Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Keryg 2021: "Elders" and "overseers" in Titus 1: a two-tier hierarchy, or not?

Ray SunshineRay Sunshine Shipmate
edited January 19 in Limbo
5 I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: 6 someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. 7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; 8 but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. 9 He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9)

In this passage, v. 6 lays out the qualifications to be looked for in an “elder” (presbuteros), and then vv. 7-9 lay out the qualifications needed for a bishop or, literally, an “overseer” (episkopos). They are basically the same qualifications, though one list is longer than the other.

On other websites I have noticed two conflicting readings of this passage. Catholics, for obvious reasons, tend to read them as referring to two different sets of people, the elders in one case and the overseers in the other, giving evidence of a two-tier hierarchy, but other posters challenge this, arguing that, at such an early date, there were only local churches, each one under the authority of a minister who might be labelled, indifferently, an “elder” or an “overseer”.

My question is simply this: Is there such a thing as a single, ascertainably correct answer, one way or the other?
«1

Comments

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    No
  • You have confirmed my suspicions.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited February 2021
    I’m sorry that put that way it really doesn’t make for much of a discussion, but it truly is what I think.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Even if for the sake of argument we decide that this passage refers to two different forms of church governance, it doesn't necessarily follow that these would map directly onto the divisions within contemporary churches which use the titles "Elder", "Presbyter", "Bishop" etc. Indeed, I would consider that to be highly unlikely. I'm an Elder within my church, I'd be stunned if I found that my role within the Church is identical to those who Paul calls Elders in this passage, or even very similar at all.
  • Let me just add this to my OP, summarizing as succinctly as I can my own view of what we can safely say about the state of affairs in Crete, on the strength of these five verses, though of course if I’m wrong I hope a helpful shipmate will correct my mistake.

    First, there clearly is a two-tier hierarchy, but that is demonstrated in v. 5 alone. Paul (or “Paul” — the authorship of this epistle is disputed) is appointing Titus to the position of what, in present-day terms, would be called a “bishop”. He is told to appoint elders in every community in Crete. Even if each elder is selected by the members of his own community, he won’t actually become officially an elder until Titus says so. The Greek verb here is the same one used in Acts 6:3 about the selection of the seven deacons: “You choose the deacons you want, and then we (the Twelve) will appoint them.”

    Second, I don’t think this necessarily means that the word “bishop” or “overseer” in v. 7 points to this distinction. It’s quite possible, or even likely, that Titus was not an “episkopos” but an “apostolos”, in the Pauline sense. The question of “elder” in v. 5 and “bishop” in v. 7 is a separate one, as I see it, from the question of Titus’ own position in the church. But I could be wrong.
  • This is predictable from me but I expect people who were actually there in the early centuries of the church were able to understand it better than we 2000 years later, and what they put into effect is their understanding of it.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    The 'New Church' movement I used to be involved in has the office of elder, and senior leaders that were de facto "apostles" (although it was careful not to use the term outright of living people, referring rather self-deprecatingly to "members of the apostolic team" or those with "an apostolic ministry"). On the basis of this passage, they did indeed cast Titus as an "apostolic delegate", but drew no distinction between elder and overseer.

    The main, significant effect of this was to make the elders of a local church accountable to somebody from outside and 'above' the local church, rather than to their own flock, which had no realistic say in their appointment (or removal).

    These days, while I see Paul's instructions in these verses as providing a useful basic code of ethics for people in positions of responsibility in a church, I see no more reason to take his specific designations as binding for all time than to adopt as definitive his characterisation of Cretans as "always liars, evil brutes, crazy gluttons" just a few verses later (v12-13).

    (When I was in Crete, I hired a 4x4 to go and see Fair Havens. It is a desolate spot; I could see why the captain of Paul's ship was keen not to winter there!).
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I see no more reason to take his specific designations as binding for all time than to adopt as definitive his characterisation of Cretans as "always liars, evil brutes, crazy gluttons" just a few verses later (v12-13).

    I have had friendly discussions from time to time, spread over a period of several years, with one poster in particular on another website, a former Anglican (like me) who sometimes describes himself as a “nonconformist” and sometimes as a “New Testament Christian”. His insistence that any church must necessarily be a local church only, not belonging to any diocese and not subordinate to a larger group of any kind, simply on the grounds that that’s the way it was in Paul’s time, I reject for two reasons. First, because there was in fact some kind of regional or diocesan structure, as we see in Titus 1:5 (“you are to appoint elders”). Second, because even if he could substantiate his claim about what people did in Paul’s time, there is no ban on changing things. There is no eleventh commandment, “Thou shalt not appoint bishops”. I’m sometimes tempted to accuse him of living in a “time-warp ecclesiology”, but that might be a step too far. I’d rather lose the argument than lose a friend.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I see no more reason to take his specific designations as binding for all time than to adopt as definitive his characterisation of Cretans as "always liars, evil brutes, crazy gluttons" just a few verses later (v12-13).

    If it were just Paul, I can see your point. But immediately the Apostolic Fathers pick up the theme and run with it. It quickly became a permanent part of church governance.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    In this passage, v. 6 lays out the qualifications to be looked for in an “elder” (presbuteros), and then vv. 7-9 lay out the qualifications needed for a bishop or, literally, an “overseer” (episkopos). They are basically the same qualifications, though one list is longer than the other.

    On other websites I have noticed two conflicting readings of this passage. Catholics, for obvious reasons, tend to read them as referring to two different sets of people, the elders in one case and the overseers in the other, giving evidence of a two-tier hierarchy, but other posters challenge this, arguing that, at such an early date, there were only local churches, each one under the authority of a minister who might be labelled, indifferently, an “elder” or an “overseer”.
    Well, I guess it’s obvious that Presbyterians have elders, as do, SFAIK, most other Reformed churches except for Congregationalists, or at least some of them.

    The traditional understanding among us, at least as set forth in the Second Helvetic Confession (1560), is that the terms were used somewhat interchangeably and that whichever term is used elders and overseers are equal in authority and dignity. That said, the Second Helvetic Confession notes:
    St. Jerome also in his commentary upon The Epistle of Paul to Titus, says something not unlike this: “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders; but after every one thought that those whom he had baptized were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed that one of the elders should be chosen, and set over the rest, upon whom should fall the care of the whole Church, and all schismatic seeds should be removed.” Yet St. Jerome does not recommend this decree as divine; for he immediately adds: “As the elders knew from the custom of the Church that they were subject to him who was set over them, so the bishops knew that they were above the elders, more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord, and that they ought to rule the Church in common with them.” Thus far St. Jerome. Hence no one can rightly forbid a return to the ancient constitution of the Church of God, and to have recourse to it before human custom.

    Chapter XVIII: Of the Ministers of the Church, Their Institution and Duties

    So, the understanding one often, but not always, finds in Presbyterianism is that the overseers/bishops governed in the church with a “council” of elders. In my particular tribe of Presbyterians, our Book of Order (our version of canon law) long contained language about what we commonly call Ministers of Word and Sacrament along the lines of: “This office is the first in the Church, both for dignity and usefulness. The person who fills it is given in Scripture different names expressive of the various duties of the office. When exercising oversight of the flock of Christ, this officer is termed Bishop. . . . .” (This language was removed in a recent revision that sought to streamline the Book of Order.)

    Given these understandings, and given that many Reformed bodies also have deacons, many Presbyterians who think about such things, but again not all, would connect the Presbyterian ordered ministries of minister-elder-deacon with the three-fold ministry of bishop-priest-deacon (“priest” also being derived from presbuteros). These Presbyterians would see the three-fold ministry as understood by Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans as being how the offices developed as the church grew, with bishops/overseers entrusting care of gatherings to those among their council elders.

    All that said, despite the fact that the Reformed have historically believed that the pattern we use is the pattern seen in Scripture and followed in the early church, we’ve never (or at least rarely) taken the position that it’s the only permissible pattern. While we believe it has much to commend it, we also believe other Christian communities have the freedom to decide for themselves how best to order ministry to meet their needs.

  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Host hat on

    Ray Sunshine, it would be helpful if you use quote signs when you quote Bible passages.

    Host hat off
  • Certainly, Moo, I'll do that. I didn't know it was a house rule here. In the five-verse passage I cut and pasted in my OP, I assumed that the verse numbers throughout the paragraph-long quotation, followed by the reference in brackets at the end, would be sufficient.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen - thanks for your detailed post.

    An Anglican priest for whom I have a very great respect says that there is a stronger argument from Scripture in favour of women as bishops than as priests. I've never understood how he gets there. At the risk of reviving a Dead Horse, does anyone have any comment on this?
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Nick Tamen - thanks for your detailed post.

    An Anglican priest for whom I have a very great respect says that there is a stronger argument from Scripture in favour of women as bishops than as priests. I've never understood how he gets there. At the risk of reviving a Dead Horse, does anyone have any comment on this?

    I'd have to hear his argument. I don't know what particular verses s/he's looking at.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I shall try and get it from him. He's now in southern climes.
  • 6 someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. 7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless;

    Question for Greek scholars: what is the sense of the conjunction that is translated as for?

    For in English as a conjunction means 'because'. So the structure of the passage is: presbyteroi must have attributes xyz because episkopoi have attributes abc. And prima facie, I would parse that as: presbyteroi are a *subset* of episkopoi, and inherit their attributes (so to speak) from the parent class.

    Taking the words in their literal sense, this would be reasonable: elders are indeed a type of overseer, they are the sort of overseer who has oversight over a congregation. This supposes that 'overseer' is merely a generic term, rather than the name of a specific office.

    However, I take @mousethief's point that regardless of what might make sense to me, that's not how the Early Church actually interpreted the passage.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Gee D wrote: »
    Nick Tamen - thanks for your detailed post.

    An Anglican priest for whom I have a very great respect says that there is a stronger argument from Scripture in favour of women as bishops than as priests. I've never understood how he gets there. At the risk of reviving a Dead Horse, does anyone have any comment on this?

    I wonder if this is from 'Junia, outstanding among the apostles' in Romans 16:7? (Wikipedia link.)

    The most natural reading of the passage is that she was a woman and an apostle, and St John Chrysostom (among others) accepted her as such. I guess one can argue that the concept of apostolic succession implies that all apostles are bishops, and therefore Junia was a bishop - so there is a Scriptural precedent for a woman bishop, but no mention in Scripture of a female presbyeros.

    (FWIW I don't object to women bishops, but I'm not sure the part after 'one can argue that' actually follows. But I may be misrepresenting your priest's argument anyway.)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Ricardus - I think that Junia argument was a strong plank in his argument, but waiting for a reply.
  • @Ricardus, the translation I quoted in my OP is the ESV, but some other translations imply a different kind of connection between “elder” and “overseer”. Here’s one that evidently sees them as the same person: an elder’s job is to oversee his flock. It’s the Christian Standard Bible. It omits the conjunction “for” and supplies an “as” :

    “6An elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, with faithful children who are not accused of wildness or rebellion. 7As an overseer of God’s household, he must be blameless, not arrogant, not hot-tempered, not an excessive drinker, not a bully, not greedy for money, …”

    https://biblehub.com/csb/titus/1.htm
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    For in English as a conjunction means 'because'.

    It is also a preposition corresponding roughly to the Spanish por and para, the German für, the French pour.
  • Ray SunshineRay Sunshine Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    I hope a Biblical languages expert will answer @Ricardus' question about "for" (Greek gar) in this verse, and that they will also kindly take a look at the post (two up from this one) where I quote a Bible translation that uses "as" here, in place of "for".
  • Paul is said to have died around 80 CE. The Epistles of Timoty and Titus did not appear in the developing canon of Scripture until 170 CE. The role of overseaer (or bishop) and elders did not develop until 150 CE. The syntax of the epistles of Timothy and Titus do not compare with other accepted Pauline Epistles. May the writings came from a Pauline disciple. Therefore, I cannot hold them to be as authoritative as the true Pauline writings.

    Even then, though, I could see female clergy meeting the standards of these epistles with a few simple word changes.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I would have said the usual dating of the death of Paul is rather earlier than CE 80.

    The rest of the statements present as plain fact things which are highly contested.

    I don’t disagree with you, however, about female clergy.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Kerygmania Host
    The elements of NT Greek has.
    gar: The conjunction for, which is virtually equivalent to because and not to be confused with the preposition for.

    Pretty much all the ecclesiastical language (including ecclesiastical itself) is as I understand it Common Greek Where they are biblical, Reader(tm) is of course common English and in early texts distinguishing between the Churchy definition and the Common definition is probably difficult.

    Having just said that. Barclay's Commentary (for what it's worth he subscribes to the equivelence theory) does make a deal of how English Communitys had Aeldermen (literally old men, used as a secular local government title), Jewish Communities has Presbyters (literally old men, used as a secular and religous local government title), Roman Communitees had Senators (literally old men, used as a secular government title), and Greeks had Geri___ (literally old men, used as a secular local government title).
    This makes me wonder (a) if we ought to treat it as a more formal appropriation of a secular Jewish role which is then explained. or (b) and this would be going against Pauline tendencies, whether the use of Presbyter should be seen as a qualification. Either in the sense of Overseers (TM) pick old guys (not the kids), or the former Presbyter(TM) of the Synagogue/Village have the experience, put him in charge.
    They are both a bit long shots, although they just about pass the test of making sense with early church practices.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Paul is said to have died around 80 CE. The Epistles of Timoty and Titus did not appear in the developing canon of Scripture until 170 CE. The role of overseaer (or bishop) and elders did not develop until 150 CE. The syntax of the epistles of Timothy and Titus do not compare with other accepted Pauline Epistles. May the writings came from a Pauline disciple.
    The authorship of this epistle is disputed, but is it authentically addressed to the same Titus whom Paul mentions in a few times in 2 Cor and Galatians? If so, then whoever the true author may be, it must surely have been written at a time when Paul was still alive, or at the very latest not long after his death.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Kerygmania Host
    edited February 2021
    It also explicitly claims to be from Paul an apostle. If it were purely a late work, I think we can safely assume it is taking both names in vain. The early church accepted it, and if there were a then contemporary Titus trying to benefit from it I think they'd have caught on (or if it were plausible, at least have commentated on it).

    However even if we assume genuine Pauline authorship to a genuine Titus (I do, but I don't know how well founded that really is) it's not unknown for there to be more than one person bearing a name (and some of the church merging has been ... dubious). So we should also assess this separately.
    On the pro side, the Titus from the letter was left in Crete by Paul. And the Titus from Corinthian's and Galatians also worked closely with Paul (so it seems more likely that those two Titus-es were the same rather than say identifying one with Titus the Emperer instead). And again the church did make the identification.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Fact is the early church did not readily accept the Epistles of Timothy and Titus until 364CE. While they first appeared in a developing list of New Testament books in 170CE, that particular list is called the Muratorian fragment. It is 85 lines long and written in Latin. The earliest copy of that fragment that we have is from the 7th century which claims to be a copy of the original list said to be written in 170CE.

    Both Timothy and Titus were part of Paul's ministry, true, but there is no proof that the epistles were actually written to Timothy or Titus. It is not all that uncommon for pseudo writers to appeal to historical characters back in that day.

    BTW, the argument that Paul ended up on the isle of Crete is not supported in the description of Paul's travels in Acts. In Romans, Paul does discuss the option of going to Spain, but it is unknown if he did go there. The only mention of Paul being in Crete is from Titus itself.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Ricardus - I think that Junia argument was a strong plank in his argument, but waiting for a reply.

    My mate has got back to me. His argument rests upon Junia and also Lydia. Now I'd not think of Lydia as a proto-bishop as much as a priest, but he moves from her role as leader of the church to the role of bishop as leader in a city with priests as his deputies. Indeed, a former rector of St Sanity used refer to himself as the Abp's deputy while the regional bishops were simply his curates.
  • Much as I would like to, I can't support the suggestion of Lydia as proto-bishop OR priest. All we know from Acts is that she was a wealthy business woman, who welcomed Paul and his companions into her (presumably large) house and that a congregation started meeting there. Her role as generous benefactor is clear. There is nothing to suggest that she took any kind of leaderhip role.

    As for Junia, the phrase in Romans 16 ("they were prominent among the apostles") is open to a variety of interpretations. We really need to know more about Andronicus and Junia before we can determine her actual role. It's a frustratingly tantalising comment but clearly Paul and the people he was writing to knew what he meant.
  • I recently came across an appealing little theory that Hebrews was written by Priscilla. For one thing, it might explain why the author is not named.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    The Muratorian canon is simply the oldest surviving canonical list and it includes the Pastoral Epistles. For earlier or comparable evidence than that we are dependent on whether earlier Christian writers happened to cite NT writings (which they often do without attribution).

    So, for example, Irenaus (d c.202) appears to accept all the Pauline epistles including the pastoral epistles.

    It is a mistake to take the date of canonical lists as anything other than a latest possible date of acceptance of the books listed - a terminus ad quem.
  • There’s a hypothesis — though I don’t think it’s more than that — that Paul was in prison in Rome when he dictated the three pastoral epistles to one of his aides, who then largely paraphrased Paul’s spoken words. I think it was Ben Witherington who wrote that, but I can’t be sure. Whoever it was, he even added, as a kind of corollary, that the aide who penned the letters may have been Luke.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Much as I would like to, I can't support the suggestion of Lydia as proto-bishop OR priest. All we know from Acts is that she was a wealthy business woman, who welcomed Paul and his companions into her (presumably large) house and that a congregation started meeting there. Her role as generous benefactor is clear. There is nothing to suggest that she took any kind of leaderhip role.

    As for Junia, the phrase in Romans 16 ("they were prominent among the apostles") is open to a variety of interpretations. We really need to know more about Andronicus and Junia before we can determine her actual role. It's a frustratingly tantalising comment but clearly Paul and the people he was writing to knew what he meant.

    I find his argument very difficult to follow.
  • jay_emm wrote: »
    The elements of NT Greek has.
    gar: The conjunction for, which is virtually equivalent to because and not to be confused with the preposition for.

    Some playing around on the site @Ray Sunshine linked to brought me to this link, where it seems the KJV regularly translates gar as 'for' and the Interlinear alternates between 'for' and 'indeed'. Which suggests that it might be one of those words that often just serves as a kind of verbal throat-clearing, and therefore one shouldn't read too much into it ...
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    The reading I'm getting as being the majority view is "Elders should be ... because, they are overseers who should be ...". Which either makes 'elder' and 'overseer' synonymous words for the same position, or 'elder' as a subset of 'overseer'.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    jay_emm wrote: »
    The elements of NT Greek has.
    gar: The conjunction for, which is virtually equivalent to because and not to be confused with the preposition for.

    Some playing around on the site @Ray Sunshine linked to brought me to this link, where it seems the KJV regularly translates gar as 'for' and the Interlinear alternates between 'for' and 'indeed'. Which suggests that it might be one of those words that often just serves as a kind of verbal throat-clearing, and therefore one shouldn't read too much into it ...

    I think the best French equivalent might be en effet.... An interpreter colleague I'll be working with tomorrow uses 'actually' in English in similar manner.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    Just as an aside, we always talk about the Church Fathers, but were there any Church Mothers? Well, here are a few.
  • One of my tutors at Spurgeon's College, Alastair Campbell, wrote a PhD thesis on "Elders" and "Overseers" which was later published in book form. For an article by him on the subject see: https://tinyurl.com/5dvv8eq2; for a detailed review of his thesis see: https://tinyurl.com/2dabpo3y
  • Thank you for that link to the Tyndale Bulletin. (The other one doesn't open for me.)
    "Monepiskopos" is a word I've never seen until now. It's not in the NT. I'll look and see if I can find some early occurrences.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    I'm surprised the other one doesn't open - may depend on where you are. It gave me a title page with a link to download a pdf file. I'll PM you with a longer link.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    The Muratorian canon is simply the oldest surviving canonical list and it includes the Pastoral Epistles. For earlier or comparable evidence than that we are dependent on whether earlier Christian writers happened to cite NT writings (which they often do without attribution).

    Previously, I did acknowledge the Muratorian canon listed the pastoral epistles, and yes people do claim it is a canonical list from 170 CE. A couple of problems, though is the earliest fragment we have of this list is from the seventh-century common era. Anr d there is no secondary source mentioning it. Now, the earliest guess is it came from around 400 CE.

    There are two other canons known to have come from that era. The Marcion Canon is dated around 140 AD and it does not list the Pastoral Epistles. The Codex Vaticanus which was from 300 CE also does not list the Pastoral Epistles.

    One way or another the writer of these epistles is expressing his own opinions which do not seem to be supported in other Pauline epistles. I do not see any reason to argue that they are set in stone Pauline.



  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    The Muratorian canon is simply the oldest surviving canonical list and it includes the Pastoral Epistles. For earlier or comparable evidence than that we are dependent on whether earlier Christian writers happened to cite NT writings (which they often do without attribution).

    Previously, I did acknowledge the Muratorian canon listed the pastoral epistles, and yes people do claim it is a canonical list from 170 CE. A couple of problems, though is the earliest fragment we have of this list is from the seventh-century common era. Anr d there is no secondary source mentioning it. Now, the earliest guess is it came from around 400 CE.

    There are two other canons known to have come from that era. The Marcion Canon is dated around 140 AD and it does not list the Pastoral Epistles. The Codex Vaticanus which was from 300 CE also does not list the Pastoral Epistles.
    Marcion’s canon is driven by his theological agenda. It also omits Matthew, Mark and John. It is of little value for assessing what was or was not accepted by the Church at large at the time.
    One way or another the writer of these epistles is expressing his own opinions which do not seem to be supported in other Pauline epistles. I do not see any reason to argue that they are set in stone Pauline.

    The idea of theological difference between the Pastoral Epistles and the rest of the Pauline corpus is hugely overblown. Equally strong arguments can be made in favour of their consistency with the other Pauline epistles.

    In any event, their contemporary authority is that they are in the canon. We don’t dismiss Hebrews, James, John, Peter or Jude on the basis that they are not Pauline.
  • To my knowledge, there has been agreement the canon. Luther wanted to dismiss James, Jude and Revelation because they did not fit his theology either. Yet he kept them, though he continued to call them books of straw.

    I would love to hear your arguments that the Pastoral Epistles are consistent with the rest of the Pauline Corpus.

    While you want to dismiss the Marcion canon, it is very hard to explain the Codex Vaticanus which also does not contain the pastoral epistles.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited February 2021
    You have to be careful about making assumptions based on what did or did not make it into a codex. Due to the amount of work (and money) that went into handcopying, plus the sheer space that a long book took up, people often had rather miscellaneous contents in a scroll or codex.

    For example, take the ancient collector (or committee) charged with obtaining new copies of biblical books. If he already has a copy of the pastoral epistles or what have you, he may well decide to omit them from the new commission. His goal is not to make a single codex which includes all the inspired books and none that are un-inspired, but rather the much more mundane aim of gathering new stuff for his library that he doesn't already possess. And when every extra book of the Bible carries a high cost in terms of time, effort and money, the likelihood of him saying, "Eh, go ahead and throw in those six (eight, ten, whatever) as well, what the heck." He's far more likely to say, "Give me the Gospels, these letters of Paul--not those ones, I've got them already--and what the hell, throw in Hebrews too." Then, too, he's going to have to deal with the fact that everything he wants may not be available at this moment. If you have no copy of the pastoral epistles available for the copyist, you'll just have to do without.

    And if the commissioner finds he's got extra parchment at the back, he may well decide to fill up the extra room with a shorter work, even one that he does not consider to be on the same level as the others. For him, a codex is not a book as moderns think of it, a work-possessing-unity; it is more like a bookshelf, where the Gospel According to Luke may sit cheek by jowl with the Gospel According to Peanuts.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I think this deserves its own thread.
  • @Lamb Chopped See how hard it is to explain the Codex Vaticanus? However, you are arguing from silence. All we know is the pastoral epistles are not included in the Vaticanus. We cannot explain how that happened.

    Not to BroJames. Personally, I do not think the discussion on the Pauline authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles should be separate from the discussion of what is meant by elders or overseers or who is qualified to fill those offices. My argument is that Paul would have never used the terms. Therefore, it came from someone else at a later date. To me, the offices are a valid reflection of the church at the time the epistles were written, but do the epistles have the same apostolic authority as the other epistles we know were written by Paul? I am arguing in the negative.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    @Lamb Chopped See how hard it is to explain the Codex Vaticanus? However, you are arguing from silence. All we know is the pastoral epistles are not included in the Vaticanus. We cannot explain how that happened.
    I don't see why you think it's hard - and see my alternative answer on the other thread
    Not [I assume that's meant to be 'Now'] to BroJames. Personally, I do not think the discussion on the Pauline authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles should be separate from the discussion of what is meant by elders or overseers or who is qualified to fill those offices. My argument is that Paul would have never used the terms. Therefore, it came from someone else at a later date. To me, the offices are a valid reflection of the church at the time the epistles were written, but do the epistles have the same apostolic authority as the other epistles we know were written by Paul? I am arguing in the negative.

    What is the basis for your argument that Paul would have never used the terms 'elder' or 'overseer'? (Incidentally I see him as using them interchangeably.)
  • @Gramps49, you say in one post that "Paul would have never used the terms", referring to presbuteros and episkopos. But he uses episkopos in the opening greeting in Philippians 1:1. As far as I know, Philippians has always been accepted as one of the authentic Pauline epistles, hasn't it?
  • Philippians is no doubt Pauline, but it is toward the latter part of his ministry and we do see the development of Church ecclesiology with the use of "elder." However, the use is slightly different, The elders in Phillipi are less formal officers than what was developed by the time the Pastoral Epistles were formed.

    There is one incongruency with Phillipians that has yet to be explained. There is no mention of Luke. Luke was from Phillipi and had been with Paul when Paul first visited there. This is reported in Acts, No mention of that visit in the Epistle.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host

    Wikipedia
    says
    Many scholars believe that Luke was a Greek physician who lived in the Greek city of Antioch in Ancient Syria, although some other scholars and theologians think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.
    and further down
    There is similar evidence that Luke resided in Troas, the province which included the ruins of ancient Troy, in that he writes in Acts in the third person about Paul and his travels until they get to Troas, where he switches to the first person plural. The "we" section of Acts continues until the group leaves Philippi, when his writing goes back to the third person.

    What’s your source for him being from Philippi?
Sign In or Register to comment.