I just saw this today while perusing J. R. Daniel Kirk’s site Storied Theology (one of my favorite blogs by the way) and thought it appropriate to post up since I am in the midst of this topic myself.
His take on it here is brief, but he makes a few really good points on both the rationale and methodology behind even asking such a question – Did Paul write Timothy/Titus? – and the reasons why he came to the conclusion that Paul did not.
This is a much bigger study than I originally anticipated, but has been very insightful and has challenged me in a number of ways.
So, since some of my readers are waiting for more on this from me, I thought this post might get some thoughts flowing.
In an earlier post, I challenged Moises Silva where he was basically stating that his theology should inform his interpretation of a given text.
Building on that, I have found that interpreting the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) prove to be an excellent test case.
Scholars seem strongly divided into two main groups here, and it revolves around if Paul wrote these letters or not. Now, as I will show later, there are actually dozens if not hundreds of possibilities and suggestions when it comes to how and when these letters were written. But let’s put that aside for the moment. The two very general interpretive camps, as I see it, come down to the inspiration and authority of scripture.
Those who hold strongly to inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration have a very difficult time accepting that anyone other than Paul himself wrote these letters. Some may go as far as to say that he used an amenuensis (basically, someone we might understand to be a secretary) assist with the writing, but that the words are Paul’s as he was inspired by God to write them.
Those who are not as interested in inerrancy, infallibility and inspiration are seemingly quite ready and able to see other options, writers and possiblities for the production of these letters.
So, right out the gate, Silva’s model reveals it’s product – the text says what you believe it should say. If the interpreter is an Evangelical, they read it as coming from Paul. If the interpreter is not theologically predisposed, they read it as quite possibly coming from sources other than Paul.
Now this is where it gets interesting.
There are all sorts of theological issues embedded in these letters. Probably the top three in contention these days are the issue of the role of women in ministry, the qualifications for ministry and the formation of scripture.
I would like to address these issues in future posts as I work through these three short letters because, for the most part, these issues can be interpreted in very different ways depending upon how the letters are approached.
Those that know me, will recall that I came from some pretty conservative theological roots. None of my training for ministry, formal or informal, ever attempted to teach anyone but Paul the Apostle as the author to these letters. After all, that is what the text itself says, right?
I happened to be skimming through a book from my college days and came across this great quote from Charles Cousar’s A Theology of the Cross:
If the church is to move beyond triumphalism and individualism, it must from its traditions discover afresh its own individuality and discern its identity in distinction from the dominant culture. The Pauline letters with their insistence that the risen Christ is the crucified one represent a slice of the church’s tradition that speaks pointedly and persuasively to that task. (pgs. 20-21)
This may seem too big a task to accomplish, but if this rediscovery begins in our own churches, where it can most readily, then it becomes something we can seek out with purpose.