Letter Carriers

After reading E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing (IVP, 2004), recommended to me by Joel Green, I have become very interested in the function and authority of Letter-Carriers, especially in the New Testament. Important to this discussion are the two essays:

• Mitchell, Margaret M. “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus.” JBL 111 (1992): 641-662.
• Peter Head, “Named Letter Carries among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31.3 (2009): 279-299

These two articles are helpfully noted by Kevin Scull here and here. Named letter carriers in the NT include, Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2); Tychicus (Col. 4:7); and Silvanus (1 Pet. 5:12). Obviously Timothy and Titus were letter-carriers, but do we have any of the letters they carried?

[[ Have I missed anyone? ]]

According to W. G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), letter carriers originally received “authority to convey the letters, to expand upon them, and to continue Paul’s work.”

Any other interesting articles on letter-carriers and their function? 

The First Letter of Peter by Feldmeier - REVIEW

The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text – Reinhard Feldmeier
Translated from the German (2005) by Peter H. Davids. Baylor University Press, 2008

Feldmeier is well known to Petrine scholarship for his offering in Die Christen als Fremede: Die Metapher der Fremde in der antiken Welt, im Urchristentum und im ersten Pretrusbrief (Tubingen, 1992). For those without German, access to German scholarship on this epistle is now available not only through the translation of Goppelt’s commentary on 1 Peter (Eerdmans, 1993), but also in this offering. My thanks to Carey Newman for convincing me to purchase this commentary at SBL Auckland, 2008.

As a candidate seeking to further his own understanding of 1 Peter, and learning to engage with commentaries, I write from that perspective. I have no expertise in the Greco-Roman world or early Christian literature. But as one making his way through commentaries on 1 Peter written in English, my comments here may prove helpful to others, especially scholars seeking to write for my ilk.

The commentary opens with an introduction that deals with the usual suspects.

1. “The Situation of Suffering”,
2. “The theological interpretation of the situation”,
3. “The arrangement of the letter”,
4. “The crossing of the vertical and horizontal dimensions of soteriology”,
5. “1 Peter and tradition”,
6. “Questions of introduction”,
7. “The influence of First Peter”.

This is then followed by a section by section, often verse by verse analysis with an original translation of the author (which is now translated into English, which makes it a double translation). Every section opens with a heading, and then a short bibliography of relevant articles or books on that specific section. There are no surprises in the structuring of the epistle, for those familiar with other commentaries on 1 Peter.

Interspersed among the comments are eleven excurses that explore further various topics within the letter.

1. Hope
2. The Reception and Transformation of metaphysical attributes of God in 1 Peter
3. Temptation/peirasmo"
4. The Soul and Salvation of the Soul in 1 Peter
5. The Desires
6. God as Judge
7. Rebirth
8. The Context of the Exhortation to Subordination
9. Subject and Responsible Citizen
10. “Humility”/tapeinovfrosunh
11. Devil/Satan

Exegetical issues: Three problematic texts

1:1-2    Feldmeier concurs with other commentators that this is not specifically a social description of the audience, contra Elliott, but rather a theological description of Christian status in the present form of the world. [52-54]

3:18-22    Suggests that the “spirits” in question, are the souls of those who died in the “deluge”, that is the flood. This is seen as a decent into Hell to proclaim the victory of Christ over evil powers. Admits that any interpretation of this passage is uncertain. [203-206]

4:6    Sees this as an evangelistic invitation to those who died in the deluge, but suggests this is a one off event, probably not repeated. [215-216]

The commentary makes consistent use of background materials in early Judaism to elucidate and explain various features and ideas in 1 Peter. Reference is also consistently made to early Christian writings that show how ideas developed and expanded. This suggests that this is a very historically oriented commentary. There is no attempt to construct a theological understanding of 1 Peter in the commentary itself.

The commentary is rather unevenly spread over the various chapters. Introduction = 45pgs; Chapter 1 = 78pgs; Chapter 2 = 57pgs; Chapter 3 = 33pgs; Chapter 4 = 19pgs; Chapter 5 = 27pgs; Bibliography = 64pgs. This ends with a helpful scripture and ancient materials index, but no subject or author index.

Greek is often discussed in the body of the commentary, though never consistently, and this is not transliterated. In the footnotes, the Greek is never transliterated. The numerous Latin phrases are never translated either, while the Hebrew is only seldom transliterated or translated. Which begs the question, who is this commentary intended for? Scholars? Perhaps in it’s original German format, but that seems unlikely given the amount of attention paid to the various sections.

For example, the exegesis of 1:25 amounts to three sentences, hardly scholarly engagement, and there is no reference to the Greek text. Let me quote the entire commentary on this verse:

This “enduring” word is at the same time the word that – as the something of an afterthought explanation stresses – was proclaimed “to you” as gospel. What was said in 1:3f. about the “living hope” and the “imperishable inheritance” is also true of the “living word” and the “imperishable sperm”: It is the divine life that the elect share in through hope, through faith, and through the proclamation of the gospel. [124]

There is also little engagement with the inter-textual echo of Isa. 40:8. Compare this with Achtemeier, Michaels, Elliott, and Jobes, who offer far more detailed comment on the Greek text, inter-textuality, and the exegesis. The treatment is thus too short to be significantly helpful to those wrestling with the text.

On page 248 there is an error of note, perhaps by the editors at Baylor, where there is a comment in the margin noting that the translation is “Not clear. Please fix.”

This begs our previous question, who is this commentary written for? David Horrell suggests that the translation of this commentary will be valuable for a wider audience [Horrell, 1 Peter (T & T Clark, 2008), 29]. I’m not sure that’s true. This commentary should have been previewed by a graduate student, which would have made it more beneficial to readers. This would have afforded opportunity to offer advice on how best to translate this commentary so that it actually becomes useful for students. The long sentences, Greek, Hebrew and especially Latin needed to be transliterated, and at the very least translated in brackets. Perhaps the translator, P. H. Davids, could also have offered a brief overview of the commentary and its position on certain exegetical or historical issues.

I wouldn’t recommend this commentary to lay readers, although it is a must read for scholars and those doing serious study in this fascinating letter. We should thank Baylor and Davids for making German scholarship on 1 Peter available to a wider readership, but unfortunately a better job could have been done in the editorial phase. 

The Opponents in the Pastoral Epistles #2

The quest to understand and identify the opponents has left many an interpreter confused.  The simple fact is that our data is incomplete, and we do not have a full profile of these "opponents".  However, that does not mean we are completely ignorant about them, and today I'd like to propose that the opponents were Christians. 

We may draw from several strands of evidence within the letters to come to this conclusion.  Firstly, 1 Tim 1:6-7 speaks of those who have "deviated" [ἀστοχήσαντες] from the faith.  Then, in 1:19-20 the author speaks of Hymenaeus and Alexander, as those who have “shipwrecked the faith.”  This suggests that they had faith, or were faithful, but now this has been destroyed.  The result of this shipwrecking of faith, is that they have been "delivered to satan so that they may learn not to blaspheme.” 

The second letter to Timothy speaks in a similar fashion of those, namely Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have “swerved from the truth” [2:18]  This suggests that they had the truth, but have now abandoned it in favour of a different view.  In 3:8 the author uses Jannes and Jambres as an illustration of the opponents who have a "corrupt mind and counterfeit faith". 

Thus, we may conclude that the opponents identified within the letters to Timothy were at one stage part of the Christian community in Ephesus, and were at one stage considered fellow Christians. 

The Purpose of 1 Timothy

1 Tim 1:3-7 - a working translation.

Just as I urged you to remain in Ephesus, as I was going into Macedonia, so that you may command/instruct certain people a) not to teach a different/divisive doctrine; b) not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which give rise to useless/empty speculation rather than focussing on the work/economy of God [“the way God has organised life”] which is by/through trust/faithfulness.

The goal of [this] instruction is love from a pure heart; a conscience that is good; and trust that is sincere, which some have missed out on by turning to meaningless conversations; desiring to be teachers of the law and yet not having understanding about that which they are so confident in communicating.

1 Timothy, like Galatians, opens without a “thanksgiving” prayer. The prayer is delayed until 1:12-17, where Paul gives thanks as it relates to his own experiences and mission, and not for Timothy and the audience. Rather, what we find in this opening section is the programme for the letter as a whole. Here we have mention of the decisive issue that will shape our entire understanding of this letter, and how it must be understood within its specific context, dealing as it does with the specific issues at hand. Timothy is charged with protecting the gospel, and the community created by the gospel, because there are some within the community who have turned.

The key to understanding the letter lies in taking seriously that Paul’s stated reason in 1:3 for leaving Timothy in Ephesus is the real one; namely, that he had been left there to combat some false teachers, whose asceticism and speculations based on the Law are full of empty words, engendering strife and causing many to go astray. [Fee, God's Empowering Presence, 757.]

This is a corrective letter, much like 1 Corinthians and Galatians. This suggests that as we read this letter, and each section that makes up this letter, we should constantly be aware of this major issue currently plaguing the Christian community in Ephesus. This problem forms the matrix within which we are to read and understand Paul’s letter.

Theological Presuppositions and Authorship Issues

In discussing issues of the authorship of the New Testament writings, I often hear the claim that if one accepts a high view of Scripture, one should never entertain thoughts of pseudonymity (the view that someone other than the named "author" has written the particular writing in question).  The converse of this, is that only "liberals" embrace ideas of pseudonymous writings in the New Testament canon. 

And yet I wish to suggest that it is not as simple as, holding to view "A" of Scripture, that therefore one automatically holds to view "Z" of authorship. I know quite a few scholars who have a very high view of Scripture and it's authority, and yet for evidential reasons cannot accept that Paul wrote certain letters within the canon. Howard Marshall is perhaps the best example of someone who holds to a high view of Scripture, and yet does not think Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles.  Equally, I know of so-called "liberal" scholars who do not have a high view of Scripture and yet hold to the view that some of the disputed writings were in fact written by the named author. 

One cannot come to a conclusion on the issue of authorship, based on a theological presupposition.  That is an invalid move.  How can a theological conclusion change a historical event/process? 

The reason the writings of the New Testament are considered authoritative is because they are understood to be inspired by the Spirit. It is on the basis of their divine inspiration that they are authoritative, and not on the basis of the specific human author that was an inspired instrument (although, historically speaking, it seems likely that many of the writings were chosen because of who authored them [could Hebrews be the exception?]). While these specific writings are inspired they are also human products, in that human processes--including language, style, rhetoric, etc., are part and parcel of these writings. Pseudepigraphy could also be a part of that historical process that gave birth to the writings known as the New Testament.   As Paul Trebilco notes,

We should note that pseudonymous writing was not considered improper in the ancient world, and was common in Judaism.  If the Pastorals are by someone other than Paul the author, who stands in the Pauline tradition and has been considerably influenced by Paul, would be applying the Pauline tradition to new problems in some Pauline churches in his own day, and would be expressing what he believed Paul would have said.  However, because he saw himself as faithful to Paul's understanding, he wrote in his name.  Scholars argue that this was in no way to attempt to deceive; rather it was a way of acknowledging his indebtedness to Paul's theology. 

[Paul Trebilco, and Simon Rae, 1 Timothy. Asia Bible Commentary Series. (Singapore: Asia Theological Association, 2006), 3.]

Conclusions concerning the authorship of a particular writing should be judged on the external and internal evidence of each specific writing, and not assumed due to a theological presupposition.

The Opponents in the Pastoral Epistles #1

Despite the numerous scholarly attempts to ascertain both the nature of the disease and the author’s precise definition of “healthy teaching,” the issue remains unresolved because the author’s purpose was not to draw a profile of this disease, but to warn against it. The primary focus is not the nature of the heresy, but the moral consequences of both healthy and unhealthy instruction. [Thompson, Moral Formation according to Paul, 200-1.]

The origin of this "disease" is found in those who are commonly referred to as the "opponents".  The opponents of Paul/Timothy/Titus in these letters are addressed throughout the letters, but more specifically in 1 Tim 1:3-7; 1:19-20; 4:1-3, 7; 6:3-5; 6:20-21; 2 Tim 2:14-18; 2:22-26; 3:1-9; 4:3-5; Titus 1:10-16; 3:9-11. While we are not able to draw a profile of the details of the false teaching and the opponents, there are certain things that we can know about them. What follows is an engagement with the evidence and argument presented by Paul Trebilco in The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius.

Trebilco, notes that “Much of what the Pastor writes about the opponents is general; in fact it seems very likely that much of the language used in a number of passages against the opponents is typical of the polemic that philosophers used against the Sophists” [Trebilco, 209-10]. 

The conclusion Trebilco draws from this similarity, with Towner, is that we therefore cannot be certain that the description given, for example in 2 Tim 3:2-5, actually describes said opponents because this is a standard description.  Towner notes that "By and large the purpose of this catalogue was to identity the opponents as belonging to the apostates of 'the last days'" [Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 28]. 

While these conclusions are sound, I wonder if there is not more to the comparison.  What if the author of these writings is using a standard critique of the Sophists in an analogous way.  Perhaps the author wants the audience to realise that he is a true "philosopher" unlike the Sophists who seek to take advantage of people.  Perhaps the author wishes to denounce the opposition by this very comparison, that his Philosophy is "sound" and "healthy" (using language from the Philosophers (see Malherbe, "Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles"), and that his opponents teaching is a "disease" that stems from a corrupt source, and produces corrupt lives. 

Perhaps these descriptions are not merely part of the standard critique, but do help us to understand the author's reasons for using this specific polemic. 

Crucified for Fellowship

In a beautiful statement, Marcus Borg describes the meaning of Jesus' acts of table-fellowship.

Jesus’ practice of table fellowship and his teaching concerning issues related to table fellowship contravened the understanding of Israel as a holy, separated community.  In this context, table-fellowship cannot be described simply as festive celebration and acceptance, but as a political act of national significance: to advocate and practice a different form of table fellowship was to protest against the present structures of Israel.  Moreover, there was more than protest – an alternative program was advocated for the people of God in their historical existence.[1]

A significant part of the reason Jesus was crucified, is for these kinds of acts.  They may look innocent to us, but because they are a part of Jesus' larger mission, they must be seen in relationship to one another.  

---

[1] Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus, 120-21.

Books PhD Students Should Know

Frank Dicken, at the Centre for the Study of Christian Origins blog gives us a quick list of 10 books from four scholars, that all PhD graduates ought to know.  The list has generated some comments, and I have made my own list below that I intend to master when I do my PhD.  

1. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament.
2. James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 3rd ed.
3. Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament.
4. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians.
5. Adolf Deissman, Light from the Ancient Near East. 
6. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. 
7. Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts
8. Rudolf Bultmann, New Testament Theology or Georg Strecker, Theology of the New Testament.
9. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism or Dale Allison, Constructing Jesus.
10. Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism or John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora.

These are books that I consider fundamental to the study of the New Testament.  I haven't yet read all of them cover to cover, but I've dabbled and read considerable chunks of most, and have managed to get right through some.  

I'm tempted to put books on this list that deal directly with the primary sources, such as Holme's Apostolic Fathers, and Nickelsburg's Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishna.  I wish there was some kind of survey and introduction of Graeco-Roman writings, but I've not found anything like that just yet.  

So what's missing from my list?  What would you add or replace?  

Translations of 1 Timothy 2:12

Linda L. Belleville, in her insightful and helpful essay, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” in Discovering Biblical Equality. Complementarity without Hierarchy. eds. R. W. Pierce and R. M. Groothuis, with G. D. Fee. (Illinois: IVP, 2004, 205-223) offers a list of the way bibles have translated 1 Tim 2:12, διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.  

With this she shows how the often debated word αὐθεντεῖν has been understood from the 2nd century, through the ages. 

Old Latin (2nd-4th cent. A.D.): "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate a man [neque dominari viro]" 

Vulgate (4th-5th): "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man [neque dominari in virum]!' 

Geneva (1560 edition): "I permit not a woman to teache, nether to vfurpe authoritie ouer the man"

Casiodoro de Reina (1569): "I do not permit the woman to teach neither to take [tomar] authority over the man/'

Bishops (1589): "I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to usurpe authoritie over the man.

KJV (1611): "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man."

L, Segond (1910): "I do not permit the woman to teach, neither to take [prendre] authority over the man."

Goodspeed (1923): "I do not allow women to teach or to domineer over men"

La Sainte (1938): "I do not permit the woman to teach, neither to take [prendre] authority over the man "

NEB (1961): "I do not permit a woman to be a teacher, nor must woman domineer over man."

JBCerf (1973): "I do not permit the woman to teach, neither to lay down the law for the man."

REB (1989): "I do not permit women to teach or dictate to the men."

New Translation (1990): "I do not permit a woman to teach or dominate men."

CEV (1991): "They should... not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do!'

The Message (1993): "I don't let women take over and tell the men what to do!'

Belleville states that, "In fact, there is a virtually unbroken tradition, stemming from the oldest versions and running down to the twenty-first century, that translates authentein as to dominate rather than to exercise authority over."  The pedigree of this view is impressive.  Those who wish to argue that αὐθεντεῖν means to exercise authority, must offer some explanation for the history of how this term has been understood.  

For what it's worth, Sean du Toit (2012) translates it the following way: I am not allowing a woman to teach (nor/so as/and) to dominate a man; she is to keep calm/respectful (non-disruptive).  The brackets and slash's indicate where grammar and semantic range come into play, and require further comments and investigation.  

The Problem with Silence in 1 Tim 2:12

ἡσυχία is an interesting word, usually translated as "silent" in 1 Tim 2:12.  But this seems an unlikely translation, as a brief tour of the lexical data will show.  BDAG, #3463 describes the concept with the following: 

1. state of quietness without disturbance, quietness, rest (Diod. S. 4, 2, 2 opp. to accompaniment of thunder and lightning; 16, 13, 2 without any fanfare; 18, 9, 3 without experiencing disturbance; Diog. L. 9, 21 of a quiet scholar’s life w. implied contrast of being engaged in public affairs; Pind., P. 1, 70  ‘to harmonious peace’ among citizens; Jos., Ant. 18, 245 opp. bustle of city life)  Hm 5, 2, 6 (TestAbr A 1 p. 77, 3 [Stone p. 2]). Of living in a way that does not cause disturbance (Mel., HE 4, 26, 6) 2 Th 3:12; Sotades 6, 8f [Coll. Alex. p. 241]; in Diod. S. [s. above] and SIG 1109, 64f of an injunction to bit-players in a cultic drama not to overplay or ‘ham it up’; UPZ 8, 17 [161 BC]; BGU 614; Sir 28:16). to have respite from someth. ApcPt 17:32.
2. state of saying nothing or very little, silence (Pla., Ep. 2, 312c; Pr 11:12; Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 14; Jos., Ant. 3, 67) IEph 15:2. in silence (Philo, Somn. 2, 263) 1 Ti 2:11f; IEph 19:1. quiet down, give a hearing (cp. Jos., Ant. 5, 235; cp. Just., D. 115, 5) Ac 22:2 (is it prob. that here such concepts as ‘reverence’, ‘devotion’, ‘respect’ may have some influence? Cp. Dio Chrys. 68 [18], 10: Herodotus should be read ‘with much respect’). 21:40 D (cp. Dio Chrys. 13 [7], 26; Philo, Vi. Cont. 75).—Schmidt, Syn. IV 248-64. DELG s.v. M-M. TW. Spicq. Sv. 

Louw-Nida #3050 make similar comments:  ἡσυχία: a state of undisturbed quietness and calm - 'quiet circumstances, undisturbed life.'  

We should note that ἡσυχία is not usually used to refer to “silence” in Paul’s letters, but rather “calmness” and the absence of disruption (1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:12; 1 Tim 2:2; cf. 1 Pet 3:4).[1]  In 1 Tim 2:2, the community is encouraged to live a ἡσύχιον βίον, which certainly does not mean a muted life, but rather one that is calm and peaceful, not disruptive and causing trouble.  Thus, it seems that something similar to BDAG option #1 is being advocated in 1 Tim 2:12.  The women who are deceived, are to cultivate an ability to learn in a calm and non-disruptive manner, obeying what is being taught.  In this way, they will learn the truth, which will affect the way they live.  This knowledge combined with praxis will ultimately *save* them (1 Tim 2:15).  Even in the second option provided by BDAG, the word appears to refer to not strict silence, but the demeanour of quietness and respect, of listening carefully.  Thus, either way, our writer is advocating a position of calm, non-disruptive learning.  This is especially focussed on those who are deceived, and those who are sharing the false teaching in this Christian community (1 Tim 5:13-15).  This injunction is thus aimed directly at those women who have been causing trouble in the community, the men having already been excommunicated (1 Tim 1:20).  

It is not enough to merely read the various bold options given in BDAG.  We must carefully sift through how the word is used by various writers and understand the concept to which it refers.  And in this case, the concept does not strictly refer to pure silence, but rather the demeanour and character of those who are calm, non-disruptive, not making a fuss but learning respectfully.  

---

[1] When Paul does want to refer to “silence” he uses a different word, σιγάω, found in Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 14:28, 30, 34.