Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church. By James W. Aageson. Library of Pauline

Studies, ed. Stanley E. Porter. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, 235 pp., $24,95, paperback.

ISBN: 978-1598560411.

Scholarship on the Pastoral Epistles is flourishing, and Aageson’s study of their reception history

within a developing Pauline tradition is a welcome addition. The study’s breadth of coverage of the

first two centuries A.D. deserves admiration, although the study’s historical reconstruction fails to

convince. James W. Aageson (1947-) teaches at Concordia College in Minnesota, and published

two earlier monographs on Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation (1993) and Critical Concepts

for the Study of the Bible (2000).

The first chapter offers the usual methodological introduction. The study focuses both on the

continuing reinterpretation of Paul’s letters and on the image of Paul as it develops in the early

church. Aageson studies the patterns of convictions and behaviors in the Pastorals and then

compares them with earlier and later documents. This will highlight various dissimilarities, which

can signal a change in historical context. This movement from theological conviction to historical

reconstruction allows Aageson to defer the question of authorship to a secondary place in the

discussion. He identifies his main contributions as: that he takes the literary and conceptual world of

each individual letter seriously, that he limits himself to the developing Pauline tradition, and that

he “takes seriously the developmental character of Paul’s transformation from a Jew and an apostle

of Christ into a saint of the church, as well as the transformation of his epistles from occasional

letters into authoritative texts that continued to inform the life and theology of the early church” (p.

3).

Chapter two contains the core analysis of theological patterns in the Pastorals. 1 Timothy focuses on

the household of God, godliness and salvation, truth and sound teaching, character and behavior of

household members, and on divine order in the community. 2 Timothy concerns the pattern of faith,

the word of truth, the gifts and power of God, and the pattern of behavior. Titus focuses less on

household and order than 1 Timothy, but is otherwise very similar. Although this survey sometimes

reads like a catalogue with extensive reference lists, helpful summaries throughout help the reader

maintain focus. Two features of this chapter require further comment. First, Aageson distinguishes

frequently between the implied audience and its literary or theological world, and the real audience

or referential world. This distinctions is necessary to analyze the letters without committing in

advance to a position on authorship, but sometimes it makes for very belabored argumentation

where the literary world is presented as predating the real world (and thus suggesting

pseudonymous authorship). Second, Aageson begins his survey by simply discussing various

themes, without any hint of how he arrives at his selection of themes. His footnotes merely refer to

other exegetes and commentaries as support for or illustration of the point made without much

further discussion.

Chapters 3 through 7 compare these theological patterns with other documents of the Pauline

tradition: a comparison of the Pastorals with Paul (selecting only Philippians, Galatians and 1

Corinthians, which results mostly in dissimilarities); a comparison of images of Paul and authority

in the Pastorals, Acts and the Deutero-Paulines; comparison with the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius,

Polycarp and 1 Clement); comparison with second century writers (Irenaeus, Justin, Hippolytus,

Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement and Origen); and finally a comparison between the Pastorals and the

Acts of Paul (seen as diverging responses to a common Pauline tradition). The breadth of coverage

is admirable, but the limitations of space make these comparisons increasingly selective and

superficial, since Aageson has to rely almost exclusively on summaries of his personal selection of

secondary literature.

Chapter 8 summarizes the oft-repeated suggestion that “the theological patterns generated by this

discussion converge in support of the claim that the Pastoral Epistles were written most likely after

Paul’s death but before Ignatius” (207), even though the author reassures us here (and throughout

the study) that he did not intend to focus on authorship. Evidently it proves impossible to locate the

Pastorals in the Pauline tradition without interacting in depth with proposals about authorship, so

that Aageson’s circumvention of this question is a bit artificial. His final conclusion is roundly

disconcerting: “lines of development, conflicts, and ideas of Christian truth are not isolated from

each other in the early church. They intersect in complex ways... Not until the consolidations of the

fourth century and beyond do we see an effort to establish correct Christian belief and practice on a

grand scale” (210). It is disappointing that after this extensive study, we end up with another version

of Bauer’s reconstruction of orthodoxy and heresy.

In spite of many helpful insights into the Pastorals and their connections with other Pauline

traditions, the overall presentation fails to convince. First, the use of the concept of literary or

theological world is problematic. It is correct to observe that theological patterns are part of a larger

whole, a theological world. In comparing various theological patterns, dissimilarities play a

disproportionately large role. This leads Aageson to statements about divergent worlds, apparently

taking a small visible pattern for the whole of a theological world, which is clearly incorrect. The

patterns might also represent partially overlapping sections of one larger theological world. It would

take further historical and social analysis to draw legitimate conclusions about this, but Aageson

denies himself this option with his focus on theological analysis. He is left with only chronological

development or authorship as mechanisms to explain his observations.

Second, it is questionable whether Aageson’s method, moving directly from theological patterns to

historical reconstruction, is legitimate. Even though earlier studies by Beker, Richards or Merz1

approach the matter similarly, the methodology is essentially faulty, identified as the ‘idealistic

fallacy.2 Patterns of theology tell very little about possible lines of historical development, unless

they are anchored by external evidence. Without such an anchor, proposals for historical

development are likely determined by unexamined presuppositions about religious development of

early Christian communities, as appears to be the case in Aageson’s conclusion.

Aageson’s overview is an interesting case study in its methodology rather than a stand alone

textbook on the Pastorals or the Pauline tradition. The question of authorship will remain prominent

in this discussion. If the Pastorals were written towards the end of the first century as Aageson

proposes, then it took one or two generations beyond Paul (and most other apostles) to arrive at a

settled package of ‘true doctrine’ that most likely had competitors. However, if Paul wrote the

Pastorals in the early 60’s, this implies a very early awareness of a settled state of doctrinal content.

Add to this the observation that even Paul’s letters, our earliest NT documents, appear to contain

doctrinal summaries of preformed traditions, and we have here evidence of doctrinal formation that

is traceable to the 40’s, undercutting any argument for early and widespread variation of doctrinal

content. Authorship of the Pastorals thus deserves careful attention, and Aageson’s contribution

sharpens our focus on some of the issues involved, although perhaps leading in another direction

than he himself envisioned.

1 Beker, J. C.. Heirs of Paul: Paul's Legacy in the New Testament and in the Church Today. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.; Richards, W. A. Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity: An Epistolary Analysis of the Pastorals. Vol. 44, Studies in Biblical Literature. New York: P. Lang, 2002; and Merz, A. Die Fiktive Selbstauslegung Des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien Zur Intention Und Rezeption Der Pastoralbriefe. Vol. 52, Novum Testamentum Et Orbis Antiquus. Göttingen; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht ; Academic Press, 2004. Richards and Merz are not cited by Aageson. 2 By Holmberg, Bengt. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Lund; Eugene: CWK Gleerup (Wipf & Stock), 1978. Not cited by Aageson.

Jack Barentsen is instructor New Testament and Practical Theology at the Evangelische

Theologische Faculteit in Leuven (Belgium). His dissertation research focuses on developing

leadership patterns in Paul’s emerging churches.

Notes JAMES W. AAGESON (1947-)

Address: Concordia College, Department of Religion

Moorhead, Minnesota 56562

Phone: Office: [218] 299-3425 Home: [218] 233-7374

E-mail: aageson@cord.edu

http://www.cord.edu/faculty/aageson/JWAageson.html

Publications: Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation (1993)

In The Beginning: Critical Concepts for the Study of the Bible (2000)

General

Aageson cites a few opposed to pseudepigraphy on pp 4-5 and 71-72, and even admits that Ps. has

often functioned as starting point for discussion, but he never seriously engages with any of

Johnson’s remarks in his AB commentary on 1+2Tim, where he clearly shows that the content,

language and style of the Past cannot legitimately be used to propose pseudonymous authorship.

But this is exactly what Aageson does, even if that is not his main point. Yet, he must have been

familiar enough with Johnson’s commentary, for he cites it and his other works on the Pastorals at

least 22 times.

Good points:

clear (though selective) exposition and comparison of many important 1st and 2nd century

documents

clear evidence of Paul’s influence and legacy from end of 1st and early 2nd century, as opposed to

scholarship that would date the rise of Paulinist theology to the debates with Marcion.

Treat each letter in its own right, instead of as a corpus.

Weak Points:

Patterns indicate conceptual proximity or distance, but can never be directly correlated to historical

sequence without further contextual studies. Methodological flaw.

First sentence of 8, summary relates to authorship, but that was expressly not the main intent of the

study.

Efforts to distinguish implied audience and literary world from real world is understandable, but

sometimes rather awkward, and at times also contested.

Selection of themes is not based on argument, but not really accounted for.

Chapter summaries

1 Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Pauline Legacy 1

Introduction (1): Reception of Paul’s legacy is not just continual reinterpretation of his

letters, but also “of an evolving Pauline imagine merging with the developing concerns of

the day.”

The Pastorals and Paul's Legacy (2): reception “exceedingly complex”

Scholarship: Paul and the Pastorals 3

The Pastorals and Pauline Authorship (3): letters discussed from many different angles,

but often evidence taken as pointing to pseudepigraphy, although some dispute this. Approach here not to tackle authorship directly, but “more generally in terms of a

comparison of literary and theological patterns.”

Paul and the Early Church (5): how to position the P between the historical Paul and the

Pauline legacy.

The Pastorals and the Acts of Paul Debate (7): McDonald – conflict, Bauckham –

extension.

Paul the Person, Paul the Personage (8): not just focus on Paul’s letters or theology, but

also on his person, persona or legacy (Blasi’s book about Making Charisma and the

socially constructed perception of a person). Malina on Paul’s personality.

The Pastorals and the Questions of Genre and Audience (9): Letter form or traditional

hortatory instruction, or again as mandata principis (commandments of ruler).

Identification of larger audience for letters is difficult. (But work of Richards on genre)

History, Epistolary Text, and Context (10): from text to contextual world to referential

world. But here difficulty because contextual world and referential world might be

different because of pseudonymy.

The Argument and Approach (10):

Text and Theology (11): usually discussions starts with authorship and proceeds to

interpretation. But we start with patterns of convictions (theological) and behaviors.

Deal with explicit and then implicit theology, but avoid grouping these letters together or

with the other Paulines before analysis in their own right. Patterns then compared with

earlier and later documents.

Comparison of Patterns (12): with respect to how they represent God and His activity,

and about appropriate behavior for church. Also, in comparison something is more like

this than that. This more than will become important. Dissimilarity is of special

importance, since it can signal change in context as “authors sought to generate meaning,

encourage action, appeal to sources of authority, and shape behavior of the recipients of

the epistles.” (13) All this to situate the P in their proper symbolic matrix.

Canon and Early Church (14):

Argument and Contribution (15): “A comparative analysis of theological patterns

illustrates that even as the Pastoral ./. Epistles represent Paul and his theology in new

contexts, they also reflect and foreshadow the significant issues confronting the church

in the first two centuries.”

Contributions: 1. take seriously the literary and conceptual world of each individual

letter, 2. focus on developing Pauline tradition and the contribution of the P, not the

whole early church history, and 3. “this approach takes seriously the developmental

character of Paul’s transformation from a Jew and an apostle of Christ into a saint of the

church, as well as the transformation of his epistles from occasional letters into

authoritative texts that continued to inform thee life and theology of the early church.”

2 The Pastoral Epistles and Their Theological Patterns 18

I wonder if detailed summary of this chapter is helpful, since it consists of a careful analysis of each

letter’s main theological themes. The headings, as listed below are sufficient indicator of these

themes for the summary, although they can be written out a bit more in prose. But a few noteworthy

things are the following.

The analysis of each letter starts with the opening where the relationship between author and

recipient is presented as an axis along which the argument of the letters weaves or arranges itself,

often with another implied audience, namely the Christian community, judging from the plural use

of ‘we’ ore ‘you’ on occasion. Aageson also distinguishes between the literary world of the text and

the real or referential world, and occasional references to the theological world of the text or of

Titus or Timothy. Both of these distinctions are necessary to analyze the letters without committing

in advance to a position on authorship. It helps to keep that decision at some distance. But it also

makes occasionally for rather belabored sentences:

48: “The temporal dimension of the text’s thought world is injected into the discussion by the word

ὅτε (when), but the first real theological assertion in this text …”

49:

52: “The temporal character of the literary text precedes the actual time frame of the discussion as

presented in the text. This illustrates once again that the world that stand behind the text is

periodically drawn to the fore in the discussion of the epistle.”

54: “… there is a serious concern in the world of this text for the proper ordering of the

community’s life.”

Yet, the effort to distinguish these worlds consistently throughout the discussion also makes plain

how much the literary and real worlds are interwoven – at least in the intention of the text itself, so

that a judgment that the real world behind the text is to be located significantly later and perhaps

elsewhere than the literary world (i.e. pseudepigraphy) becomes all the more tenuous.

Interesting point about Jewish opponents in P, namely that “the problem does not appear to be a

matter of Gentile inclusion into a mixed community of Christ, but of belief and behavior

inconsistent with correct doctrine and life.” (55).

This survey of the data of each epistle is rather thick, since it is more or less a written out summary

of various important themes in the letter, listing various reference through each epistle in sometimes

a catalogue format. But helpful summaries at various points throughout, as well as at the end of the

discussion of each epistle.

Note on methodology: Aageson just jumps into each letter, without specifying how he arrives at his

selection of important themes. A few footnotes on every page mostly are simple references to other

exegetes and commentaries as support for or illustrative of the point made, but without much further

discussion. An occasional references to lexical works. But did Aageson do a word count in every

epistle to arrive at his main themes? Did he identify key structural markers that point out key

concepts? This is simply not addressed, although the exegetical discussions occasionally refer to

these kinds of features without drawing out the methodological implications.

1 Timothy 18

From the Greco-Roman Household to the Household of God (19): The Household of God (23):

God, Godliness, and Salvation (25):

Truth, Sound Teaching, and Faith (28):

Qualities and Instructions Appropriate for Members of the Household of God (31):

Divine Order and Conformity in Faith (35):

2 Timothy 35

The Pattern of Faith (36):

The Word of Truth (39):

The Gifts and Power of God (40):

The Pattern of Behavior (43):

A Theological Conclusion (45):

Titus 46

God, Godliness, and Salvation in Christ (47): Truth, Sound Teaching, and Faith (50): Qualities and Instructions Appropriate for Members of the Household (52):

A Theological Conclusion (55):

3 The Pastoral Epistles and Paul: A Comparison of Patterns 57

Aageson carefully explains that his main discussion is not authorship, but that it plays a role only

insofar it helps connecting the P to the Pauline tradition. That sounds OK, but can patterns of

theology from internal examination of the letters and comparison with others by themselves dictate

where a particular document fits within a larger tradition, i.e. where the P fit within the Pauline

tradition, without recourse to yet other, external evidence for authorship? Mere internal comparison

of the P without taking for historical fact their explicit statements of authorship and recipients all

too easily becomes circular reasoning, where unexamined assumptions about theological patterns

and likely developments in the end determine the conclusion. At least, in textual criticism, such an

approach doesn’t earn a great following, since generally some measure of balance between internal

and external evidence is considered necessary for a sound judgment in the matter.

The Pastoral Epistles: Patterns in Comparison 57

Images of God and Christ in Comparison (58): all P apply ‘savior’ to God or Christ, unlike other

Pauline tradition. Tit applies it to Christ 3x and 3x to God, 1 T only 3x to God, 2T 1x to Christ.

Universality of salvation but application to the believing. The oneness of God, explicit in 1T but

implicit in 2T and Tt. Christ as mediator only in 1T. High Christology. Mostly from the same

theological frame of reference, though unlike other Pauline tradition.

Godliness in the Household of God (61): 1T strongest in household terminology, but all 3 in

godliness. Training in godliness is by God’s grace in Tt or one in 1T, but in 2T it has become

following Paul’s path of suffering, for Aageson “a substantive difference in the theological

worlds of 1 Timothy and Titus and the world of 2 Timothy.”

Cr: By speaking of the theological world of an epistle, Aageson intends to suggest that the

perceived pattern represents a larger whole, which is correct. However, in subsequent comparison,

the worlds are then compared, without discussion (or awareness?) that the perceived patterns at the

most form only a small visible part of this complete theological world. In that comparison, the

worlds are sometimes subtly and probably unintentionally identified with the phenomena discussed,

thus mistaking the visible parts for the whole iceberg. In this way, the identified differences come to

play a disproportionately large role in the comparison which soon leads to statements about

divergent worlds when in fact they might have much more in common, although that remains

implicit in the text.

“The more subtle question is, how much of a change is it reasonable to expect that a single author or

single community could undergo in these circumstances and still maintained some psychological

balance and coherent theological sense of God and the world?” (63) Key question, but at least up to

the end of ch. 3, this question isn’t seriously discussed and answered with references to the

changing circumstances that might obtain in either the case of Pauline or in non-Pauline authorship. Truth, Knowledge, and Faith in Comparison (63): much if not perfect overlap in this area, with

faith focusing on doctrinal orthodoxy but also on personal participation.

The Opponents and Their Opposition (64): misunderstanding and misapplication of the Jewish

law seems to be the core problem n 1T and Tt, but the prospect of suffering suggests a different

view of opponents in 2T.

1 Timothy, Titus, and the Qualifications for Leadership (66): 1T and Tt both have qualifications

for overseers that to some extent overlap, although 1T highlight household responsibility and Tt

the role of sound teaching. They also both contain instructions for elders and slaves, but only 1T

for deacons, women, widows and the rich.

Conclusion (69): 1T largely governed by “the divine ordering of reality to which the household

of God is to conform” and 2T “the perception of how the community of faith will, or ought. to

engage the larger society” because it’s focus on suffering. About doctrinal correctness and faith,

all 3 are very similar.

Then the question: “Does this comparison of patterns suggest that 1 Timothy and Titus came from

the hand of a different author than that of 2 Timothy?” (70) This is exegetically not the most

obvious question to ask after examining only some notable theological patterns for similarities and

differences, especially in view of the stated author and recipient. Next Aageson explains, “The

answer to this question turns on two fundamental considerations. First, how much does a change in

historical circumstances in Ephesus (or to whomever 1 & 2 Timothy were written) or in the

situation of the author account for the differences in the literary and theological worlds of the

epistles? And second, how much of a shift of attitude, worldview, theology, and language are we

prepared to allow a single author?” Again, key questions. “At the level of thought world and basic

perspective, there should still be some coherence and some ability on our part to see how

differences in theological and pastoral responses could arise from the same underlying theological

orientation. If not, the author would simply be fragmented and incoherent.” Sounds reasonable, but

we dare not make our abilities the measuring stick for judgments of this kind, at least not without a

good bit of check and balance. Based on the discussions similarities and differences between the P,

1T and Tt are considered to derive from the same frame of reference, but 2T from another: “we can

only say that there is a distinct possibility that a different author wrote 2 Timothy, an author whose

experience of the larger social world was different from that of the author of 1 Timothy and Titus.”

This conclusion is reached without further extensive discussion of possible historical scenario’s. In

one way, that is the logical outcome of the method: first describe the patterns, only then reconstruct

a scenario of the developing Pauline tradition. But it is a serious flaw. Patterns of theology can tell

next to nothing about possible lines of development, unless they are anchored by external evidence

for dating or by other external factors, such as a proposed philosophy of social or religious

development of early Christian communities and their traditions. Moreover, the suggestion that

different author can explain the differences between 1T/Tt and 2T is not in itself unreasonable, but

thorough argumentation requires at least the account be taken for possible changing historical

circumstances according to the stated author and recipient. As it is, the conclusion or rather

suggestion reached is only possible on the premise or considered likelihood of pseudonymous

authorship.

The Pastoral Epistles and Paul 70

Introduction (70): someone (Johnson?) observed that 1T relates most closely to 1C, 2T to Phil,

and Tt to Gal. Thus, taking research from the SBL seminar on Paul’s theology, these letters are

compared with the P to limit the project to manageable proportions. Furthermore, he focuses on

the most conspicuous images and ideas, thus the larger theological patterns rather than on “the

peculiar stylistic and linguistic configurations” (72). Still, the P “are strategically placed at or

near the balance point between Pauline and post-Pauline tradition, and the decision about their

Pauline authorship simply places the Pastorals on one side of the balance point or the other.”

Philippians and the Pastorals (73): using research by Stowers on Phil as a friendship letter.

Parallels with 2 Tim. on friendship themes and suffering, but too many differences (addressed to

ind/community, opposition is doctrinal but not in Phi., catalog of vices of 1T3 not in Phil, church

of the living God vs. living as citizens) to suggest “any kind of organic link” (whatever ‘organic’

here means).

He makes a note about the genre of 1T and Tt as “strikingly different” (77) from Phil, but elsewhere

(at least up to end of ch. 3) he doesn’t work with the notion of genre to explain differences in

theological patterns or historical circumstances. Galatians and the Pastorals (78): Using research from Gaventa (don’t take ch. 3-4 as theological

core, but start with ch. 1-2, thus christological center, law secondary) and Dunn (on covenantal

nomism, nationalistic Jewish identity, as core problem in Gal), as compared with Jewish

opposition in Crete. But place of Gentiles isn’t an issue in Tt, nor is salvation without works, but

rather correct doctrinal assent. 1T – law is for the lawless (focus on transgressors), and in Gal for

sin (focus on transgressions). “The points of structural theological similarity … are real but very

limited.”

First Corinthians and the Pastorals (82): using a list by L.T. Johnson. But 1T household // 1C

body of Christ, distinctly different metaphors. Underlying theology of salvation parallel.

Resurrection a full theological argument in 1C 15, but only a verse in 1T. P’s use of ‘truth,’

‘faith,’ ‘knowledge,’ and ‘sound teaching’ not in 1 Cor

What is not here? Why not use the inclusion of the Christ hymn or references to tradition in 1 Cor

11 and 15 as evidence of the formation of a doctrinal tradition that appears to have crystallized at

the time of the writing of the P? Or discussing the role of women in 1 Cor as evidence of tradition

taking shape that is also visible in 1T? Or referring to oikos terminology in 1 Cor to compare with

P? Of the example of Paul’s suffering in 1-2C as // to 2T? Or the mishaps of 1C5 with discipline

and the needs for leaders of character? Relationship with household codes in Eph/Col? With

asceticism in Col? With marriage concerns in 1 Cor 7? Or generally with the connection between

theology and ethics in all Pauline epistles? See fn 80 with work of Towner who suggests four

benchmarks for assessing continuity and discontinuity. Thus, this comparison seems rather

arbitrary, leading rather to the perception of significant differences, while another selection of

topics might have resulted in the opposite conclusion. A Conceptual Conclusion on the Question of Authorship (86): the similarities between Gal and 1

Cor are so meager, that only comparison with Phil is useful. Right away speculations about how

many authors involved. One for 1T and Tt, but perhaps one for Phil and 2T (but than that is Paul,

…). Thus, relationship between 2T and Phil “represents the linchpin in the argument concerning

Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.” This is based mainly on parallels in friendship letter form

and in the references to suffering.

But this is faulty. To jump from patterns of theology, with a discussion that is necessarily selective

to proposals or even suggestions about authorship without further discussion of possible historical

reconstructions or the impact of various genres, perhaps in connection with various authorship

proposals, is deficient methodology. Why? Because it leaves out of account several very potent

explanatory factors for these differences, and presents various authorship (and thus chronological)

proposals as virtually the only way to account for them. 1T/Tt and Phil represent “quite different theological worlds” (86). 2T perhaps written in

imitation of Phil (and possibly 1T), but 1T/Tt “represent an even more conservative and

conformist social strand in the developing Pauline tradition than does 2 Timothy” where he

mentions all the typical stuff cited in favor of this opinion.

Why posit the references to suffering in 2T as a countercultural posture in contrast to the conformity

enjoined in 1T and Tt with its references to divine order in the household? Aageson himself uses his

own preconceptions of the real or referential world without explicating them, to stage the

differences he has observed in the literary worlds of the texts as opposites.

4 Apostolic Authority, Images of Paul, and the Development of the Pauline Scriptures 90

Paul, Authority, and Scripture in the Pastorals 90

Introduction (90): It sounds like Aageson now starts reasoning from pseudepigraphy, but he

qualifies, saying that authorship isn’t definitive to discuss the images of Paul and canon

formation.

The Image and Authority of Paul in the Pastorals (91): now also as teacher and authoritative

teacher, while ‘apostle’ seems to have lost some significance in comparison with authentic

letters, while yet establishing the uniqueness of his apostleship. Aageson cites Collins about

Paul’s apostolate being singular in the P, demonstrating the singular and authoritative character

of Paul. Here is an interesting phenomenon for social identity study, since the category ‘other

apostles’ is not salient in a letter from Paul to one of his close coworkers, who know him as the

apostle.

In as much as the P present Paul as the representative of true faith and sound doctrine, the P will

begin to project a textual presence representing true faith, and will eventually be heard as sacred

text.

Objectionable: the conforming of the church to household patterns in 1T and Tt “perhaps also

suggests a tendency in these two letters to accommodate the church in some sense to the

prevailing order of the Greco-Roman household. In doing so, the author uses Paul to sanction a

model for the church” (92). Notice the qualifiers along with the suggestion of accommodation,

followed by the plain statement that the author used Paul to sanction this accommodation. In

spite of the qualifiers, the argument builds confidently onwards in further speculation.

Scripture and the Beginnings of a Pauline Canon (93): “Whether written by Paul or someone

else, the Pastoral Epistles exhibit a web of internal relationship that reflect, however altered, a

Christology rooted in Paul and the early church, preformed traditions, quotations and echoes of

the Scriptures of Israel, and episodes from the life of Paul. … In doing so, all three Pastorals are

linked to an authoritative tradition. It is that linkage, we would argue, that draws the Pastoral

Epistles into the rudimentary yet substantive beginnings of a Pauline canon.” (94) Further

explanation how the teaching tradition probably develops (gospel and teaching, coming of Christ

(pasousia) and appearance (epiphanea), the tradition (paradosis) vs. the deposit (paratheken),

with offices. Do these differences imply that the imitation in the P “simply [is] not very good”?

(98). Or could we “also conclude that the writers are much more creative and transformative of

the prior tradition than appears at first reading”? (99). In closing this section, Aageson

summarizes:

“This is not simply a description of how the Pastorals conserved or transformed the Pauline

traditions. Neither is it a commentary on the Pastoral Epistles as some type of creative fiction

made possible by pseudepigraphy as a type of literature. It is an observation about how an

understanding of Pauline doctrine as a deposit is becoming a factor in the larger theological

world of Paul’s teaching and its legacy. Of course, if there is ever to be a collection of Pauline

scriptures and in due time a Pauline canon, there must be a remembrance of Paul and his

teaching that is preserved. … the point is that in the Pastorals we are witnessing the early

formation of a larger literary world that we might call the Pauline scriptures or the Pauline

canon” (100).

Note: this is also why authorship of the P is so crucial. If they were written towards the end of the

1st century, than it took one or two extra generations beyond Paul and most other apostles to arrive

at a settled package of doctrinal teaching, that could be called ‘true doctrine.’ However, if Paul

wrote it in the early 60’s, this implies a very early awareness of the settled state of the teaching

content of the faith. Couple this with the observation that even Paul’s letters, our earliest NT

documents, appear to contain doctrinal summaries from preformed traditions, and we have here

evidence of doctrinal formation that is traceable to the 40’s, undercutting any argument for early

and widespread variation of content. For Teaching, Reproof, Correction, and Training (100): “the laying of a structural foundation

between Scripture and community (church) that would erupt ./. full-blown into conflict in the early

church and again centuries later in the great Reformation debates over the relative authority of the

Scriptures and the tradition of the church.”

Hm, interesting note, especially in light of the development of a doctrine of apostolic succession in

e.g. Irenaeus, that seems very much to accord with this sentiment from the Pastorals.

Paul and Images of Paul in Acts (102):

Images of Paul: An Overview (102): fairly standard review of historical-critical interaction of

presentation of Paul in Acts and letters. (Paul the Convert (106)/ Paul the Preacher (109) /

Paul's Farewell Discourse (110)

Paul in the Pastorals and Acts: A Comparative Summary (111): note about genre to explain

difference in images of Paul, even if not much use of genre is actually made to do any explaining

at all. Household vs. Greco-Roman imperial world, heresy vs proclamation, opposition of

different kinds, leadership vs leadership qualifications, using Scripture for proof vs true doctrine.

Paul and His Theology in the Deutero-Pauline Epistles 114

Paul, Servant and Apostle in Colossians and Ephesians (115):

The Cosmic Christ and the Church in Colossians and Ephesians (116):

Paul the Sufferer in Colossians and Ephesians (119):

Paul and 2 Thessalonians (120):

The Deutero-Paulines and the Pastoral Epistles (120): that Col and Eph are generally closer in

theological pattern (i.e. thematically speaking) than to P. Again, differences are almost

immediately related to speculations about authorship, in spite of assurances that authorship isn’t

principally what this debate is about, but that it is about the developing Pauline tradition. That’s

all good and well, but the presentation demonstrates that without some assumptions on

authorship, it is pretty much impossible to make any credible reconstruction of development.

Hence, Aageson can at some point suggest, “these structural differences [between Col/Eph and

the P] may also be a tell tale sign that the early church in western Asia Minor was generating

quite different Pauline ./. styles, a feature that cannot be reduced to a simple matter of earlier and

later stages of development” (120-21). He realizes that signaling variations in patterns cannot

directly lead to conclusions about development, even if the institutional development might be

presupposed pretty straightforwardly from 1 Cor to Ephesians and on to 1T and Tt, since we

can’t prove it historically, “but it is helpful in positioning the respective ecclesiological patterns”

(121). Helpful in what way, we might ask? It is helpful conceptually or theologically, but not

historically from the point of view of development, in spite of Aageson’s lengthy attempt to try

and argue that.

Finally he refers to 2T’s presentation of Paul as near the end of his life (121), but only to register

a difference in the way suffering is presented as compared to the Deutero-Paulines (= Col, Eph),

not to explain those differences.

5 Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Postapostolic Church 122

Introduction (122): “In the emerging traditions of the church, there was ultimately no thought that

the Pastoral Epistles or the so-called Deutero-Pauline Epistles were from anyone other than the

“real” Paul, or that the Paul in Acts was somehow different from the Paul of the epistles.” Why

doesn’t he make more of this observation? He only records it, but doesn’t use it nor critiques it as

useless.

Speaking of Paul’s legacy, Aageson sees the need to distinguish between Paul’s person and his

letters, between his personal example and his theology.

Paul and the Apostolic Fathers (123):

Ignatius of Antioch (123):

-Paul and Ignatius – several scholars cited for their remarks on the connection between Paul and

Ignatius. Paul seems Ign’s model for suffering. Ign. clearly distinguishes himself from Peter and Paul

and expects to become a true disciple through his martyrdom, not an apostle. “a postapostolic

generational shift takes place” (125). “The apostolic age is now at an end historically, but as we shall

see it persists theological in the structure and ministry of the church” (126). Connections with Paul in

terms of direct quotes are difficult to identify and without a quote formula some suggested they

could be due to the use of traditional Christian material (Schoedel). So probe beneath surface level to

compare theological and ecclesiological patterns.

-True and False Teaching, True and False Teachers (127) – survey of each of Ign’s letters where

these references are multiple. “From Paul to Ignatius, the emphasis shift from refutation through

exhortation and argumentation underwritten by apostolic authority to exhortation and submission to

the authorized leader in each of the churches about whom the bishop has received information and to

whom writes [sic]. In part, this is due to the postapostolic vantage point of Ignatius and the less

intimate relationship he has with the churches to whom he is writing. It also indicates that

ecclesiological the churches in Asia Minor, as seen through Ignatius’ eyes, have developed since

Paul’s day. Authority is now derived and expressed in different ways” (129).

“If in the Pauline Epistles, apostolic authority is immediate and a formal system of ecclesiological

authority apart from Paul is yet to develop and if in Ignatius apostolic authority extends from the past

ordinances of the apostles and is expressed now through the authority of the bishop (see Ign. Trall. 8-

11), 1 Timothy and Titus exhibit a transition stage between the immediate apostolic authority of Paul

and an emerging formal structure of leadership and authority. In these two Pastoral letters, apostolic

authority and an emergent ecclesiological structure stand side by side, and both have a temporal

immediacy for the addressees not found in either Paul or Ignatius” (129)

In discussing Ign to Polycarp: “He also appears to imply that orthodoxy is relatively fixed and that

heterodoxy requires an ecclesiological response (submission to the bishop)more than theological or

scriptural elaboration. True teaching and church unity, closely connect for Ignatius, reside in the

figure of the bishop.

-Christology – Christ identified as God, not very common in P (except for 1 Tim 3:15-16 and Tit

2:13). Christ as savior, common to P but less so in Paul. Difference in Parousia (Paul) and

Ephiphanea (Pastorals) also in Ign. “Whether or not Ignatius actually knew the Pastoral letters, he is

clearly heir to a christological tradition represented by them, and at certain points that tradition is at

variance with the undisputed Pauline letters. That christological tradition represents Christ as God

and savior; and, though completely human, he is the epiphany of divine revelation” (133).

“To the extent there is any thought given to it at all by Ignatius, the entire tradition is Pauline. We,

however, can look back and see that the Pauline christological tradition was being shaped in

particular ways and that the tradition of the Pastoral letters was instrumental in that process” (134).

But can we really, from the mere registration of christological patterns similar to the Pastorals but

different from other Pauline epistles, draw this kind of conclusion? Perhaps Ignatius was very much

aware of these differences, but writing to churches in Asia Minor, he purposely referred to beliefs

that he could expect to be current among them, while perhaps being equally conversant with other

parts of Paul’s christology in their different context, which we can no longer retrieve. In other

words, we can register a proximity in christology between the Pastoral letters and Ignatius, but

without knowing more about Ignatius and his ministry in Antioch, we really can’t conclude much of

anything about possible lines of development – unless we have other means of dating and locating

the Pastorals that will help us peg them down. At other points, Aageson next notes, “Paul, the Pastorals and Ignatius are consistent, though not

identical, in their christological formulations and understanding of the atonement” (135). So the

differences in referent for ‘savior’ are enough, without further information, to make conclusions

about development?

-Ignatius and the Ministry of the Church – “The church’s ministry ./. as a spiritual and theological

reality takes on the form of a three-fold system of offices. Here, theology and ecclesiology are

intimately intertwined, and this is Ignatius’ way of connection the postapostolic church with the

apostolic church and of fending off false teachers and false teachings” (136). This makes me wonder

how Ignatius and Paul reflected on the identity of the Christian community. For Paul, this identity

centered on Christ. Given Ignatius’ devotion to Christ, this is still present in his letters, but it also

becomes connected to the structures of leadership. Ignatius at least anticipates the later development

where the identity of the church is more or less identified with its offices. Still, Aageson explains

(137) that the emphasis in Ign. is still more on the individuals than on the offices which connects him

with the ecclesiology of the Pastorals more than Paul.

The question about different conceptions of the church’s identity in Ign. and Paul remains. And why

the different locus of authority in both? It seems that the Pastorals attribute authority to the teaching

in the hands of Timothy or Titus in the presence/absence of Paul as apostle. Ignatius attributes

authority to the teaching also, but appears to connect this directly to the bishop as the one to

guarantee the truth of the teaching, rather than to apostolic writings directly. Why did he do this?

Was it because of a sense of urgency with his impending death, so that he doesn’t take the time to set

up theological argument, but defers to the local bishops? Could he consider the deposit of faith, the

true teaching to be sufficiently known (as he himself specified in a few christological summaries) to

not feel the need to explain the content? Was it because he lived in a largely oral culture, so that oral

transmission thru trusted leaders was more salient than written transmission, like Papias seems to

suggest? This may play a larger role than we think, if we realize that oral transmission was probably

fuller and richer than the written transmission.

-Scripture and Tradition – “The authority of the “good deposit” resides in the continuation of

apostolic tradition in the church properly ordered, not in the fixedness of the tradition” (139). But is

that conclusion warranted? Do we know enough about the situation? Or is this simply a reflection of

an oral culture structured by patronage where obedience to a trusted leader and recipient of this fixed

tradition is the best guarantee that this tradition will be maintained faithfully?

-Ignatius and Martyrdom -

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (140):

-Polycarp and Paul – close links with Phil, but also with 7-10 other Pauline epistles.

-Paraenesis and False Teaching – “a sense that the truth, the sound teaching, has been stabilized,

perhaps even reduced to certain fundamental tenets that are asserted as constituting the truth.. In

Paul’s own letters, there is a greater sense that the truth, at least in part, is still being discovered or

worked out. In Polycarp’s letter that sense has receded” and is thus closer to Ignatius and P than

Paul. (144).

-The Qualities Appropriate for Church Leaders – here like Pastorals. Discussion of Ignatius’

emphasis on office and Polycarp’s emphasis on qualifications. Aageson reasons that this is not so

much due to underlying differences of theological perspective, but that the close association between

the two suggests that the differences are due to their respective purpose and circumstances in writing.

Question: why can a historical construction here be used to explain significant differences, and why

do these differences elsewhere lead to suggestions about pseudepigraphy without recourse to

historical reconstruction even though the Pastorals offer historical evidence? -Polycarp and Scripture – likely that he consider some form of Pauline corpus as Scripture.

Clement of Rome: 1 Clement (148):

-Clement, Paul and Scripture – not referring to false teaching or tradition as in P, and doesn’t appear

to consider any of the Pauline tradition as Scripture.

-Clement and the Church – “In 42:1-5, Clement establishes the chain of gospel reception and the

church’s ministry and order.” (152). But P, Ign and Pol display no concern for succession as such.

Conclusion (154): “In their representations of Paul’s voice, the Pastorals stand closer, both

theologically and historically, to the Paul of the undisputed Pauline epistles. But in terms of their

concern for the good order and leadership of the household of God and for the church that suffers,

they stand closer to the church of the Apostolic Fathers, especially the church of Ignatius and

Polycarp.” (154).

“In the Pastorals, as well as in the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp, we see a definite movement

toward orthodoxy, which on the level of literary depiction has a defined and circumscribed quality. It

is something to be guarded and handed on, not altered or deviated from.” (155).

Some discussion of theology (‘savior’, faith and works).

“In certain cases (the strong emphasis on paraenesis, the abiding concern for correct belief and

orthodox doctrine, the urgent desire for unity in the face of divisive individuals, the persistent matter

of church officers and ministers), the Pastoral letters both reflect and shape the way important

aspects of Paul’s legacy are being formed and passed on to the next generations of the church. Paul,

as we are beginning to see, is not only the hero of Christ heretics – e.g., Marcion and the Gnostics –

but of important figures in the “great church” traditions as well, and in that line of development the

Pastoral Epistles figure prominently.”

In this reconstruction, dates and authorship become crucially important, in spite of Aageson’s

assurances that these can be sidestepped in the discussion as secondary issues. It makes a great deal

of difference for the picturing of the early church, whether in Aageson’s reconstruction, we connect

these developments to the closing of Paul’s life, or rather to a generation (20-25 years) afterwards.

All these notes are interesting and important conclusions. But they are as yet only representations of

conceptual proximity of the various patterns in various documents. By themselves, they cannot lead

to a historical reconstruction of development, unless we have other supporting data or ideas to drive

that project. The historical data in the Pastorals are consistently ignored, probably because of the

perception that harmonization with authentic Pauline material has been proven to be impossible.

Thus, other presuppositions about potential development come into play, or else mere chaos results:

differences observed can’t be lined up, and may have played different roles in different regions and

at different times, so we have multiple traditions…

6 Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, and Other Early Figures 157

Introduction (157): seems he discusses as key ‘patterns,’ issues surrounding God and Christ (One

God, Christ God and Man), Truth, Scripture and Church.

*East Meets West: Irenaeus (158) – Introduction

- One God, One Christ, and a Unified History (160)

- The Unity of the Church and the Canon of Truth (161): theological and ecclesiological unity

interlock. True church and true teaching are inseparable.

- “Irenaeus, of course, sees all the material ./. attributed to Paul as authentically Pauline, which

tends to obscure any sense of historical development in the Pauline corpus, when in fact

according to this scenario the Pastorals are themselves later extensions and further developments

of the historical Paul’s thinking” (166-67).

Cr: but here he measure with a double standard, so it seems. When he wants to reconcile a

difference between Ignatius and Polycarp, he accepts that data of their texts as well as some of the

reconstructions thereof in secondary literature and creates a historical reconstruction that could

explain these differences, but when here it comes to Irenaeus and his perception of the Pastorals, the

data of the texts are placed under suspicion and that cautious supposition that perhaps the Pastoral

might not have been written by Paul (as Aageson himself carefully suggests it) is now turned into a

statement of fact (“when in fact”) which is then used to deplore Irenaeus’ lack of perspective on

development in the Pauline corpus because Irenaeus did accept the data in those texts. - Irenaeus and the Pastorals (167): pretty much parallel in ecclesiology, though the P do not yet

have “a full-blown concept of apostolic succession, as we find in Irenaeus” (168). : As the

episcopal structure of the church developed and came to represent, in the eyes of increasing

numbers of Christian, the one church in which the true faith resides, it is not surprising to see the

subtle shift in images from the qualifications for church leaders to the office (and office holders)

of the church” (169).

- Other terms in common with P: Christ as mediator, epiphany Christology

*Important Figures in Rome (170):

Justin Martyr who opened theological door to other great men, and Hippolytus, who continued

Irenaeus’ heritage and faced break away groups and competing bishops and competing claims to

truth. “By the third century, the concept of authority in the western church was clearly in a state of

transition yet again” (173).

*The North African Connection: Tertullian (173):

does not turn to the P to defend his view of the church, referred to the Regula Fidei to combat

heretics, and developed the perspective that Christ sent the apostles to found churches that started yet

others, every time handing down the apostolic teaching.

*The Next Generation in North Africa: Cyprian (177):

apart from church no salvation, which means apart from unity with the bishop. Irenaeus found

succession of bishops in succession of the church, Cyprian the other way around.

*From Alexandria to Caesarea: Clement and Origen (179):

- Clement lacks concern for ecclesiastical organization, but perhaps followed Paul’s distinction

between letter and spirit to see interpretation as a critical exercise and to incorporate philosophy into

theology. Still, sense of ecclesiastical rule or canon of truth, but P play only a minor role, as can be

expected with “Clement’s commitment to critical argumentation, speculative theology, and the

interface between faith and philosophy” (182). Scripture is much used, but without much sensitivity

to its historical context, and placing it instead into the new context as God’s word and divine

knowledge.

- Origen (185): most exegete, though influenced by Alexandria, corroborating the rule of faith

through exegesis (the two aren’t opposed). Never wrote commentaries or homilies on 1-2 Timothy

(or Philemon), but on every other letter of Paul. “His attempt to refute his opponents was not by

simple appeal to the institutional authority of the church and its tradition, but to the interpretation of

Scripture, manifested on one level by allegory” (189).

Conclusion (190):

Irenaeus, originating in Asia Minor, mirrors many of the concerns of the Pastorals in his battle

against Gnosticism: “sounds teaching, correct faith, truth, guarding the ‘good deposit,’ faithful

transmission of the tradition, ecclesiology and leadership in the church, and christological images”

(191). Tertullian follows much the same path, emphasizing a bit more the regula fidei, at least in his

pre-Montanist phase. Clement and Origin are quite different, influenced by the philosophy of

Alexandria and Philo’s exegesis. Clement mostly wants to connect Greek philosophy and Christian

theology, while Origin is mostly a very systematic exegete and theologian, pointing to various senses

of scripture and the use of analogy. Neither of these argued against opponents from the authority of

the church and the trustworthy tradition (of succession) of its teaching, but more from argument,

exegesis and interpretation.

7 Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Acts of Paul (and Thecla) 193

Introduction (193):

Conflicting Traditions or Extending the Tradition (194):

citing Dennis MacDonald, who claims that P and AP knew a common oral tradition. The author of

the P objected to the way Paul was represented in that, and voiced its objection in a more traditional

portrayal of Paul along lines of Greco-Roman patriarchal household structures, while the author of AP

highlights the countercultural stance of chastity. “Hence, the legacy of Paul contained in the Pastoral

Epistles and the body of Pauline letter in the New Testament represents only one line of the developing

Pauline legacy. It is a line characterized by literate men who supported the developing episcopal

authority of the church and rejected the folk traditions of women who remembered a more marginal and

undomesticated Paul” (195). Bauckham, however, argues that AP continues the story of Paul from his

first imprisonment to his martyrdom, taking cues from primarily 2 Tim and 1-2 Cor as a basis for a

novelistic biographical narrative.

The Acts of Paul and Pauline Patterns in the Pastoral Epistles (198):

sexual relations are important in both traditions, but 1 Tim contradicts the chastity of AP. The P

focus on a settled and stable household, the AP on “a countercultural relationship with the established

social order of the Greco-Roman world” (200). Paul’s concern for Jews, Gentiles and the law is hardly

yet visible in the P and has altogether disappeared in the AP and 3 Cor. “This development, however,

was anything but a simple linear progression. It was complicated by local concerns, by social class, and

by oppositional forces both inside and outside the church” (201).

Nice reference to social realities, but only invoked as possible causes, not worked out into a model

or reconstruction. Moreover, how can the observed presence or absence of a certain theme be turned

into a reconstruction of development, without some external frame of reference?

Conclusion (205): The P and AP “illustrate two significant polarities or axes that shape Paul’s legacy

in the church”(205) – perhaps so, but just juxtaposing them is only a first step. How influential were

they, and how representative? On the next page, Aageson claims that “it seems quite likely that the story

we know as the Acts of Paul and Thecla emerged among people, mostly especially women, who

challenged traditional authority structures and bent the Pauline tradition to their cause.” Sounds

reasonable, but that suggests right away that this tradition wasn’t very representative of the whole

church, but perhaps just of a few local factions.

8 Summary and Conclusion 207

The very first sentence of this section reads, “The theological patterns generated by this discussion converge

in support of the claim that the Pastoral Epistles were written most likely after Paul’s death but before

Ignatius of Antioch wrote his letters” (207). So what is left of the initial assurances that the discussion isn’t

mainly about authorship, and of the very tentative suggestions along the way in this direction? Moreover,

considering the methodology used, mainly a history of ideas approach or an arranging of conceptual patterns

in a developmental line according to observed similarities and differences, and without much reference to

social circumstances and without reference to the dating of the Pastoral Epistles themselves while every

other document discussed is carefully dated, would lead one to expect no other conclusion.

The author intends, though, to not focus on authorship, as he mentions at the bottom of p. 207 again, but

wants to position the P in the developing Pauline tradition. “The writer(s) of the Pastorals looked to the

Pauline past and used a memory of the past to enact a version of the Pauline tradition in the present” (208),

which may be easily granted. However, it does make a major difference if it is Paul himself who does this or

if a follower of sometime after Timothy and Titus does this.

However, after surveying the presentation, I would submit that this has not been successfully accomplished,

and that in fact this is impossible. The proto-canonical and ecclesial features of the P are such that an early or

late date in the first century results in a very different reconstruction of the development of the early church

in this first century. This reconstruction cannot be credibly completed without deciding on Pauline

authorship along the way. Aageson makes his choices clear, but his methodology is insufficient for the

conclusions he draws, and he has failed to avail himself of the many new methodologies available for

interacting on this. This is surprising, considering his earlier publication of a monograph on Paul and

Interpretation.

He refers to social location and literary function in concluding thoughts about the very different Pauline

traditions in Asia Minor as represented in Ignatius and Thecla, but these concepts do not function to clarify

the situation with respect to level of influence and representativeness, but serve mainly as indicators for

possible causes for observed differences.

His final conclusion, when he draws out implications for Christianity, are roundly disconcerting: “But these

lines of development, conflicts, and ideas of Christian truth are not isolated from each other in the early

church. They intersect in complex ways, sometimes in conflict with one another, at other times through

adaptation or reinterpretation. Not until the consolidations of the fourth century and beyond do we see an

effort to establish correct Christian belief and practice on a grand scale, an effort that was only partially

successful in its own day…” (210). It is disappointing that after we finish this extensive study, we once again

end up with a version of Bauer and Brown’s reconstruction of orthodoxy.

Bibliography (211) Index of Modern Authors (225) Index of Subjects (227) Index of Ancient Sources (229)