Ephesians, 1 Timothy and the Legacy of Paul

Authorship and Authority

1. Did Paul write all the letters bearing his name? What alternatives to Pauline authorship are there?

1.1. Paul was assisted by a scribe or amanuensis who was given a measure of editorial freedom to put Paul's ideas into words.

Rom 16:22
1 Cor 16:21
Gal 6:11
Col 4:18
2 Thess 3:17
2 Tim 4:11

1.2. Co-authorship

Paul co-wrote his epistles along with:

       Sosthenes

       1 Cor 1:1

       Timothy

       2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; Phm
      1

       Silvanus and Timothy

       1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1

       "all the brethren with me"

       Gal 1:2

1.3. The Fragmentary Hypothesis

• key sections were written by Paul but they are included in a larger composition by (say) one of his disciples (e.g.: 2 Tim 4:9-22; Tit 3:12-25)
• but: someone could have fabricated even these personal bits to create the impression of authenticity

1.4. Pseudonymous authorship

• an important distinction: pseudonymity is not anonymity
  • several biblical books are clearly anonymous: Pentateuch, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews
  • some biblical books may be pseudonymous
• possible authors of a pseudonymous Pauline letter:
  • a disciple of Paul (seeking to counter misuses of Paul's thought)
  • a pauline `school' or group of disciples after his death (but we have little/no evidence for it)
  • Paul's co-worker (Luke?) after his death
  • a 2nd c. Christian leader (Polycarp?)
• precedents: similar practices are well established in earlier and contemporary Jewish literature
  • OT: possibly pseudonymous works include Deuteronomy, certain Psalms, Ecclesiastes 1:12, 16; 2:9 (implies Solomon's reign is past?), Isaiah 40-66, Daniel
  • OT apocrypha: Baruch; Epistle of Jeremy; 4 Ezra 12.37-38; 14.21-26, 46-47; Wisdom of Solomon 6-9
  • OT pseudepigrapha: 1 Enoch 82:1; Jubilees 45:16; Assumption of Moses 1:16-17
  • the teachings of Jesus
    • several non-original episodes have been placed into NT books (Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11)
    • Jesus' own words are treated as "living tradition" (Dunn, 80), expanded/interpreted/reshaped by the evangelists, yet still legitimately attributed to Jesus
• possible motives and social contexts: why would someone write in someone else's name?
  • to deceive
    • to redirect Paul's churches (cf. 2 Thess 2:2)
    • to profit in some way (e.g., to sell a purported original to a collector)
  • to maximize the letter's influence
    • to gain a hearing for an author's ideas by linking them with a revered/inspired/authoritative voice from the recent or distant past
    • to link up a letter with Paul's authoritative tradition
    • to combat new problems that Paul did not face in his day (e.g., spread of Gnosticism, rise of egalitarianism)
  • to lend significance to the present
    • to encourage those living in times of distress by portraying events in their day as addressed by a prophet or apostle
  • to follow a literary convention
    • driven by the 'glamour of antiquity', this style grew out of love and respect for ages past (C. C. McCown)
    • driven by humility, disciples of a master would want to give him the credit for their work (cf. Ehrman, 321)
    • perhaps pseudonymity was a literary convnention modelled after the visions in the 2nd half of Daniel (H. H. Rowley)
    • perhaps it began as an innocent fiction, not intended to be read as fact, but later the genre was misunderstood
  • to preserve the historical record
    • to record for the community oracles/oral traditions believed to go back to an earlier figure (Hermann Gunkel)
  • to avoid persecution by disseminating safely ideas that might incur hostile reactions (e.g., indictments of reigning regimes) (J. B. Frey) [But why not simply anonymity?]
  • to record inspired utterances
    • if the author believed he was not originating but rather inheriting/interpreting what he had already received under divine inspiration
    • if he saw himself as a spokesmen for an apostle/prophet, he could justify assuming his name
    • he might point to actual visionary experiences which he believed he had received under divine inspiration. (cf. Russell, Method, 133-34)
• impact on readers: was this phenomenon recognized and understood by the earliest readers?
  • did they recognize, and even accept, pseudonymity as a literary device?
  • should the church exclude from the sacred canon (whether Jewish or Christian) texts deemed to be pseudonymous?

2. Does it matter if Paul wrote all of the Pauline epistles?

• If Paul didn't write them, should they be removed from the NT? Why or why not?
• Can they still function authoritatively to guide the life of the church?
• Whether Pauline or pseudonymous, do the later epistles provide models for interpreting earlier ones?

Hays (61): Even if Paul is the author of these letters, their portrayal of the church and of the faithful Christian life diverges so significantly from the picture drawn by the other letters that they would in any case demand separate consideration, perhaps as the vision of the "late Paul" as opposed to the "early Paul" of Galatians, the Corinthian correspondence, and Romans.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[T]he deutero-Pauline Epistles are more hermeneutically suggestive if they are interpreted as second-generation texts. Why so? If so read, they show us the church's effort to allow the voice of Paul to continue to speak in a historical situation different from that of the first generation. "Timothy" and "Titus"--the addressees of the pastorals--become symbols for those who carry on the mission after Paul's time, preserving and interpreting the gospel that has been entrusted to them. In other words, these letters provide instances of the transmission and reinterpretation of the apostolic heritage within the New Testament itself.

3. Further Readings on Pseudonymity

Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 10.2-3
R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans, 1985) 346-354, 380-381.
J. D. G. Dunn, The Living Word (Fortress, 1988), 65-85.
B. D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (OUP, 1997) 320-323.
A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians. WBC 42. (Word, 1990), lix-lxxiii.
David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon.
D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 127-139.
Daniel Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine (SBLMS 22; Scholars: Missoula, 1975) 177-180.

---

Ephesians on Church and Home

1. The Church is called to glorify God by displaying unity.

Hays (64) suggests that apocalyptic eschatology is muted in Ephesians, replaced by an emphasis upon the "visible unity of the church" and upon "the progressive redemption of the world through the growth of the church" (cf. 2:11-22). What difference would it make if the church took seriously its calling to make known in this age "the manifold wisdom of God" "to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places" (3:10)?

[For a few hints and pointers to a futurist eschatology, see 1:14, 21; 2:7; 5:5-6 (?); 5:27 (?); 6:8-9 (?).]

2. The Home is called to embrace "love patriarchalism."

Hays, following Schussler Fiorenza, describes Ephesian's vision for the household (5:21-6:9) with the phrase "love patriachalism" (rather than "egalitarianism"), adding that it is "not, however, closed and static in character" (65).
In what ways does this passage "unsettle the conventional patterns" in marriage, family and slave relationships?

Ephesians 5:18-21:

Do not get drunk with wine (for that is debauchery; probably => sexual excess);
but be filled with the Spirit. . .

speaking to one another [with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,]
singing and making melody [with your heart to the Lord]
giving thanks [always for all things in the name of our Lord J. C. to God the Father]
submitting to one another [in the fear of Christ].

• Was drunkenness a problem in the church (cf. 1 Cor 11:21)?
• Were some Christians importing practices from their days in pagan mystery cults (e.g., Dionysius)?
• Or was wine mentioned simply to provide a negative parallel to Spirit?
• What do wine and the Spirit have in common?
  • both can exert control over the one who is "filled"
  • both wear off, so to speak; the present tense of the command may suggest a continuing need to open up to the Spirit's work in our lives: "keep on being filled with the Spirit"
• Where should we look to see evidence of the Spirit's work?
  • particularly where the church gathers for worship
  • music played an important role in the church from the beginning (both for instruction and for worship)
  • see the comments of Pliny the Younger (62-113 CE), in his letter (Epistle 10 [to Trajan; c. 112 CE]) asking for advice on how to handle Christians:

"They declared that the sum of their guilt or error had amounted only to this, that on an appointed day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak, and to recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath, not for the commission of any crime but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery and breach of faith, and not to deny a deposit when it was claimed." [96.7]

Verse 21 is a transitional/bridge verse: it both defines being Spirit-filled (v.18) and introduces the next section.

Ephesians 5:22--6:9

         5:22-24

         Wives,
        to your own husbands as to the Lord. . .

         5:25-33

         Husbands,
        love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church. . .
 

         
 

         6:1-3

         Children,
        obey your parents in the Lord. . .

         6:4

         Fathers,
        do not provoke your children to anger. . .
 

         
 

         6:5-8

         Slaves,
        obey your earthly masters. . .

         6:9

         And masters,
        do the same things to them. . .
  

• What does "submission" (v.21) look like in Ephesians? (Examine the context: 5:15--6:9 for relevant evidence.)
  • Are wives, children and slaves (but not husbands, parents or masters) the only ones who must submit?
  • Or should all submit to one another (so that 5:21 more or less cancels out any heirarchical relationships in 5:22ff.)?
  • Or can "mutual submission" (5:21) coexist with household heirarchies (e.g., husband over wife; 5:22ff.)? Cf. Hays (64): "the hierarchical structure of the relations described is tempered by a comprehensive vision of the church as a people living in humility and mutual submission."
    
• Are such role distinctions relevant in the modern West?
  • Yes: the husband is the God-ordained head/authority in the home. Wives must submit, as the church submits to Christ.
  • No: in Paul's day, patriarchy was unquestioned; Ephesians shows women how to live out roles society has assigned to them. Since modern western society assigns no such subordinate roles, other principles must apply.
    
• How does this household code differ from a strictly hierarchical model?
  • addresses wives (and children and slaves) as moral agents; they are subjects, not objects.

Contrast the far more sexist tone of the apocryphal Sirach: "From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die. Allow no outlet to water, and no boldness of speech to an evil wife. If she does not go as you direct, separate her from yourself." "A silent wife is a gift from the Lord, and nothing is so precious as her self-discipline." Sirach 25:24-26; 26:14

• addresses husbands at much greater length. In its day, the word to husbands was more radical than the word to wives. It does not say: "Husbands, rule your wives" (which is what his readers may have expected); the call for "love" strikes a major blow to patriarchal domination. Note: this vision for marriage involves both submission and sacrificial love; there is no room for marriages in which only one of these two parts is present.
  
• Is it enough to establish that the women of the Ephesian church were required to submit to their husbands? Does this mean that a targetted word to them is also God's general word to the church today? How can we decide?
  
• For websites presenting Greco-Roman texts about, and perspectives on, women and gender, go here or here.

---

1 Timothy on Order and Godliness

1. The need for orderliness in home (2:9-15; 3:4; 5:1-16; 6:1-2) and church (3:5, 15; 5:20).

2. The need for designated leadership (3:1-13; 5:17-20).

3. The need to preserve and pass on the traditions (1:18; 4:6, 9, 11; 5:17; 6:20), and the danger of theological disputes (1:3-4, 6-7; 4:1-3, 7; 6:3-5, 20-21).

4. The dangers of wealth and greed (6:9-10, 17-19).

Richard Hays considers 1 Timothy "a second-generation reception of the Pauline heritage" addressed to "a Christian community that has achieved a measure of institutional and symbolic stability" in which "all that needs to be done is to guard the tradition entrusted by the apostle." This result is, according to Hays, "a gain in stability, but a loss in profundity and freedom" (71). If Hays is less than enthusiastic about 1 Timothy, some NT scholars are downright critical. Rudolph Bultmann described the pastorals as a "faded Paulinism," Ernst Kasemann called them a "case study in narrow-mindedness" and Gunther Bornkamm saw in them "a bourgeois ideal of Christian morality." By contrast, consider the judgments of Thomas Oden:

[The Pastoral and General Eistles] represent a maturing, not a degenerating, phase of early Christian theological development. The crucial question before the churches then was: How, in a period of cross-cultural pluralism, syncretism, political alienation, and vast historical mutation, is it possible to pass the tradition learned from the earliest Christians on to succeeding generations, how teach it accurately without distortions, and how defend it against interpretations that would profoundly diminish it? Whether the tradition even could be trans-generationally communicated in a period of widespread social disruption was a life and death question, and it remains problematic today. It reveals a tedious lack of imagination to conclude that their interest in historical continuity, unity, and tradition (which they solved successfully by means of ordination, the clear definition of apostolic teaching, a fierce struggle against heresy, and a stable church order) represented a disastrous setback in theology. If they had not done their job well in the period of the Pastoral and General Epistles, we would not be reading the rest of the New Testament now.
Agenda for Theology (Harper & Row, 1979) 140.

• Does the moral vision of 1 Timothy represent a disintegration or a maturation of Pauline theology?
  
• Does the church of our day, marked by excessive freedom, weak leadership, biblical illiteracy and materialism need to hear the message of the Pastorals?