Part II - week 10 - Chapter 22 - The First Epistle of Peter -

 

Facing unpopularity and pressures from outside the community, the author of 1 Peter, as in other epistles in the NT that we have reviewed, aims to remind believers of the honour they enjoy in Christ, their privileged position in light of God's judgment, as well to provide guidelines of proper behaviour both within the community of believers and with non-believers and the surrounding society in general, with the aim of minimizing hostility from the surrounding community.

1 Peter is addressed to the five Roman provinces in modern Turkey - Bithynia-Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia. De Silva notes that [southern?] Galatia and Asia were frequent spheres of Pauline activity, and John the Evangelist was associated with Asia (including the seven churches of Revelation), but we know little about the evangelizing of Bithynia-Pontus and Cappadocia. The fact that the letter may have been authored by Peter suggests that he may have conducted missions to those regions.

Regarding the addressees, apparently there was at one time a wide consensus that 1 Peter was written to a largely Jewish Christian audience, partly because of the agreement referred to in Galatians that Peter would take the gospel to the "circumcised" ("Jews), and Paul would take it to the "uncircumcised" (Gentiles). And there are many terms borrowed from Old Testament traditions, like use of the terms "diaspora," "royal priesthood," and so on - but de Silva seems certain that these terms were being adopted and directed at a primarily Gentile audience, as he says is convincingly proved by the author's use of phrases like "futile way of life" of their ancestors and "ignorance that failed to check the passions of the flesh" - which he says would never have been used to describe Jewish brothers.

De Silva notes that Peter's authorship of 1 Peter was widely accepted very early on by church fathers such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. There have been objections since then, some people noting that the author's Greek is too good. We've seen that argument before, as with the Epistle of James. De Silva indicates that the author claims to be Peter and (at 5:12) that he wrote the letter with Silas's assistance, which could explain the author's facility in the Greek language. Some have suggested that a period of persecution under Domitian is referred to in the letter, which would be too late for Peter; however, de Silva indicates that the letter could date from the early 60's, the early years of the persecution under Nero.

De Silva suggests that Silas, Peter's assistant, probably delivered the letter, likely travelling in the order in which the addressees appear in the salutation.

The author indicates that he is writing from "Babylon," which may have been a symbolic reference to Rome, as in the Book of Revelation. However, there are a number of possibilities, including Mesopotamian Babylon or Egyptian Babylon. De Silva indicates that a reference to Rome as Babylon would tend to indicate Pseudo-Petrine authorship and a date toward the end of the First Century.

The question of authorship is certainly a familiar one for the books of the New Testament. I think de Silva makes a valid point that the spiritual value, the inspired nature, of these books may be real whether or not they were actually penned by the apostle in question. I seem to recall him writing in another chapter that "apostolicity doesn't necessarily depend on actual authorship by one of the apostles" (or words to that effect). He doesn't say explicitly why that is so, but I guess that he means that the worth of the message conveyed plus the endorsement of the early church is enough to give it value as inspired scripture.

When I read a letter like 1 Peter, without worrying overmuch about the academic, historical questions, I feel that it is inspirational. I can imagine the great influence that such a letter must have had on the early believers who received it. I also see a very strong "family resemblance" among a number of the letters we have been studying, like Ephesians and Colossians (my NIV Study Bible says that 1 Peter has to have been written after them, because the author shows familiarity with those letters), as well as 1 Timothy, Hebrews, and even James.

I feel that the problems which were noted first in Paul's letters (and perhaps James) were experienced over and over again in many locations. I have said before that I prefer the more "radical" message of Jesus and the early letters of Paul - but I recognize that there were changed circumstances as the First Century wore on which necessitated an evolution in the message of the apostles. For example - we know that pagan outsiders were slandering the early believers, treating them "as though they were deviant and vice-ridden, unworthy elements of society." (de Silva pg. 843) Perhaps some of the new converts were like kids away from their parents for the first time - they were leaving behind the old rules which bound them into pagan society, like sacrificing to idols and participating in the imperial cult. The "Judaizing" influence would have tended to keep the Gentile converts "reined in" - but as we know, Paul preached that it was wrong to bind a Gentile to follow the Law, when the Jewish Christians were unable to follow it to the letter themselves. Given the emphasis on "Christian freedom," I think it is possible that some of the believers were not equipped to handle that freedom responsibly. The result would have been behavioural abuses. And the reaction to that by the Church fathers would have been the codification of a code of behaviour, governing the believers' relations with each other and with the unbelievers at large - and emphasizing their good citizenship, while still retaining some more revolutionary teachings such as the virtue of suffering in the image of Jesus Christ's suffering on the cross. This message was delivered eloquently in the First Epistle of Peter.

 

 

Part II, Week 9 - Chapter 21 - The Epistle of James -

The Epistle of James states that the sender was “Iacobos” (translated as James). Both de Silva and the NIV Study Bible note that there is a good possibility that the author was James, the brother of Jesus, who was a leader, a “pillar” of the Jerusalem church, until his martyrdom in about 62 A.D. De Silva comments that James the brother of Jesus would have had the stature and the longevity to produce the letter. Regarding the dating of the letter, the NIV Study Bible indicates that although some date it to about 60 A.D., because of its strongly Jewish character and the lack of any reference to the rancorous dispute over circumcision, it may have been written before 50 A.D. In that case, it may be the earliest surviving writing – whether Gospel or Letter - in the NT, except for perhaps Galatians.

De Silva first notes, rather unpromisingly, that Martin Luther considered it the least of the books of the New Testament, an “epistle of straw.” Then he notes that there doesn’t appear to be an overarching theme to the letter. Rather, he writes that it “comes across as a disjointed collection of good advice.” (pg. 819) The letter is not directed to a particular group facing a particular challenge, and hence the letter lacks those references to particular individuals, companions and adversaries that help to give Paul’s letters such human interest.

However, de Silva recognizes that the letter has an organizational structure that does give it coherence. Funnily enough, both de Silva and the NIV Study Bible laud the author’s command of Greek (which is one of the reasons which “Jamesian” authorship is often contested); I detected some similarities to Mark’s Gospel, with his use of “inclusios” and thematic repetition for the purposes of driving home his points. Perhaps it is just because the letter is so “bare bones” that the organizational structure seems fairly obvious.

The Epistle of James has an epistolary greeting but no other evidence of having been actually dispatched as a letter. As in the case of Hebrews, that suggested to me the possibility that the epistolary portion may have been a later scribal addition – perhaps intended, in this case, to provide the desirable evidence of authorship and readership which might have been handed down by tradition in the communities in which it was preserved.

De Silva acknowledges that the greeting causes it to be classed as a letter, but adds that it most resembles collections of wisdom sayings, which were common in the Intertestamental Period in both Greco-Roman and Judaic cultures. He says it most resembles a “paraenetic letter,” a collection of “ethical advice that is generally assumed to be true and irrefutable, holding up core values of the culture in which it is written.” (pg. 821) He also notes a similarity to exhortations of the Greco-Roman philosophers who used the “diatribe,” like Epictetus, or the advice collections of Pseudo-Isocrates. The difference in this case is that the letter has a strongly Jewish character emphasizing morality rather than household codes and such that were common in the pagan wisdom tradition. De Silva suggests that the sayings may have been collated and given order by a later editor. Or they may have been organized by James himself. Either way, he notes that they bear a close resemblance – and share some of the sayings – which appear in Jewish wisdom literature of the Inter-testamental Period, including many of the sayings of Jesus which were preserved and which appear in the NT Gospels. In fact, de Silva suggests that James can be reasonably viewed as an example of the development of Jewish wisdom tradition in the setting of early Christianity.

The message of James is fairly straightforward. The Law for James is a living force (similar to what we read in the Gospel of Matthew) and not something that has been superseded by the New Covenant. De Silva notes that James emphasizes the importance of doing right and not just paying lip service to one’s faith. And he also notes that James’s focus is the trials that are within us, rather than persecution and ill-treatment from without. We are tested in these trials to give up something that we earnestly desire, “to give up something of himself or herself and to endure some kind of loss. . . . each situation becomes an opportunity for moving closer to wholeness, to that integrity that James so greatly yearns for Christians to possess, and to that transformation of life that leads to a positive verdict when we come to be judged by the “law of freedom” (Jas 2:12). (pg. 826)

De Silva feels that the usual presupposition is that Paul and James were bitter enemies, but that when the respective positions are examined, they are actually in agreement. He argues that the historic James would never have misunderstood Paul’s ideas as drastically as has been proposed, and therefore that would be an argument for late authorship and pseudonymity of the letter. (pg. 826) I think there is another possibility. I think that initially Paul was struck by the force of his revelatory vision – in effect overturning his previous mindset of Pharisaic zealousness for the Law. He felt guilty, I think, for having unjustly persecuted Jesus’s followers. He didn’t feel worthy of having been blessed with the revelation of God and Christ. He felt, naturally enough, that he had been blessed by God’s grace, in spite of his own efforts in support of the Law, rather than because of them. Consequently his message preached the idea of grace and justification by faith rather than works of the law. I don’t think Paul opposed good works as such; but his core message was that one was not saved by good works but by faith and grace. De Silva cites Galatians 2:15-16 (the classic Pauline doctrine of justification by faith) and James 2:14-26 (which begins in v. 14 with the declamation, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”) in support of his argument that the two are actually in agreement. But if one reads those verses, taking them at face value they seem to be in direct contradiction with one another. I would suggest that such a view as James expresses, which in effect propounds both faith and works, would be a message that an early follower of Jesus in the Jewish tradition might well espouse. I would also suggest that Paul’s views may have evolved to incorporate moral codes and good works – becoming more conventional, in a sense, as we see in the later Pauline writings - as problems arose with some of his congregations with sexual license and so on, as we saw in the Corinthian letters.

I appreciated the message of James. Since the perhaps-oversimplified Pauline doctrine of faith versus works has been so influential in the Protestantism of my lifetime, it is cool to read a counter-argument which was contemporaneous with Paul and which has been historically so submerged.

Part II, week 8 - The "Epistle to the Hebrews" -

My copy of the KJV from the 1950’s titled this “Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews,” based on church tradition dating from the second century A.D. It appears to be almost universally agreed now that Hebrews was not written by Paul, for several reasons cited by de Silva. First, the author writes that he was brought to faith by the word of apostolic witnesses, whereas Paul asserted that he received a direct revelation of Jesus Christ from God. Second, Hebrews is written in a very polished style unlike that of Paul’s letters. Third, there are themes which are similar to some of those in Paul’s letters, but the author of Hebrews develops them quite differently. Fourth and last, there are many concepts borrowed from Platonism, an interest in Jewish cult practices and a characterization of Jesus Christ as a priest which is quite distinctive to the author of Hebrews.

So who did write Hebrews? Hebrews is anonymous; there is no claim of identity within the document itself, as there is in all the letters in the NT written by or ascribed to Paul. De Silva indicates that it was probably written by a member of the Pauline circle, because of the use of themes which were used by Paul and because of the reference to Timothy in the epistolary closing. Various members of the Pauline circle are candidates for authorship, including Barnabas, who called Paul to his first missionary journey, and Apollos, who is mentioned in 1 Corinthians and whom Paul lauded for his rhetorical skill, as well as others. It appears it was a man, due to the use of a Greek verb form “to tell” in 11:32, together with the fact that the author was known to the community he is writing to.

And who was Hebrews written to? It was early conjectured that it was written to a group of Jewish believers (thus the traditional name), however, that too was conjecture by the early Church fathers. De Silva suggests that the intended recipients were in fact a mixed group of Jewish and Gentile followers. He cites the familiarity with Old Testament themes that we see in Galatians and 1 Peter in support of this thesis. However, considering that, as noted above, the themes are developed in quite a distinctive fashion, I tend to disagree with de Silva on that point. I got the impression upon reading it of an overwhelming immersion in Jewish traditions and beliefs, with the author eloquently expressing that the customs and practices of the Old Covenant had been superseded by the New Covenant between God and the believers with Christ Jesus as mediator. In this sense, I believe that Hebrews bears some similarity to the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel which is usually believed to have originated in a community strongly influenced by formative Judaism – and even though that community might have been classed as “deviant” by the surrounding traditional Jewish society. I think that, regardless of the identity of the sender and the audience, or even if Hebrews was composed outside of Palestine (there is no indication of either location in the document), Jewish traditions would have been the predominant influence for both sender and recipient.

When was Hebrews written? There is no express date given, but it does appear to be an early work. The references to the Jewish priesthood and practices of sacrifice were made as if those institutions were in existence at the time of writing, indicating that it was prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. It seems certain that the author would have used the destruction of the Temple in further support of his argument had that occurred prior to the composition.

Is Hebrews really an epistle? The traditional name and even De Silva’s chapter heading refer to it as an epistle, but de Silva comments that it really appears to be more of a speech (or rather, here, a sermon). Hebrews does not contain many of the conventional elements of an ancient letter, as Paul’s do. It doesn’t really look much like a letter at all, except for what de Silva refers to as the “epistolary postscript” in 13:22-25. There is the brief reference to Timothy in 13:23, with some indication that the author was an associate of his. There are also the greetings sent by “those from Italy” in 13:24 – which really gives no indication of composition other than (to my mind) that the sender and recipients were probably *not* in Italy. The perfunctory nature of the epistolary portion makes me wonder if chapter 13 might have been to a speech or sermon in order to give some evidence of possible Pauline authorship.

The theology of Hebrews may be an intermediate point in the development of Christology, given the expression of Jesus’s superiority to the angels and the further characterization of him as a more perfect priest and sacrifice able, unlike the OT priests, to wipe away sins. The author wrote of the cleansing by the sprinkling of blood from sacrificial animals – which I take it was a ritual followed by the Jewish priests in order to purify objects and people. But the author’s conclusion was that Jesus’s shedding of his own blood for the believers was a more beneficent sacrifice than what was performed by the priests. The initial chapters 1 and 2 of the book are devoted to an exposition of Jesus’s superiority to the angels. We have seen this before in at least one of the Pauline or pseudo-Pauline letters (Col. 2:18), which makes me wonder if there was a strain – which in later years would have been called “heresy” – within heterodox early Christian belief, perhaps originating in some sects of Judaism or paganism which were exerting what was perceived to be a deleterious influence on the followers. Thus the author perceived that it was necessary to expound on Jesus’s superiority to the angels, despite the fact that in his human form, he seemed to be lower than they.

De Silva indicates that Hebrews appears to have been written to counter some threat to or influence on the community of believers, in which they were tempted to drift away or lapse back into their former beliefs. He notes that it takes a remarkable effort to persuade people to continue to follow an unpopular way of life, but that the author of Hebrews “rose to this challenge by means of a cohesive, multipronged attack on the forces that were eroding the commitment of the Christians.” (pg. 790) He concludes, “In the course of motivating Christans to remain connected with the Son and the people called in Jesus’ name, the author of Hebrews offers some of the richest reflections on the person and work of Jesus in the entire New Testament.” (pg. 806)

Erratum - The Island Was Not Named for the Tree :-)

Hi, All -

Yes, on re-reading my post I realized I had mis-spelled the name of the Island of Cyprus. That's what comes from typing while listening to the TV. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page with lots of info about the island -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus

Apologies to any Cypriots who may be reading this blog!

Part II, Week 7 - Chapter 19 - The Letters to Timothy & Titus -

I seem to have overdosed on Paul in the last three months. The problem, in my view, is that having dealt with the Gospels (pretty thoroughly) in the first term, it is Paul’s 13 letters which form the bulk of the superstructure of the “post-Gospel” New Testament. Since most of these are allocated one chapter in de Silva’s text, we have been reading Paul, and reading more of Paul, and reading still more of Paul since then. Of course, the fact that I’m doing my paper on a Pauline topic means that I’m reading even more which is focused on Paul outside of our class lectures and text. It’s fascinating – Paul is a riveting, larger-than-life character who jumps out of the New Testament as a very three-dimensional figure, and I had previously read, like, zippo about his theology and work in establishing the new church. Still, the discussion is starting to seem a bit repetitious.

These are three letters, which for several hundred years have been called “The Pastoral Epistles,” which claim to be from Paul to his companions and co-workers Timothy (1 and 2 Timothy) and Titus, at a time when Timothy had been left in charge of the church in Ephesus and Titus in charge of the churches on the island of Cypress. It is noteworthy that the Pastoral Letters did not appear in some of the earliest collections of Paul’s letters, such as that of Marcion, the 2nd. Century “Roman heretic.” Marcion, I believe, was especially antagonistic toward the Jews and was a proponent of Gnosticism in the Christian church, a battle which was ultimately lost, of course. (Marcion gave pride of place to Galatians, the letter which may be said to contain Paul’s most vehement attacks on Judaizers.) Perhaps that provides some explanation for why he may not have included the gentle Pastoral epistles in his collection of Paul’s letters.

Despite the omission from Marcion’s collection, the Pastoral Letters appeared by reference fairly early. Paraphrases of sayings in the letters to Timothy appear in the letter that Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna, wrote to the Philippians before 112-113 A.D. De Silva notes that they were accepted as Pauline by Irenaeus and Tertullian, as well as Eusebius in the early fourth century. De Silva concludes that if they were actually post-Pauline, they must have been composed closer to the time of Paul’s death than at the turn of the First Century.

The other books I have been reading include The First Paul by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, “The Pastoral Epistles,” by Arland J. Hultgren in The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, edited by James D.G. Dunn, and The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, by Calvin J. Roetzel. Most of the other sources I have read – including the foregoing but also others since commencing our course last Fall – seem to treat the Pastoral Epistles as almost certainly “post-Pauline,” in the sense of not having actually been penned by Paul during his lifetime. Putting de Silva’s consideration of the Pastorals in that context, it appears that he has taken the most “expansive” interpretation (or narrow, depending on one’s point of view). While considering the arguments on both sides of the issue, he seems to fall in the end on the side of legitimacy, both in the sense of having written by Paul himself and in the sense of being authoritative scripture. I think his view can be fairly summarized as follows: given that they were included in the canon from a fairly early date, and given the fact that the arguments against legitimacy are not conclusive, one should accept them as the church fathers have for centuries, as inspired works of scripture. De Silva even goes so far as to say that if some new, genuine letters of Paul were by some chance discovered, they would not therefore automatically become authoritative scripture.

Here are my thoughts in a nutshell – Voltaire once said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” I think, for the infant church, “If Paul did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent him.” Furthermore, I think that also applies to the Pastoral Epistles, given their importance in the establishment of the earliest offices of the church, their earnest exhortations and gentle remonstrances which provided wise counsel to the early overseers, elders and bishops who followed Timothy and Titus and their proclamation of respectable moral codes, which have even been referred to as “bourgeois.” They do not preach the revolutionary message of Jesus – “The Kingdom of God is at hand!” They do not even preach the radical message of Paul, as in Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” (Gal. 3:28) But they do preach a message of upright living, with purity and restraint, a moral code which was designed at least in part to deflect as much as possible the hostility of non-Christian society and power structure. They are important for pastors even now, facing somewhat different challenges, and this argues powerfully for their continued inclusion in the canon.

Part II, week 6 - Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians

In the “Excursus” de Silva provides a detailed introduction to “pseudepigraphs” – writings attributed to another person. Pseudepigraphs were commonly attributed to prophets, patriarchs and monarchs of the Old Testament period (like Enoch and Solomon) and also for the New Testament period – The Apocalypse of Paul and The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and many others. So the question inevitably arises as to whether some of the New Testament epistles are actually pseudepigraphic. (This doesn’t apply to the Gospels and Acts, since they are anonymous writings.)

De Silva agrees with many other scholars of the New Testament that there are a “cardinal four” of Paul’s epistles, whose authenticity is almost unquestioned. These are: Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians. There are others whose authenticity is disputed to a greater or lesser degree, including Colossians and Ephesians, and then there are the almost-universally challenged “Pastoral Epistles” of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

De Silva notes that there are close connections between Colossians and Ephesians. They seem to have been written from the same time and place of imprisonment. They share certain emphases on an exalted Christology which differs somewhat from that in Paul’s other letters. I would point out that there are also close connections between Colossians and Philemon, although the latter of course lacks much of the elaborate theological expression of Colossians and Ephesians as well as the other Pauline letters, which is logical given Philemon’s more personal nature and short length. Again the place and date of writing appear to have been the same, and many of the personages that appear in Philemon also appear in Colossians, including Onesimus, who is said to be traveling with Tychicus to Colossae.

De Silva’s analysis of the authorship of Colossians considers 1) some differences in style and vocabulary from the undisputed letters (which appear to be minor), 2) the fact that the author is writing to a church which he didn’t found, unlike Paul’s usual practice (which overlooks his connection to Epaphras), 3) a perhaps more exalted view of Paul’s own position than he would have expressed of himself (which overlooks his recognition of the importance of his place in apostleship, plus his acknowledgement of the efforts of his companions), and, more importantly, 4) some evolution of Paul’s theology beyond that expressed in his other letters, including exalted Christology, affirmation that the salving effects of Christ’s resurrection have already occurred, with “future eschatology” moving more into the background, and Jesus Christ said to be the head of the church.

Both letters may be authentic Pauline letters, or one or both may have been written by a colleague perhaps shortly after Paul’s death. Lastly, either or both may have been written by a disciple of Paul’s after Paul’s death with no participation by Paul. De Silva indicates that the question of legitimacy of a pseudepigraph might well be if it was intended to deceive. He notes that by that standard, 2 Timothy and Titus are the most nefarious, because “they include so many personal details and fabricate a plausible historical setting.” (pg. 687) If Colossians is a pseudepigraph, by that standard it would be more egregious than Ephesians, because Colossians contains more personal details, including a statement that Paul’s signature appears at the end to attest to its authenticity. “The general nature of Ephesians, however, would give it a better claim to be the benign work of a modest disciple, if it is indeed judged to be pseudonymous.” (Ibid.)

I would like to suggest a possible fairly legitimate rationale if either or both letters are pseudepigraphic. I am imagining a scenario with someone like Onesimus for example – obviously a devoted follower of Paul’s. You will recall that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus when Ignatius of Antioch traveled that way on his way to martyrdom in Rome in about 117 A.D. I think it is possible that, if a devoted disciple of Paul’s were faced with an incipient heresy, he would be motivated to put down on paper what he could be fairly sure Paul would have said had he been able to do so. And I would think it even possible that Paul might have expressed many of the thoughts to his disciples but perhaps didn’t have a chance to set them down on paper. Perhaps there was no need to do so during his lifetime. But at a time when the challenge arose to the young churches – well, there would have been a powerful motivation to write what the followers could have been fairly sure Paul would have written had he been able to do so.

De Silva does note that more scholars doubt Ephesians’ authenticity than Colossians,’ largely because the tone of the former is relatively impersonal, especially considering that Paul spent between two and three years evangelizing in Ephesus. There is no particular adversary doctrine dealt with in Ephesians; rather it appears to be a vehicle for the fuller expression of the exalted Christology which was expressed in Colossians. The letters are so similar that de Silva notes that some of the material from Colossians (about one-third) is reproduced in Ephesians – or vice versa. The theories of borrowing resemble the theories explaining the “Synoptic Problem” of Matthew, Mark and Luke. In the case of Colossians and Ephesians – the author of one may have relied on the other for his text – or then again, de Silva notes that the similarities might just be a result of the same author writing both at roughly the same time. In that case, these two letters are evidence of the flexibility of Paul’s reasoning and ability to deal with new and varied challenges as they arose.