The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (152 page)

Johnson, L. T.
The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
Anchor Bible 35A. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

____________.
Letters to Paul's Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus.
Valley Forge: Trinity International, 1996.

Kelly, J. N. D.
A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.
Black's New Testament Commentaries. London: A&C Black, 1963.

Knight, G. W.
The Pastoral Epistles.
New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Köstenberger, A. J. “Church Government.” In
Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization.
Edited by G. T. Kurian. Oxford: Blackwell, forthcoming.

_____________.“1—2 Timothy, Titus.” Pages 487—625 in
Expositor's Bible Commentary.
Rev. ed. Vol. 12:
Ephesians—Philemon.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

____________. “The New Testament Pattern of Church Government.”
Midwestern Journal of Theology 4/2
(2006): 24-42.

Köstenberger, A. J., and T. R. Schreiner, eds.
Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15.
2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Köstenberger, A. J., and T. L. Wilder, eds.
Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul's Theology in the Pastoral Epistles.
Nashville: B & H Academic, forthcoming.

Laniak, Timothy S.
Shepherds After My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible.
New Studies in Biblical Theology 20. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.

Lea, T. D., and H. P. Griffin, Jr.
1, 2 Timothy, Titus.
New American Commentary 34. Nashville: B&H, 1992.

Liefeld, W. L.
1 and 2 TimothyITitus.
NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Lock, W.
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.
International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1952 (1924).

Marshall, I. H.
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.
International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.

Merkle, B. L.
The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church.
Studies in Biblical Literature 57. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.

___________.
40 Questions About Elders and Deacons.
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008.

Mounce, W. D.
The Pastoral Epistles.
Word Biblical Commentary 46. Waco: Word, 2000.

Newton, P. A.
Elders in Congregational Life: Rediscovering the Biblical Model for Church Leadership.
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

Oden, T. C.
First and Second Timothy and Titus.
Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1989.

Prior, M.
Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 23. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989.

Quinn, J. D.
TheLetterto Titus.
Anchor Bible 35. Garden City: Doubleday, 1990.

Quinn, J. D., and W. C. Wacker.
The First and Second Letters to Timothy.
Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000.

Stott, J.
The Message of 1 Timothy and Titus: Guard the Truth.
The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1996.

____________.
The Message of 2 Timothy: Guard the Gospel.
The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1973.

Towner, P. H.
1—2 Timothy and Titus.
IVP New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994.

____________.
The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 34. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.

____________.
The Letters to Timothy and Titus.
New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Wilder,T. L. “Pseudonymity and the New Testament.” Pages 296—335 in
Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues.
Edited by D. A. Black and D. S. Dockery. Nashville: B&H, 2001.

____________.
Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception.
Lanham: University Press of America, 2004.

¹
Parts of this chapter draw on A. J. Köstenberger, “1—2 Timothy, Titus,” in
Expositor's Bible Commentary
, vol. 12:
Ephesians
—
Philemon
, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 487—625.

²
L. T. Johnson,
Letters to Paul's Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus
, The New Testament in Context (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 3; G. W. Knight,
Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles
, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 3.

³
D. Guthrie,
The Pastoral Epistles
, TNTC, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 11.

⁴
See G. D. Fee,
1 and 2 Timothy, Titus
, NIBCNT 13 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 21 (though see the interaction with Fee's
ad hoc
hermeneutic further below).

⁵
See Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, lxi. He added, “It is not possible to determine whether Paul wrote 1 Timothy or Titus first. All that I am comfortable saying is that the similarity of language between 1 Timothy and Titus may suggest that they were written at approximately the same time” (p. lxii).

⁶
Mounce (
Pastoral Epistles
, lxii) noted that the Muratorian Canon (later second century) has the order Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, presumably in order to place 2 Timothy last as Paul's final letter. He also pointed out that J. D. Quinn (
The Letter to Titus
, AB 35 [Garden City: Doubleday, 1990]) sought to make a case for the priority of Titus, referring also to W. G. Doty (“The Classification of Epistolary Literature,”
CBQ 31
[1969]: 192-98). Against I. H. Marshall
(Pastoral Epistles
, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999], 92), who hypothesized that 2 Timothy was written first, and 1 Timothy and Titus were written by someone other than Paul after his death. Similarly, Johnson
(Letters to Paul's Delegates)
dealt first with 2 Timothy and then 1 Timothy and Titus.

⁷
The sections on Authorship, Date and Provenance, and Occasion integrate a discussion of all three Pastoral Epistles under a single heading due to the interrelated nature of the questions addressed by these particular introductory issues.

⁸
For brief surveys, see R. F. Collins,
Letters That Paul Did Not Write
(Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988), 89-90. Collins named as the earliest challengers of the Pastorals' authenticity Schmidt (1804), Schleiermacher (1807), Eichhorn (1912), Baur (1835), and Holtzmann (1885); cf. E. E. Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,”
in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
, ed. G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 659.

⁹
See the discussion in Marshall,
Pastoral Epistles
, 3—8 (including the tables on pp. 4—5).

¹⁰
Ibid., 8. Cf. G. W. Knight III,
Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles
, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 14. He cited Guthrie
(Pastoral Epistles
, 19—20) and W. G. Kümmel
(Introduction to the New Testament
, trans. H. C. Kee, 2d ed. [Nashville: Abingdon, 1975], 370) to the effect that from the end of the second century, the Pastorals were regarded without question as Pauline and were attested as strongly as most of the other Pauline letters.

¹¹
See the thorough survey and adjudication in T. L. Wilder, “Pseudonymity and the New Testament,” in
Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues
, ed. D. A. Black and D. S. Dockery (Nashville: B&H, 2001), 296-335; id.,
Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception
(Lanham: University Press of America, 2004). Cf. D. A. Carson, “Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy,” in
Dictionary of New Testament Background
, ed. C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 856—64.

¹²
The label “allonymity” or “allepigraphy” (the view that the Pastorals were written “under another name” without intent to deceive) was introduced by Marshall,
Pastoral Epistles
, 83—84.

¹³
For a forceful argument against this contention, see E. E. Ellis, “Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents,” in
Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church
, ed. M. J. Wilkins and T. Page, JSNTSup 87 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 212-24; cf. Wilder,
Pseudonymity.

¹⁴
For a thorough discussion of these issues, see especially D. Guthrie,
New Testament Introduction
, 2d ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 607-49, 1011-28.

¹⁵
See W. D. Mounce,
The Pastoral Epistles
, WBC 46 (Nashville: Nelson, 2000), xcix-cxviii; and Marshall,
Pastoral Epistles
, 60—61. Other common objections to Paul's authorship of the Pastorals are the difficulty in harmonizing Paul's movements mentioned in the Pastorals with those recorded in Acts and the alleged late church structures reflected in the Pastorals (see discussion below).

¹⁶
Cf. the list in Marshall,
Pastoral Epistles
, 104—6; and the discussion in Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles
, lxxxviii—xcvii (including the chart on p. xc).

¹⁷
For an incisive treatment, see B. M. Metzger, “A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,”
ExpTim
70 (1958): 91—94 (see esp. the four questions listed on p. 93).

¹⁸
See esp. M. Prior,
Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy
, JSNTSup 23 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), and P. H. Towner,
1—2 Timothy and Titus
, IVPNTC (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 34—35.

¹⁹
R. Bauckham (“Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,”
JBL
107 [1988]: 487) observed the rarity of apocryphal or pseudepigraphical apostolic letters in relation to other genres, and he conjectured that the reason for this “may well have been the sheer difficulty of using a pseudepigraphical letter to perform the same functions as an authentic letter.” He concluded that “among the letters surveyed there is no really good example of a pseudepigraphical letter that achieves didactic relevance by the generality of its contents.”

²⁰
Bauckham (ibid., 478) considered it “misclassified” and a “dedicated treatise.” He also discussed several didactic letters
(1 Enoch
92—105;
Epistle of Jeremiah; Baruch; 2 Baruch
78—87).

²¹
Bauckham (ibid., 485) called
Laodiceans
“a remarkably incompetent attempt to fill the gap....nothing but a patchwork of Pauline sentences and phrases from other letters, mainly Philippians.”
Third Corinthians
is part of the late second-century
Acts of Paul.

²²
This is true despite Metzger's conclusion that “since the use of the literary form of pseudepigraphy need not be regarded as necessarily involving fraudulent intent, it cannot be argued that the character of inspiration excludes the possibility of pseudepigraphy among the canonical writings” (“Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,”
JBL
91 [1972]: 22). See especially J. Duff, “A Reconsideration of Pseudepigraphy in Early Christianity” (Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University, 1998), who concluded that the value of a text was closely linked to its true authorship, that pseudonymity was generally viewed as a deceitful practice, and that texts thought to be pseudonymous were marginalized.

²³
Against Bauckham (“Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,” 492), who believed that the author of the Pastorals “has thought himself into situations in Paul's ministry and…has filled out whatever historical information was available to him with historical fiction” (echoing Holtzmann). Bauckham even ventured the conjecture that Timothy might have written the Pastorals himself (p. 494)! Also against J. D. G. Dunn
(The Living Word
[London: SCM, 1987], 82), who believed that Paul was “the fountainhead of the Pastorals tradition” and that the Pastorals reexpress for a later situation “the voice of the Pauline tradition for a new day”; and N. Brox (“Zu den persönlichen Notizen der Pastoralbriefe,”
BZ
13 [1969]: 76—94), who considered the personal references to represent “typical situations in the ecclesiastical office, which are historicized and attributed to Paul.”

²⁴
D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 563. Similarly, D. Guthrie, “The Development of the Idea of Canonical Pseudepigrapha in New Testament Criticism,”
Vox Evangelica
1 (1962): 43—59. One further argument is mentioned by G. D. Fee (“Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflection on the Hermeneutics
of Ad Hoc
Documents,”
JETS
28 [1985]: 141)—namely, the lack of a satisfactory answer to the question, “Why three letters? That is, given 1 Timothy, why did a pseudepigrapher write Titus, and given 1 Timothy and Titus and their concerns, why 2 Timothy at all?” But see the response by J. D. Quinn and W. C. Wacker,
The First and Second Letters to Timothy
, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 20, who point to the genre of letter collections and argue that the Pastorals “as a collection would have been received and read not as individual letters from the Paul of history but as a ‘characterization’ of the great apostle and his teaching for the new generation.”

²⁵
See R. N. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles,” in
New Dimensions in New Testament Study
, ed. R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 281—97; E. R. Richards,
The Secretary in the Letters of Paul
, WUNT 2/42 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991); and Ellis, “Pastoral Letters,” 663-64.