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Deichgräber, Reinhard. Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zur Form, Sprache, und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Deissmann, Adolf, and Lionel R. M. Strachan. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. Delling, G. ‘’. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 4, 5–15. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. Dibelius, Martin. A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. London: Nicholson & Watson, 1937. Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Hermeneia, ed. Helmut Koester. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972. Dill, S. Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1905. Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953. Donelson, Lewis R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986. Doty, William G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1973. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. WBC, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Ralph P. Martin (New Testament), vol. 38A. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9–16. WBC, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Ralph P. Martin (New Testament), vol. 38B. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. Earle, Ralph. ‘1 Timothy’. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11, 339–90. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978. Easton, Burton Scott. The Pastoral Epistles; Introduction, Translation, Commentary and Word Studies. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1947. Ellingworth, Paul. ‘The “True Saying” in 1 Timothy 3:1’. Bible Translator 31 (October 1980): 443–45. Ellis, E. Earle. ‘Traditions in the Pastoral Epistles’. In Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, ed. Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinespring, 237–53. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987. Ellis, E. Earle. ‘Pastoral Letters’. In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, 658–66. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Ellis, E. Earle. The Making of the New Testament Documents. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999. Ellis, E. Earle. History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001.

Bibliography

207

Ellis, E. Earle. Interview by author, 1 May 2006, Dallas, TX. Telephone interview. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX. Erdman, Charles R. The Pastoral Epistles of Paul. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1923. Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Falconer, Sir Robert. ‘1 Timothy 2:14-15’. JBL 60 (December 1941): 375–80. Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984. Fennell, William. ‘The Uses and Authority of a “Liturgical” Creed or Confession of Faith’. CJT 15 (January 1969): 24–29. Fernando, Ajith. Leadership Lifestyle. Living Studies. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1985. Fiore, Benjamin. The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982. Fisk, Bruce. 1 Corinthians. Interpretation Bible Studies. Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 2000. Fitzgerald, J. T. ‘The Catalogue in Ancient Greek Literature’. In The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture, Essays from the 1995 London Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht, 275–93. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Fowl, Stephen E. The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus. JSNTSup, 36. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Fuller, Reginald Horace. The Foundations of New Testament Christology. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965. Funk, Robert W. ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance’. In Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr, 249–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Gerhardsson, Birger, and Eric J. Sharpe. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity; with, Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Gibson, Richard. ‘The Literary Coherence of 1 Timothy’. Reformed Theological Review 55 (1996): 53–66. Gloer, William H. ‘Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament: Form, Content, and Criteria for Identification’. Perspectives in Religious Studies 11 (1984): 115–32. Grassmick, John. ‘Epistolary Genre’. In Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning, 221–39. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006. Gromacki, Robert G. Stand True to the Charge: An Exposition of 1 Timothy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982. Gundry, Robert H. ‘The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16’. In Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on His 60th Birthday, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, 203–22. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1970. Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957; reprint, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988. Halliday, M. A. K., and R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976. Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Pastoral Letters: Commentary on the First and Second Letters to Timothy and the Letter to Titus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. Studies in the Pastoral Epistles. London: SPCK, 1968.

208

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Pastoral Epistles: Based on the Revised Standard Version. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Harding, Mark. Tradition and Rhetoric in the Pastoral Epistles. New York: Peter Lang, 1998. Harnack, Adolf von. Die Briefsammlung des Apostels Paulus, und die anderen vorkonstantinischen christlichen Briefsammlungen. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1926. Harrill, Albert J. ‘The Vice of Slave Dealers in Greco-Roman Society: The Use of Topos in 1 Timothy 10’. JBL 118 (1999): 97–122. Harrill, James Albert. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006. Harris, W. Hall III. 1, 2, 3, John: Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis. Dallas, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2003. Harrison, Everett F. ‘Romans’. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976. Harrison, Everett F. The Apostolic Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. Harrison, P. N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921. Hauck, Friedrich. ‘’. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 1, 122–44. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989. Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1957. Hengel, Martin. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of JewishHellenistic Religion. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1976. Hengel, Martin. Between Jesus and Paul. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983. Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1999. Hooker, Morna D. Paul: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003. Horstmann, Axel. ‘Τις, Τι’. In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 3, 360–63. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. Howard, James M. Paul, Community, and Progressive Sanctification: An Exploration into Community-Based Transformation within Pauline Theology. Studies in Biblical Literature, ed. Hemchand Gossai, vol. 90. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Hughes, R. Kent, and Bryan Chappell. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus: To Guard the Deposit. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000. Hultgren, Arland J. The Rise of Normative Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994. Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 6. Glasgow: Collins, 1870; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948. Jebb, S. ‘A Short Comment on 1 Timothy 2:15’. Expository Times 81 (April 1970): 221–22. Jeremias, Joachim, and August Strobel. Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus – Der Brief an die Hebräer. 12th ed. Das Neue Testament Deutsch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Jervis, Ann. ‘Paul the Poet in First Timothy 1:11-17; 2:3b-7; 3:14-16’. CBQ 61 (October 1999): 695–712. Johnson, Alan. ‘Revelation’. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas, vol. 12, 397–603. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.

Bibliography

209

Johnson, Luke Timothy. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. Knox Preaching Guides. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1987. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. Karris, Robert J. ‘The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles’. JBL 93 (1973): 549–64. Käsemann, Ernst. ‘Das Formular einer neutestamentlichen Ordinationsparänese’. In Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 1954, ed. Walther Eltester. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954. Käsemann, Ernst. ‘A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy’. In Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague, 149–68. London: SCM Press, 1964. Käsemann, Ernst, and Geoffrey William Bromiley. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. Keener, Craig S. The Bible Background Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: A. & C. Black, 1963. Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. 3rd ed. New York: D. McKay Co., 1972. Kent, Homer A. Jr. ‘Philippians’. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 11, 95–159. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978. Kent, Homer A. Jr. The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1982; reprint, Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Co., 1993. Kittel, Rudolf et al. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977. Knight, George W. III. The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968. Knight, George W. III. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992. Koskenniemi, Heikki. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 N. Chr. Helsinki: Suomalaien Tiedakatamie, 1956. Köstenberger, Andreas J. Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2005. Lasor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Lau, Andrew Y. Manifest in the Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996. Lewis, C. S. Reflections on the Psalms. Edinburgh: James Thin, 1958. Lock, Walter. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zur Phil. 2, 5-11. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1928; reprint, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961. Longenecker, Richard. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1970; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981. Longenecker, Richard. New Wine into Fresh Wineskins. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999. Lyall, Francis. Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1984. Malherbe, A. J. ‘The Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles’. CBQ 36 (1974): 203–19. Marshall, I. Howard. ‘The Christology of Luke–Acts and the Pastoral Epistles’. In Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Literature in Honor of Michael D. Goulder, ed. Stanley E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton, 167–82. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.

210

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Marshall, I. Howard. The Pastoral Epistles. International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Marshall, John W. ‘Paul’s Ethical Appeal in Philippians’. In Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas. H. Olbricht. JSNTSup, vol. 90, 357–74. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Martin, Ralph P. An Early Christian Confession: Philippians II.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. London: Tyndale Press, 1960. Martin, Ralph P. Worship in the Early Church. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Martin, Ralph P. Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967; rev. ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983; 2nd rev. ed., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Martin, Ralph P. ‘Worship’. In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 982–91. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Meier, J. P. ‘Presbyteros in the Pastoral Epistles’. CBQ 35 (1973): 323–45. Merkel, Helmut. Die Pastoralbriefe. Das Neue Testament Deutsch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Metzger, Bruce Manning. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm et al. Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889. Michel, Otto. ‘μολογέω’. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 5, 199–220. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Mickelsen, A. Berkeley. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963. Miller, James D. The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, vol. 93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 46. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Neufeld, Vernon H. The Earliest Christian Confessions. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963. Neyrey, Jerome H. ‘ “First”, “Only”, “One of a Few”, and “No One Else”: The Rhetoric of Uniqueness and the Doxologies in 1 Timothy’. Biblica 86 (2003): 59–87. Norden, Eduard. Die Antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert vor Christus bis in die Zeit der Renaissance. 2 vols. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1898; reprint, Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1983. Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1913. North, J. Lionel. ‘ “Human Speech” in Paul and the Paulines: The Investigation and Meaning of νθρώπινος  λγος (1 Tim. 3:1)’. Novum Testamentum 37 (1995): 50–67. O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. O’Neill, J. C. ‘Paul Wrote Some of All, but Not All of Any’. In The Pauline Canon, ed. Stanley Porter. Pauline Studies, vol. 1, 169–88. Boston, MA: E. J. Brill, 2004. Oberlinner, Lorenz. Die Pastoralbriefe. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1994. Oepke, A. ‘μεσίτης’. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 4, 598–624. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967.

Bibliography

211

Polhill, John B. Paul and His Letters. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999. Porter, Stanley E. ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’. In Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Porter, Stanley E., ed. Paul and His Opponents. Pauline Studies, 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005. Porter, Stanley E., ed. Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. Powell, Mark Allan. What Is Narrative Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990. Prosper, Grech. The Regula Fidei as a Hermeneutical Principle in Patristic Exegesis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Quinn, J. D., and W. C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Ralston, Timothy John. ‘The Hymnic Genre and the Pauline Corpus: Its Criteria and Importance for Exegesis’. ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983. Reed, J. T. ‘Cohesive Ties in 1 Timothy: In Defense of the Epistle’s Unity’. Neotestamentica 26 (1992): 131–47. Richards, William A. Difference and Distance in the Post-Pauline Christianity. New York: Peter Lang, 2002. Rienecker, Fritz. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Trans. and ed. Cleon L. Rogers Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. Riesner, Rainer. ‘Once More: Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles’. In History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday, ed. SangWon (Aaron) Son. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Roetzel, Calvin J. The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998. Roloff, Jürgen. Der Erste Brief an Timotheus. Evangelish-Katholischer Kommentar zum neuen Testament, 15. Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1988. Ryken, Leland. How to Read the Bible as Literature . . . And Get More Out of It. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984. Ryken, Leland. Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987. Sanders, Jack T. The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Sandmel, Samuel. ‘Parallelomania’. JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Schmithals, Walter. Der Römerbrief: Ein Kommentar. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1988. Schmitz, Otto. ‘’. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 5, 761–65. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. Scholer, D. M. ‘1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the Place of Women in the Church’s Ministry’. In Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. A. Berkeley Mickelsen, 193–219. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986. Seeberg, Alfred. Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit. Theologische Bücherei, 26. Leipzig: Deichertschen, 1903; reprint, Munich: Ch. Kaiser, 1966. Shepherd, Massey H. The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1960. Silva, Moisés. Philippians. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.

212

Paul’s Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy

Smith, Jay E. ‘An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5’. ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1988. Spicq, Ceslas. Les Épitres Pastorales. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1947. Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans. James D. Ernest, ed. James D. Ernest. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Stamps, Dennis L. ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’. In Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter. New Testament Tools and Studies, vol. 25, 219–39. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004. Stauffer, Ethelbert. New Testament Theology. London: SCM Press, 1955. Stepp, Perry L. Leadership Succession in the World of the Pauline Circle. New Testament Monographs, 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005. Stifler, James M. The Epistle to the Romans. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1960. Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1986. Sumney, Jerry L. ‘Servants of Satan’, ‘False Brothers’ and Other Opponents of Paul. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 188. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Talbert, C. H. ‘A Non-Pauline Fragment at Romans 3:24-26?’ JBL 85 (1966): 287–96. Taylor, Vincent. The Person of Christ in New Testament Teaching. London: Macmillan, 1958. Thuren, Jukka. ‘Die Struktur der Schlubparanese 1 Tim 6,3-21’. Theologische Zeitschrift 26 (1970): 241–53. Toussaint, Stanley. ‘How to Write an Argument of a Book’. Bible Exposition Department notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d. Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Towner, Philip H. 1–2 Timothy & Titus. IVP New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Van Neste, Ray. Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSup, 280. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Wainwright, John J. ‘Eusebia: Syncretism or Conservative Contextualization’. Evangelical Quarterly 65 (July 1993): 211–44. Wallace, Daniel B. ‘The Semantics and Exegetical Significance of the Object-Complement Construction in the New Testament’. Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 91–112. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Wallace, Daniel B. The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. Watson, Duane Frederick, and Alan J. Hauser. Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings. JSNTSup, 101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Weiss, Johannes. ‘Beiträge zur paulinischer Rhetorik’. In Theologische Studien, ed. C. R. Gregory et al., 165–247. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897. Weiss, Johannes. The History of Primitive Christianity, completed by Rudolph Knopf, ed. Frederick C. Grant, trans. A. H. Forster, S. E. Johnson, and P. S. Kramer. New York: Wilson-Erikson, 1937. Welch, John W. ‘Chiasmus in the New Testament’. In Chiasmus in Antiquity, ed. John W. Welch, 211–49. Provo, UT: Research Press, 1981. Wettlaufer, Ryan D. ‘An Interpretative Discussion of Preformed Creedal Texts in the New

Bibliography

213

Testament and Their Relevance to the Theology of the Earliest Church’. MA thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2002. Yarbrough, Mark M. ‘Paul’s Hymnic Call to Godliness in 1 Timothy 3:16’. ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996. Young, Frances M. The Theology of the Pastoral Letters. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Young, Frances M. ‘The Pastoral Epistles and the Ethics of Reading’. In The Pauline Writings: A Sheffield Reader, ed. Stanley Porter and Craig A. Evans, 268–82. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Young, Frances M. The Making of Creeds. London: SCM Press, 2002. Zuck, Roy. Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1991; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 1996.

INDEX OF BIBLICAL SOURCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 3

89

Exodus 15 33.18

22, 23 73

Leviticus 19.13

1 Samuel 15.4

11

Proverbs 10.9

124

1 Kings 15.22

11

Ecclesiastes 5.15

130

Job 1.21

130

Isaiah 1.17

119

Psalms 9 10 32 66 68.5 118 124 139

23 23 23 23 119 23 23 23

Joel 2.32

25

Malachi 3.5

119

19.10 20.21

69, 71 63

John 1.14 1.41 3.2 7.41 8.44 9.31 11.25 11.27 20.31 21.14

47 18 63 36 65 63 18 18, 36 18 102

121

Deuteronomy 6.4 10.18 24.15 25.4 32

74, 81 119 121 121 22, 23

Judges 4.10

11

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 4.6b 6.13 7.15 11.25 16.16 22.16

40 132 103 19, 31 18 63

Mark 8.23 8.29 10.10 10.45

132 36 121 83, 86

Luke 1.2 1.47 1.54 2.37 3.1 3.19 5.18, 19 6.34 10.7 11.4 12.11 13.27 15.22

4 185 128 119 141 122 132 65 121 132 132 106 132

Index of Biblical Sources Acts 1.8 4.27 4.9 5.6 5.9 5.10 5.15 8.37 9.20 9.22 10 12.10 15 17.20 19.9 20 20.35 21.11 28 Romans 1.4 1.23 2.2 3.4 3.19 3.29-30 3.30 4.25 5.12 6.17 7.7 7.14 8.22 8.28 8.32 9.33 10.9

10.13 11.25 11.34 11.36 12.1 13.9 13.13 15.27

16.27 98 141 128 132 132 132 132 20 18 18, 36 98 106 48 132 106 19, 128, 175, 176 19, 128 104 98

19 73 63 65 63 81 74 21 69, 70, 71 4 175 63 63 63 84, 86 48 7, 24, 25, 29, 38, 41, 54, 97 25, 29 25 29 74, 139 41, 77 29 64 29

1 Corinthians 1.9 1.21 2.16 3.17 3.18 4.16 6.9 8.1 8.4 8.6 9.9 10.13 10.26 11.2 11.23 12.3 14.24 14.26 15.3

15.3b-5 15.9 16.19

73, 74, 139

5.9 6.7 6.10

47 47 113

67, 92 69 29 95 95 77 46, 64, 65 63 63, 74 83, 86 121 67, 92 29 26, 41 41 25, 31 122 22, 42, 49 4, 7, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 38, 39, 41, 50, 54, 55 26 66 179

Ephesians 1.1 3.8 3.20 3.21 4.1 4.4-6 4.6 4.31 5.2 5.13 5.25 6.10

175 66 73 139 77 81 74 64 45, 84 122 84 103

2 Corinthians 1.1 19, 67, 92, 175 1.18 67, 92 1.19 19 4.5 25, 36 5.1 63 9.6 47 10.10 1 12.8 106 Galatians 1.5 1.9 1.12 1.15 1.16 3.20

215

74 26, 95 26 73, 139 19 82

Philippians 2.5-11 2.6

2.6-11 2.11 4.9 4.20 Colossians 1.1 1.15

1.29 2.6 3.5 3.8

27 24, 27, 28, 41, 43, 48 28 25 26, 41 73

175 31, 41, 43, 100, 102 114 25, 26, 41, 43 64 64

1 Thessalonians 1.9 112 1.10 113 2.13 26 4.1 26 5.24 67, 92 2 Thessalonians 2.2 1 2.8 140 2.15 4, 26

Index of Biblical Sources

216 2 Thessalonians (cont.) 3.3 67, 92 3.6 26 3.10 95 3.14 95 1 Timothy 1.3 1.3-7 1.8 1.8-11 1.10 1.11 1.12

1.12-17 1.12-20 1.15

1.17

1.18 2.2 2.4 2.5

2.6b 2.7 2.8

10, 13, 154, 176 60 60, 63, 64 60 63, 89 25, 64, 104, 154 60, 64, 65, 66, 71, 103, 146, 147, 148, 150, 154, 155, 157, 160, 164 60 150 58, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 82, 89, 111, 160 58, 59, 60, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 119, 136, 137, 138, 139, 142, 144, 149, 157, 164, 183, 184, 187, 190 136 196, 197 89 82, 83, 84, 86, 113 85, 86 80, 175 82, 89, 179

2.9 2:9-15 2.15

3.1

3.2 3.15 3.16

46, 89 87, 209, 211 59, 76, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 1, 4, 7, 25, 29, 31, 45, 46, 47, 48, 58, 59, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71, 73, 76, 78, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 110, 112, 116, 120, 122, 132, 139, 141, 142, 145, 146, 148, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 158, 159, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 174, 176, 184, 185, 187, 189, 190, 191, 196, 197 103, 119, 140 112 4, 7, 31, 47, 48,

4.1-5

4.8

4.9 4.9, 10b

4.10

4.14 4.16 5.4 5.16 5.18 6.2 6.6 6.7

58, 59, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 108, 110, 142, 145, 146, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 164, 165, 166, 176, 185, 187, 191, 196, 197 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 59, 102, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 142, 156, 157, 164, 166, 185, 187, 191, 196, 197 66, 69, 107, 114 111, 114, 142, 187, 196 108, 111, 112, 114, 151 136 115 95 95 121 128 129 58, 59, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 142, 149, 150, 157, 160, 163,

Index of Biblical Sources

6.10

6.14 6.11-16

6.16

164, 165, 167, 186, 187, 193, 196, 197 59, 126, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 142, 149, 157, 164, 165, 186, 187, 193, 196 140 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 150, 154 74

3.5 3.8

69, 88 41, 58, 66, 88

Hebrews 1.2 1.3 4.14 6.8 7.14 8.6 9.15 10.30 12.5 12.24 13.21

178 48 31 132 125 82, 83 82, 83 41 122 83 139

James 1.27 2.9 4.12

119 122 69

2 Timothy 1.9 1.10 2.2 2.13 2.19 2.22-25 4.18

89 140 10, 136 67, 92 106 139 73, 74

1 Peter 2.14 2:17 2.21-25 2.22 4.3 4.11

Titus 2.13 3.1 3.3

140 78 64

2 Peter 2.1

78 78 48 41 46, 64 73, 74, 139

103

217 1 John 1.2 1.10 2.2 2.22 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.10 5.1 5.5

102 65 21, 31, 36 31, 36 63, 102 102 102 46, 103 21, 41, 47, 48, 97 21 18 36

2 John 7

21, 47, 97

Jude 25

74

Revelation 2.1 2.8 2.12 2.18 3.1 3.7 3.14 4.11 9.20 12.11 14.13b 21.8 22.15

104 104 104 104 104 104 104 139 46 23 124 46, 65 46

INDEX OF SUBJECTS absence 90, 169, 170 accusation 122, 162, 181, 192 alliteration 35, 64, 65, 74 amanuensis 5, 15, 78, 178 amorphous 52 anachronistic 44 anaphoric 51 antagonists 154, 179 aphorism (aphoristic) 49, 88, 92, 95, 118 apodosis 42, 95 apostasy 103, 106 apostolic (tradition) 2, 4, 5, 8, 15, 27, 32, 34, 37, 46, 63, 80, 83, 85, 97, 169, 175, 178, 206, 207, 208 asceticism 43, 153, 154 assonance (assonant) 100, 101 atmosphere 2, 76, 195 atonement 37, 38, 45, 114 audience 9, 13, 14, 16, 37, 65, 84, 99, 124, 166, 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 188, 190, 193, 197, 202 aural 65, 84, 85, 139 authority 8, 10, 25, 27, 28, 40, 87, 118, 150, 161, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 182, 187, 188, 190, 197, 204, 207, 211 axiom 108, 130 baptism (baptismal) 20, 25, 99, 136, 137, 209 benediction 72, 149, 205 bipartite 48 blessing 129, 189, 191 boundaries 17, 54, 59, 60, 63, 65, 66, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 86, 88, 91, 95, 96, 97, 102, 103, 105, 107, 110, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 122, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 145, 188, 198, 209

C1 46, 53, 55, 63, 65, 67, 70, 72, 75, 77, 78, 81, 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 102, 104, 108, 111, 114, 115, 118, 120, 123, 127, 129, 133, 137, 195 C2 53, 55, 63, 65, 68, 71, 73, 75, 77, 78, 82, 86, 88, 90, 93, 95, 97, 102, 104, 108, 110, 112, 114, 115, 118, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 141, 195 C3 54, 55, 64, 68, 71, 73, 75, 78, 82, 86, 89, 90, 94, 99, 102, 105, 109, 112, 114, 115, 118, 121, 124, 127, 130, 133, 138, 141, 195 C4 54, 64, 65, 69, 74, 78, 83, 89, 90, 94, 95, 100, 105, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 134, 138, 141, 195 C5 54, 64, 65, 69, 71, 74, 75, 78, 83, 86, 89, 90, 94, 100, 102, 105, 107, 109, 113, 116, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 138, 141, 195 C6 54, 55, 64, 65, 69, 74, 78, 80, 84, 89, 90, 94, 95, 100, 102, 105, 109, 110, 113, 114, 116, 119, 121, 124, 125, 128, 131, 132, 134, 139, 141, 195 C7 54, 55, 65, 66, 69, 71, 74, 75, 78, 79, 86, 89, 90, 95, 101, 102, 106, 107, 110, 114, 116, 117, 119, 122, 125, 128, 132, 134, 140, 141, 195 C8 54, 55, 65, 70, 75, 78, 86, 89, 90, 95, 102, 106, 107, 110, 114, 116, 119, 122, 125, 128, 132, 134, 141, 195 catechetical 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 79, 84, 101, 104, 172 chiasm (chiasmus, chiastic) 35, 38, 49, 99, 145, 147, 152, 153, 156, 159, 163, 189, 196, 212

Index of Subjects Christology 4, 8, 33, 52, 82, 145, 160, 207, 208, 209 climax 62, 163, 164, 189 cohesion 6, 16, 28, 43, 60, 61, 64, 68, 77, 78, 80, 108, 115, 118, 123, 126, 129, 130, 135, 137, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 182, 188, 194, 196, 198, 207, 212 cohesive 13, 71, 105, 129, 136, 145, 159, 163, 168, 211 combat 6, 10, 11, 14, 38, 43, 47, 143, 147, 148, 151, 155, 178, 183, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194, 197, 198 confess (confession, confessional) 3, 4, 5, 8, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 68, 75, 81, 82, 83, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 104, 105, 114, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 172, 173, 177, 183, 185, 186, 187, 190, 191, 193, 195, 205, 207, 210 contextualization 96, 212 controversies 180, 193 counterattack 172 counter-doctrine 187 counter-mission 6, 14, 93, 103, 143, 165, 173, 186, 187, 188 creed (creedal) 3, 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 49, 51, 67, 71, 81, 84, 101, 141, 149, 161, 195, 207, 209, 213 cross-pollenization 48 cultic 73, 87 deacon 76, 91, 96, 153, 155, 157, 158, 173, 191 decalogue 180, 183 defection 153, 156, 157 delegates 75, 209 diagnostics 56 didactic 35, 78, 92, 116, 133 dislocation 33, 36, 37, 43, 52, 53, 55, 63, 68, 73, 77, 78, 82, 88, 93, 97, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112, 115, 117, 121, 123, 127, 129, 130, 138, 195, 199

219

doctrine 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 27, 30, 32, 36, 37, 38, 47, 60, 62, 89, 93, 96, 103, 128, 129, 143, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 156, 163, 165, 169, 173, 179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 197, 198 doxology (doxologies) 71, 72, 73, 75, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 144, 150, 183, 204, 205, 210 drama 23, 115 echo 12, 23, 56, 69, 81, 124, 175, 208 ecumenical 44 elder 120, 121, 122, 124, 127, 148, 155, 157, 158, 159, 162, 165, 173, 175, 179, 192 emissary 169, 173 Ephesus 10, 13, 60, 61, 70, 83, 93, 96, 103, 105, 114, 130, 138, 148, 151, 154, 155, 168, 169, 170, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 185, 189, 190, 192, 193, 198 epideictic 124, 171, 172 epigrammatical 95 epistolary 1, 7, 15, 16, 21, 63, 124, 141, 147, 168, 169, 172, 175, 207 eros 163, 180, 210 eschatological 18, 23, 103 eucharistic 84 exaltation 7, 45 exclusivists (exclusivity) 175, 182 explication 51, 63, 200 exploitation 186 formula 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 53, 55, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 127, 129, 133, 137, 138, 147, 184, 185, 193, 195, 200, 209, 212 fragment (sentence) 26, 71, 101, 144, 212 genealogies 177, 180, 181, 182, 185, 187, 189, 198

220

Index of Subjects

godlessness 193 godliness 6, 7, 87, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 129, 130, 135, 136, 154, 156, 157, 163, 164, 165, 176, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 191, 193, 196, 197, 198, 213 governance 5, 16, 122 heresy (heretics, heretical) 14, 15, 21, 60, 64, 68, 96, 147, 148, 151, 155, 171, 173, 179, 189 high-church 16 holistic 144, 154 homologia 17, 21, 24, 26, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38, 41 hortatory 49, 64, 76 hymn (hymns, hymnody) 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50, 84, 97, 100, 101, 102, 108, 152, 153, 155, 171, 172, 177, 185, 191, 195, 205, 206, 207, 210, 211, 213 hypocrisy 103, 106 hypotaxis 50 immorality 46 immortality 74, 138, 139, 140 immunity 120 incarnation 21, 45, 47, 70, 71, 87, 90, 98, 99, 105, 187 intertextual 56 Jesus 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 36, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55, 66, 68, 69, 79, 83, 85, 96, 99, 136, 138, 139, 141, 153, 154, 160, 162, 165, 175, 176, 178, 181, 183, 185, 186, 190, 191, 197, 208, 209 Jewish 4, 11, 12, 34, 38, 56, 63, 64, 72, 73, 79, 81, 84, 87, 89, 101, 105, 106, 180, 181, 182, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209 Judaism 2, 29, 32, 81, 82, 103, 140, 205, 207 Justification 45, 53, 170 Kataphoric 67 Kerygma 3, 4, 8, 32, 48, 70, 79, 142

Leadership 10, 15, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 103, 116, 122, 125, 150, 152, 155, 156, 159, 162, 165, 173, 180, 182, 184, 187, 191, 192, 207, 212 leverage 6, 28, 143, 167, 168, 170, 171, 173, 176, 177, 188, 194, 196, 197, 198 liturgical 4, 8, 31, 71, 72, 73, 79, 81, 84, 137, 171, 207 liturgy 3, 23, 32, 67, 71, 79, 209, 211 lyrical 48, 75, 101 marriage 181, 182, 191 martyred 23 maxim 13, 63, 92, 94, 105, 108, 109, 110, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 159, 184, 186, 197 mediator 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 150, 161, 162, 164, 176, 184, 190 melodic 3, 22, 23, 30, 33, 101, 136, 180 messiah 18, 69 messianic 18 metaphor 15, 52, 105, 111, 112, 116, 126, 178, 200, 209 midrashic 48 monotheism (monotheistic) 79, 81 motif 38, 44, 108, 160, 166 mystery 7, 83, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 108, 164, 170, 185 myths 156, 177, 180, 181, 182, 185, 187, 189, 198 name-calling 180 narrative 4, 19, 43, 45, 167, 204, 211 non-pauline 5, 8, 15, 24, 26, 49, 50, 70, 212 omniscience 186 opponents 1, 10, 11, 14, 22, 60, 61, 78, 82, 89, 94, 103, 105, 106, 147, 149, 150, 151, 155, 156, 157, 159, 163, 164, 165, 166, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 193, 197, 198, 211, 212 oration (oracles, orator) 1, 4, 22, 30, 32, 73, 74, 82, 106, 131, 171, 172, 174, 188, 208 ordination 136, 137, 152, 155, 209

Index of Subjects orthodox (orthodoxy) 14, 15, 19, 21, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 54, 55, 64, 68, 71, 73, 74, 78, 82, 83, 88, 89, 90, 94, 99, 100, 105, 109, 112, 114, 115, 118, 121, 124, 127, 130, 133, 138, 141, 172, 195, 200 orthopraxy 11, 40, 45, 46, 47, 54, 64, 69, 74, 78, 83, 89, 94, 100, 105, 109, 113, 115, 118, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 133, 138, 141, 195, 200 overseer 76, 91, 93, 96, 179, 190, 191, 192 papyri 2, 168 paraenesis 138 paraenetic 40, 45, 46, 54, 64, 69, 74, 78, 83, 89, 94, 100, 104, 105, 109, 113, 115, 118, 121, 124, 127, 130, 133, 134, 138, 200 parallelisms 28, 29, 38, 49, 55 parataxis 50 parenesis 127 parousia 168, 169, 207 paschal 23, 211 Passover 23 patristic 19, 131, 211 pericope 5, 8, 26, 29, 32, 36, 42, 63, 66, 93, 94, 115, 120, 136, 137, 144, 163, 167, 200 philophronesis 168, 169 pilate 20, 136, 140, 141, 186 poetic 17, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 64, 65, 69, 74, 75, 78, 80, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 94, 97, 100, 101, 102, 105, 109, 110, 113, 114, 116, 119, 121, 124, 125, 128, 130, 131, 132, 134, 139, 140, 141, 200 polytheistic 81 post-pauline 16, 172, 176, 211 pre-christian 71, 81 preformed (tradition) 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,

221

80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 200, 201, 206, 208, 210, 212, 213 pre-pauline 9, 27, 28, 31, 212 profess (profession) 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 35, 36, 41, 45, 48, 55, 75, 83, 84, 112, 136, 138, 164, 177, 185, 186, 187 prophecy 103, 104, 152, 155, 156, 191, 204 prose 28, 43, 45, 49, 134 prosperity 109 protasis 42, 49 pseudepigraphy 174, 175 PT1 148, 149, 150, 155, 157, 158, 160, 163, 164, 166, 167, 180, 183, 186, 190, 193 PT2 148, 149, 150, 155, 157, 158, 166, 167, 183, 190 PT3 149, 157, 158, 164, 183, 184, 190 PT4 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 176, 184, 190 PT5 158, 159, 166, 184, 190 PT6 155, 156, 157, 158, 164, 166, 176, 185, 191 PT7 155, 156, 157, 158, 164, 166, 185, 191 PT8 156, 157, 158, 164, 166, 185, 191 PT9 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 167, 185, 192 PT10 148, 149, 150, 155, 157, 158, 160, 163, 164, 167, 186, 193 PT11 149, 157, 158, 164, 186, 193 PT12 148, 149, 150, 155, 157, 158, 164, 166, 186, 193

222

Index of Subjects

Quotation 2, 9, 28, 34, 56, 66, 67, 87, 91, 97, 173, 212 quotation-commendation 67 ransom 81, 83, 85, 86, 161, 184 rapport 13, 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 188, 197 readers 2, 4, 11, 26, 30, 56, 84, 92, 97, 162, 168, 174, 175, 186, 197, 204 receiver 169 recitations 20, 48 reconciliation 45 redeemer 46, 53, 54 redemption 19, 23, 34, 45, 70, 84, 189 regula (fidei) 4, 10, 19, 32, 38, 42, 45, 51, 69, 76, 78, 79, 83, 96, 113, 116, 118, 119, 124, 127, 130, 132, 133, 144, 172, 204, 211 reinterpretation 176 religion 4, 81, 190, 192, 208 repentance 176, 177, 190, 193 repetition 37, 48, 51, 54, 56, 129, 166, 167, 191 resemblance 116, 141 resurrection 4, 18, 19, 20, 23, 27, 31 rhetoric 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 21, 28, 34, 35, 56, 62, 72, 124, 131, 143, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 188, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 205, 207, 208, 210, 212 rhyming 65 rhythm (rhythmic) 22, 28, 33, 35, 38, 42, 43, 48, 49, 52, 69, 74, 75, 79, 85, 94, 95, 100, 101, 105, 131, 200 righteous 25, 26, 96, 139, 191, 193 rituals 27 salutation 189 salvation 19, 25, 34, 44, 45, 60, 68, 69, 76, 80, 81, 83, 89, 90, 110, 111, 114, 150, 151, 157, 158, 160, 161, 164, 176, 183, 184, 187 sanctification 174, 208 satan 181, 182, 185, 190, 192, 212 scripture 2, 7, 12, 16, 20, 22, 32, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 56, 62, 72, 145, 173, 191, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212 semantic 25, 41, 78, 95, 153, 160, 204, 212 semitic 74

shema 81, 84 slave (slavery) 50, 62, 126, 127, 128, 158, 192, 205, 208, 209 song (songs) 4, 22, 23 sonship 18, 45 soteriological 30, 44, 88, 89, 90, 105, 112, 113, 114 sovereign 25, 139, 140, 186 standards 5, 34, 60, 91, 105, 128, 145 stanzas 34, 35, 37, 85, 94, 101 stoicism (stoics) 29, 130 strophe (strophes) 33, 35, 37, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105 structure 6, 7, 9, 14, 16, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 188, 189, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 203, 205, 212 style 2, 5, 17, 22, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 100, 102, 103, 105, 107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 116, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 140, 141, 165, 168, 173, 174, 180, 195, 196, 199, 200, 207 superintendency 170 supervision 92 supremacy 43 syllabic 50 symmetrical 54, 97, 125 symmetry 27, 43, 75, 79, 80, 89, 116, 128, 132, 134, 135, 140, 161, 200 synagogue 18, 22, 23, 71, 81, 82, 84, 137, 140 syncretism 96, 212 syntax (syntactic) 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 62, 65, 70, 75, 78,

Index of Subjects 86, 89, 90, 95, 102, 106, 107, 110, 114, 116, 119, 122, 125, 128, 132, 134, 141, 155, 163, 195, 200 talmud 22 taxonomy 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57 tetragrammaton 25 theme 6, 8, 10, 11, 18, 21, 22, 28, 29, 32, 38, 43, 45, 47, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 102, 105, 110, 112, 119, 121, 124, 127, 129, 130, 133, 134, 143, 149, 150, 162, 164, 165, 173, 184, 189, 190, 191, 194, 197, 209 theocentric 45 theology 2, 5, 21, 22, 31, 32, 34, 36, 40, 43, 44, 47, 50, 52, 56, 57, 73, 138, 174, 177, 178, 206, 208, 212, 213 traits 7, 13, 17, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 48, 50, 51, 55, 61, 65, 69, 72, 73, 121, 122, 128, 165, 166, 181, 184, 200 transcendence 28 translation 20, 63, 66, 68, 74, 85, 93, 95, 97, 107, 127, 131, 206, 208 translations 20, 63, 68, 95, 97, 107, 208 transmission 1, 2, 4, 15, 26, 41, 53, 55, 104, 150, 175, 207 treatise 15, 22, 27, 29, 69, 162, 185, 197 triadic 74 trinity 75, 209 tripartite 48

223

trust 4, 10, 46, 66, 67, 68, 70, 92, 103, 107, 111, 112, 114, 149, 150, 156, 159, 184, 185, 190, 191, 192, 193 trustworthiness 67, 70, 92 unanimity 146 utilitarian 174 variant (variants) 20, 66, 74, 77, 92, 93, 101, 131, 132 vice (vice-lists) 6, 13, 22, 34, 35, 46, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 92, 93, 96, 114, 128, 148, 152, 160, 172, 175, 192, 208, 209 vocative 140, 149 warning (warnings) 46, 96, 115, 125, 129, 134, 144, 149, 150 wealth 128, 148, 149, 154, 155, 163, 164, 186, 193 widows 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 148, 158, 179, 182, 192 witness 4, 10, 36, 66, 80, 83, 85, 92, 131, 132, 136, 137, 141, 149, 154, 173, 192, 193 wordplay 183 worship 4, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 37, 42, 44, 74, 75, 81, 82, 84, 87, 91, 140, 157, 158, 159, 190, 191, 205, 210 wrath 90, 183 yoke 127 zealous 61

INDEX OF AUTHORS Aland, B. 2, 204 Aland, K. 2, 204 Alford, H. 97, 204 Aune, D. E. 104, 204

Coppes, L. 41, 205 Cranfield, C. E. B. 25, 29, 205 Cullmann, O. 2, 3, 31, 36, 137, 205, 206 Culpepper, R. A. 18, 206

Bailey, J. A. 169, 204 Balz, H. R. 125, 208 Barker, G. W. 21, 204 Barth, M. 34, 204 Bartlett, D. L. 170, 204 Bartsch, H. W. 120, 204 Bassler, J. 151, 204 Bauer, W. 26, 204 Bengel, J. A. 94, 204 Berdot, D. N. 10 Bernard, J. H. 97, 107, 204 Bettenson, H. S. 1, 204 Black, M. 72, 204 Blight, R. C. 153, 160, 204 Bock, D. L. 6, 19, 44, 124, 169, 204, 205, 207 Booth, W. C. 167, 205 Bromiley, G. W. 11, 26, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211 Brown, D. 100, 208 Brownlee, W. H. 12, 38, 101, 206 Bruce, F. F. 97, 207 Büchsel, F. 83, 205 Buckland, W. W. 126, 205 Bush, F. 22, 126, 144, 145, 149, 150, 152, 153, 197, 205, 209 Buttolph, P. 7, 61, 144, 206

Danker, F. W. 11, 204 Davies, P. R. 72, 204 Deichgräber, 4, 206 Deissmann, A. 206 Dibelius, M. 7, 8, 14, 15, 46, 61, 62, 72, 73, 79, 81, 87, 91, 93, 99, 113, 116, 127, 133, 138, 144, 145, 206 Dillard, R. B. 22, 206 Dockery, D. S. 6, 7 Dodd, C. H. 32, 48, 206 Donelson, L. R. 143, 206 Doty, W. G. 2, 206 Douglas, J. D. 23, 208 Dunn, J. D. G. 26, 206

Caird, G. B. 172, 205 Campbell, R. A. 58, 107, 205 Chapell, B. 112, 208 Charlesworth, J. H. 34, 105, 205 Collins, R. F. 94, 180, 205 Conzelmann, H. 7, 8, 14, 15, 26, 61, 62, 73, 79, 81, 87, 91, 93, 99, 113, 116, 127, 133, 138, 144, 145, 205, 206

Fanning, B. M. 124, 169, 207 Fisk, B. 5 Fitzgerald, J. T. 62, 207 Forster, A. H. 212 Fowl, S. E. 28, 207 Friedrich, G. 211, 116, 205, 206, 208, 210, 211 Fuller, R. H. 33, 36, 52, 207

Eagleton, T. 167, 206 Easton, B. S. 84, 85, 107, 118, 138, 206 Ellingworth, P. 206 Ellis, E. E. 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 21, 26, 38, 39, 50, 52, 53, 58, 59, 65, 70, 78, 87, 101, 103, 107, 117, 118, 120, 126, 142, 206, 207, 211 Eltester, W. 137, 209 Eerdman, C. R. 92, 207 Ernest, J. D. 212 Evans, C. A. 2, 12, 13, 38, 56, 101, 168, 206, 207, 211, 213

Index of Authors Gaebelein, F. E. 21, 23, 24, 27, 204, 206, 208, 209 Gerhardsson, B. 2, 207 Gibson, R. 153, 196, 207 Gloer, W. H. 34 Gossai, H. 208 Goulder 145, 209 Grant, F. C. 212 Gregory, C. R. 27, 212 Gromacki, R. G. 67, 280, 207 Gundry, R. H. 97, 99, 207 Guthrie, D. 7, 15, 69, 70, 73, 86, 107, 109, 123, 130, 147, 207 Halliday, M. A. K. 144, 156, 207 Hanson, A. T. 15, 62, 64, 71, 84, 96, 137, 140, 143, 175, 207, 208 Harding, M. 16, 168, 169, 171, 172, 177, 208 Harnack, A. von 1, 208 Harrill, J. A. 62, 126, 208 Harris, R. L. 205 Harris, W. H. 21, 22, 41, 208 Harrison, E. F. 2, 24, 25, 26, 34, 37, 208 Hasan, R. 144, 156, 207 Hauck, F. 116, 208 Hauser, A. J. 167, 212 Hawthorne, 12, 38, 31, 206, 210 Hays, A. B. 12, 13, 56, 208 Hendriksen, W. 99, 208 Hengel, M. 4, 31, 36, 208 Higgins, A. J. B. 84 Holmes, M. W. 63, 208 Hooker, M. 9, 208 Horstmann, A. 125, 208 Howard, J. M. 174, 208 Hubbard, D. A. 22, 209 Hughes, R. K. 112, 208 Hultgren, A. J. 15, 46, 54, 208 Jamieson, R. 100, 208 Jebb, S. 208 Jeremias, J. 84, 161, 208 Jervis, A. 208 Johnson, A. 23, 74, 75, 208 Johnson, L. T. 103, 107, 209 Johnson, S. E. 212 Jonge M. J. 21, 206 Joyce, P. 145, 209

225

Kent, H. 27, 61, 209 Kittel, G. 11, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211 Knight, G. 10, 58, 67, 86, 94, 95, 98, 99, 107, 137, 139, 209 Koester, H. 7, 61, 206 Koskenniemi, H. 168, 169, 209 Köstenberger, A. J. 209 Knoph, R. 212 Kraft, R. A. 205 Kramer, P. S. 212 Lasor, W. S. 209 Liefeld, W. 7 Lock, W. 87, 209 Lohmeyer, E. 27, 209 Longenecker, R. 3, 4, 17, 26, 45, 50, 209 Longman, T. 22, 144, 206 Lyall, F. 126, 209 Marshall, I. H. 7, 10, 28, 67, 68, 69, 80, 88, 90, 92, 93, 107, 114, 123, 126, 130, 131, 135, 140, 145, 147, 153, 165, 181, 209, 210 Martin, R. P. 12, 22, 27, 34, 38, 42, 81, 97, 206, 207, 210 Martini, C. M. 2 Matthews, K. A. 7, 204 Meier, J. P. 163, 210 Merkel, H. 108, 210 Metzger, B. M. 1, 2, 20, 74, 131, 206, 210 Meyer, A. W. 26, 27, 209, 210 Michel, O. 26, 36, 63, 145, 208, 209, 210 Michelsen, A. B. 48, 87, 130, 210, 211 Miller, J. D. 58 Mohr, J. C. B. 143, 160, 205, 206, 209 Moule, C. F. D. 169, 207 Mounce, W. D. 10, 15, 60, 65, 66, 70, 77, 80, 81, 83, 105, 107, 110, 111, 114, 122, 125, 126, 131, 133, 137, 139, 141, 145, 151, 152, 153, 161, 165, 176, 210 Neufeld, V. H. 3, 32, 33, 36, 41, 48, 51, 210 Neyrey, J. H. 72, 140–210 Niebuhr, R. R. 169, 207 Nordon, E. 3, 30, 31, 36, 210 North, J. L. 66, 210

226

Index of Authors

Oberlinner, L. 125, 210 Oepke, A. 83, 210 Olbricht, T. H. 28, 62, 207, 210 Orton, D. E. 145, 209 Polhill, J. B. 10, 211 Porter, S. E. 2, 9, 28, 40, 62, 145, 167, 168, 174, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213 Powell, M. A. 167, 211 Quinn, J. D. 65, 87, 93, 104, 120, 145, 151, 211 Ralston, T. J. 22, 23, 211 Reid, D. G. 12, 25, 38, 206 Reinecker, F. 11, 112, 211 Richards, W. 211 Riesner, R. 78, 211 Roetzel, C. J. 46, 211 Rogers, C. L. 11, 112, 211 Roloff, J. 126, 136, 145, 151, 152, 211 Ryken, L. 49, 95, 109, 166, 174, 211 Sanders, J. T. 2, 23, 48, 100, 211 Sandmel, S. 47, 211 Schleiermacher, F. E. D. 1 Schmithals, W. 26, 211 Schmitz, O. 11, 211 Schneider, G. 125, 208 Sharpe, E. J. 207 Shephard, M. H. 23, 211 Siebeck, P. 143, 160, 205, 206, 209 Silva, M. 28, 211 Sloan, R. B. 7, 204 Smithals, W. 211 Stamps, D. L. 167, 212 Stanley, C. D. 2, 9, 28, 40, 62, 145, 167, 168, 173, 174, 188, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213

Stauffer, E. 5, 22, 34, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44, 47, 50, 52, 212 Stepp, P. L. 150, 212 Stifler, J. M. 24, 29, 212 Stovers, S. K. 2, 212 Strachan, L. R. M. 2, 206 Sumney, J. L. 181, 212 Talbert, C. H. 26, 212 Taylor, V. 50, 212 Teubner, B. G. 3, 31, 210 Thurén, J. 144, 149, 212 Tittle, G. 11, 205, 206, 208, 210 Toussaint, S. 188, 212 Towner, P. H. 15, 58, 64, 81, 84, 104, 107, 123, 179, 212 Van Nest, R. 126, 212 Vander Broek, L. D. 169, 204 Wacker, W. C. 65, 87, 93, 104, 120, 145, 151, 211 Wainwright, J. J. 96, 212 Wallace, D. B. 25, 67, 72, 74, 202, 212 Waltke, B. K. 41, 205 Watson, D. F. 46, 167, 206, 212 Weima, J. A. D. 72, 212 Weiss, J. 27, 33, 212 Wettlaufer, R. 44, 213 White, R. T. 72, 204 Winter, C. 27, 209 Yarbro, A. 7, 61, 144, 206 Yarbrough, M. M. 213 Young, F. M. 19, 168, 174, 177, 178, 179, 213 Zuck, R. 166, 213