tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post2212803984340186051..comments2024-03-08T18:04:37.943-08:00Comments on Paul and co-workers: Titus-Timothy and the Pastoral EpistlesRichard Fellowshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-7485940234785495672020-12-28T15:19:02.453-08:002020-12-28T15:19:02.453-08:00Well stated, anonymous. You might like to read my ...Well stated, anonymous. You might like to read my article on Euodia and Syntyche (see this blog), and my forthcoming article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, when it is out.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-36741925388419726182020-12-28T14:07:59.242-08:002020-12-28T14:07:59.242-08:00Richard, I am in complete agreement with you that ...Richard, I am in complete agreement with you that the Pastoral Letters are fraudulent, and have caused more damage to the church (especially women in the church) than we can even know. Clearly, as Fee and Hays in their commentaries on 1st Corinthians have shown, the interpolation in 1Co 14:34,35 was by someone of the same persuasion as the writer of 1 Tim 2:9-15, or was influenced directly by the Timothy passage. but Gal 3:28; Phil 4:2-4; Rom 16;7, 1 Co 11 prove that women in Paul's churches were free to preach, teach, etc. <br />As to not understanding why most conservatives are bent on defending them, I believe it is there false presupposition that before one can trust in Christ (or continue to do so), he must have in inerrant Bible. But the NT scriptures after Pentecost (Christ's exaltation) call Christ "the word of God" and the Gospel "the word of God" -- uniquely; not a book. Eric Roessinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08892880079684438843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-43441625580852494882011-12-21T22:25:28.034-08:002011-12-21T22:25:28.034-08:00Hi Brett,
thanks again for your interest in Titus...Hi Brett,<br /><br />thanks again for your interest in Titus-Timothy. Specialists are in wide agreement that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul. My personal opinion is that they are fraudulent letters, though I cannot prove this conclusively. There are some things in the PE (e.g. 1 Tim 6:6-19) that reflect the genuine teachings of the early church, but there is a lot (e.g. 1 Tim 2:9-15) that is anti-Pauline. Some scholars have been clear on this point, but many seem to fudge the issue. The church fathers were keen to protect the scriptures from false documents. One wrote, "would you mix gall with honey?". Scholars and all who love the scriptures need to unequivocally reject the PE. Those who are loyal to the scriptures should be the first to defend the genuine scriptures against fraudulent impostors, but, for some reason that I do not understand, many conservative Christians seem bent on defending the PE.<br /><br />I think you are right about the reason for Timothy's circumcision. However, it is incorrect to say that Titus's mission was more to Gentiles than was that of Timothy. Titus, like "Timothy" was known to the Galatians and, like "Timothy", was active throughout the Aegean region. The "two" men covered the same territory. Also, Titus was sent back to Corinth to oppose the influence of Jews (see 2 Cor 8:16-17; 11:22), and, of course, he went to Jerusalem.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-27095231611787408252011-12-21T12:02:19.195-08:002011-12-21T12:02:19.195-08:00Richard… Bob Brett here again. With great difficul...Richard… Bob Brett here again. With great difficulty I have been attempting to understand your blog entries claiming that Saint Timothy and Saint Titus are one and the same.<br /><br />I attempted to learn more about your background, Richard, but your “complete profile” is empty. Are you a Christian? Do you believe that the Bible is God’s Word?<br /><br />In your blog above… you state that “It is widely agreed that the author of the Pastoral Epistles wanted his compositions to seem like genuine letters of Paul.” without substantiating this claim. I do see that Wikipedia suggests that the Pastoral Epistles may have been written by Paul’s assistants but that Paul signed off on them. I’m OK with that possibility.<br /><br />But you appear to dismiss the Pastoral Epistles. Do you advocate removing them from the Canon?<br /><br />I take 2 Tim 4:10 seriously as the Word of God as well as John 1:42. I firmly believe that God knows all and He does not make mistakes. You infer that He does: “the author of the Pastoral Epistles did not know that the two names (Timothy & Titus) belonged to the same person.”<br /><br />Even so, I have decided to share with my BSF discussion group your hypothesis. Here it is below. I seek your feedback on the circumcision issue. <br /><br />Respectfully in Christ,<br />Bob Brett<br /><br /><br />BSF Acts Study Lesson 14<br /><br />5. (Challenge) Why was Titus not circumcised (Galatians 2:1–7), and why was Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3 and 1 Corinthians 9:20–23)?<br /><br />Simple answer: <br /><br />Timothy was circumcised because he was going to be ministering to the Jews in the “second journey” ahead. He volunteered to be circumscribed to overcome any barriers to his witness for Christ. He ascribed to 1 Corinthians 9:20-23: To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews…<br /><br />Titus was not circumcised because he was chiefly engaged in ministering to Gentiles (Wikipedia). Therefore he needed to be like Gentiles and remain uncircumcised.<br /><br />Complicated answer:<br /><br />Titus and Timothy were one and the same persons according to Udo Borse, J. Zmijewski, Blogger Richard Fellows, and suggested by Wikipedia. Apparently Titus remained uncircumcised on their visit to Jerusalem. Later, once his name had been changed to Timothy, he volunteered to be circumscribed to overcome any barriers to his witness for Christ.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12436435736723086542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-19470917891492010092010-08-11T23:15:28.383-07:002010-08-11T23:15:28.383-07:00Hi Stephen. I think he used 1 Corinthians, for the...Hi Stephen. I think he used 1 Corinthians, for the reasons given. Beyond that I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if he had all the genuine letters and perhaps even Acts, but I don't know. What do you think?<br /><br />His main interests were in theology, church politics, social ethics and so on. I think it is rather unlikely that he took an interest in placing the letters in a historical order or piecing together the biographical details about Paul's companions and their movements. You and I enjoy that kind of exercise, but most people find it dull, and I suspect that the ancients did too. Indeed, as I mentioned in a previous post, John Chrysostom wrote this about disinterest in Rom 16:<br /><br />"I think that many even of those who have the appearance of being extremely good men, hasten over this part of the Epistle as superfluous, and having no great weight in it. ... For because it is a catalogue of names, they think they cannot get any great good from it."<br /><br />I suspect that the author of the PE composed his 'letters' to comport with individual sources such as 1 Cor 16, but failed to investigate whether his compositions were consistent with the picture that emerges when data from multiple sources are combined. He was a disputant in church doctrine, not a puzzle fitter. My guess is that he had most of the texts that we have, but when he mined them for the mundane historical information that he needed to lend verisimilitude to his 'letters', he read them individually in isolation. A possible exception is his statement that Erastus stayed in Corinth (2 Tim 4:20).<br /><br />My main point, of course, is that we can't rely on the PE to decide the Titus-Timothy question. Is that a fair conclusion?Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-36332429290867203962010-08-11T08:18:11.319-07:002010-08-11T08:18:11.319-07:00Which texts do you think your Pastoralist had acce...Which texts do you think your Pastoralist had access to? Was it only a couple of Paul's letters (e.g. 1 Cor but not 2 Cor), or all of them (even Acts?) and he just ignored some under your view?Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.com