Pastoral Epistles

NoelFitz · #1 Jul 14, '10, 9:46 am

I have been studying the Pastoral Epistles for some time and have a number of queries.

1. What is the best commentary/book for studying the PEs?

2. Did St Paul write them?

3. How can they be inspired if they are pseudonymous, and hence essentially untruthful?

I would appreciate comment on these queries and any suggestions about studying these books of the Bible.

Thanks!

**NotWorthy** · #2 Jul 14, '10, 10:06 am

Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture has a good commentary on Timothy and Titus. George Montague is the author of this book.

I think St. Paul is the author, although he may have dictated it to someone else to write. But I'm highly confident that the Holy Spirit moved Paul to compose these letters.

I'm not sure about your pseudonymous comment however. It seems that there were additions to the Gospels of John (ch 21) and Mark (ch 16) by disciples (most likely) of these authors. The Church recognizes this possibility and affirms that even the additions were Divinely Inspired.

NoelFitz · #3 Jul 14, '10, 11:55 am

NotWorthy,

Many thanks for your thoughtful reply to my query.

1. I have the book by George T Montague SM you recommend. However I am not too happy with it. I am not sure why. I think it is because he wanders from the text to discuss later developments in theology.

2. I agree with you that St Paul was probably the author of the PEs. We know he did use secretaries, so I have no problem with this.

3. We know that the Bible is inspired and that God is truly the author. It is a case of faith seeking understanding. I believe the PEs are inspired, but what does this mean? This is another question, which I do not want to consider in detail. I am happy enough believing that the PEs are inspired, whether Paul wrote them or not. But if Paul was not the author is someone telling lies?

4. You say even additions are inspired. But what version of the Bible is the inspired version? Jerome’s Vulgate is a translation and we do not have original texts.

In summary: I do not want to get obsessed with the problems of inspiration, but want to get on with trying to understand the PEs themselves.

So any further help would be appreciated.

**Bookcat** · #4 Jul 14, '10, 2:22 pm

In addition to that one..

You will want to look too at the Navarre http://www.scepterpublishers.org/pro...x.php?FULL=127

and the Ignatius prob.

NHInsider · #5 Jul 14, '10, 2:46 pm

Pseudonymity is not the equivalent of untruthfulness. It wasn't that the writer was trying to pretend to be someone else. or to deceive the reader. It was common to ascribe a text to a teacher, leader, or even a bygone figure - this was a form of humility, rather than claiming authority for oneself. It was also common for a teacher's disciples to commit to writing the lessons they had heard him teach after he died, and those written forms would be considered to be "by" that teacher, since they were his thoughts.

Dei Verbum says

Quote:

the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

We (Catholics) are not literalists. We do not believe that each individual word choice was dictated by God, nor do our beliefs rest on the placement of vowels that didn't exist in the original Hebrew or commas that weren't in the Greek. We can acknowledge the presence of multiple versions of a story, as the Jews did before us, because we understand that God teaches through stories and events. So the question of translations vs original texts is moot. We have what the Holy Spirit intended for us to have, and what He guided the Magesterium to define as inspired.

I rather like the Commentaries on Sacred Scripture series from Baker, and the volume on the PE, by George Montague, looks to be nicely done.

simspt · #6 Jul 23, '10, 4:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHInsider

Pseudonymity is not the equivalent of untruthfulness. It wasn't that the writer was trying to pretend to be someone else. or to deceive the reader. It was common to ascribe a text to a teacher, leader, or even a bygone figure - this was a form of humility, rather than claiming authority for oneself. It was also common for a teacher's disciples to commit to writing the lessons they had heard him teach after he died, and those written forms would be considered to be "by" that teacher, since they were his thoughts.

.

I think some Pseudonymity wasnt done in humility but rather was used as a means to give credibility to a particular school of thought ie the gnostics attributing the names of apostles to some of their writings. I think this would qualify as purposeful deception. a rose by any other name smells as sweet.

**NotWorthy** · #7 Jul 14, '10, 5:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoelFitz

NotWorthy,

Many thanks for your thoughtful reply to my query.

1. I have the book by George T Montague SM you recommend. However I am not too happy with it. I am not sure why. I think it is because he wanders from the text to discuss later developments in theology.

You know, I have all the first four books of the Catholic Commentary series and yes, this is the one I like the least.

But its still far and away better than anything else I've read, including the Navarre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoelFitz

4. You say even additions are inspired. But what version of the Bible is the inspired version? Jerome’s Vulgate is a translation and we do not have original texts.

Jerome's translation is NOT inspired. The only thing that is inspired is the original text and the additions in their original text. No translations, or for that matter copies, are inspired. I know some King James Version readers that will disagree

, but that's their problem, not mine.

NoelFitz · #8 Jul 18, '10, 12:48 am

NHInsider,

many thanks for all your posts to me.

I agree with you. The Bible is inspired, that is what I believe as a Catholics.

But a problem remains. What does inspired mean?

But with various pressures at present I do not want to go down this avenue.

Vince1022 · #9 Jul 22, '10, 10:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoelFitz

NHInsider,

many thanks for all your posts to me.

I agree with you. The Bible is inspired, that is what I believe as a Catholics.

But a problem remains. What does inspired mean?

But with various pressures at present I do not want to go down this avenue.

The Jerome Biblical Commentary (both original and New) has an excellent chapter on inspiration. I'd highly recommend it.

Vince1022 · #10 Jul 14, '10, 5:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoelFitz

I have been studying the Pastoral Epistles for some time and have a number of queries.

1. What is the best commentary/book for studying the PEs?

2. Did St Paul write them?

3. How can they be inspired if they are pseudonymous, and hence essentially untruthful?

I would appreciate comment on these queries and any suggestions about studying these books of the Bible.

Thanks!

1. New Jerome Biblical Commentary
2. Probably not, but opinions differ. No matter.
3. God is free to inspire anyone. A writing being pseudonymous is completely different than a writing being untruthful. As Catholics, we believe all Scripture is true, regardless of the human authorship involved, because it's inspired by God.

NoelFitz · #11 Jul 23, '10, 3:33 am

Vince222,

Many thanks for your replies.

It makes a difference to me whether Paul wrote the PEs or not. If he did not someone is telling lies.

I am not concerned (at present) about the author of the Pentateuch/Torah.

The Vulgate of St Jerome is a translation. It seems illogical to accept one translation as inspired, while not another.

You say the Bible is inspired. Is the Vulgate of St Jerome the only inspired version we have?

Which Vulgate is inspired? Is it Biblia Sacra Vulgata : Iuxta Vulgatem Versionem, 3rd edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969, or The Clementine Vulgate, corrected and standardized following the Council of Trent and promulgated in 1592 by Pope Clement VIII?

COPLAND 3 · #12 Jul 23, '10, 6:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoelFitz

Vince222,

Many thanks for your replies.

It makes a difference to me whether Paul wrote the PEs or not. If he did not someone is telling lies.

You hit the nail on the head. If most of those books of the Bible were not written by those who say they are written by then it would be an obvious intentional deception. And also if those books like Daniel that they say were written after those prophecies had been fulfilled then it would have been another intentional deception. If that was true then I would be a very big skeptic of the reliablity of the Bible and the Christian Faith. I don't care if those who make those claims happen to be considered "scholars", there are plenty of highly educated people who are very wrong in their positions and their philosophies. Despite what those scholars may think about themselves, they don't have a monopoly on IQ, and usually they are in the minority opinion-wise, especially for 2000 years of Catholic thought.

Vince1022 · #13 Jul 31, '10, 10:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoelFitz

Vince222,

Many thanks for your replies.

It makes a difference to me whether Paul wrote the PEs or not. If he did not someone is telling lies.

I am not concerned (at present) about the author of the Pentateuch/Torah.

The Vulgate of St Jerome is a translation. It seems illogical to accept one translation as inspired, while not another.

You say the Bible is inspired. Is the Vulgate of St Jerome the only inspired version we have?

Which Vulgate is inspired? Is it Biblia Sacra Vulgata : Iuxta Vulgatem Versionem, 3rd edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969, or The Clementine Vulgate, corrected and standardized following the Council of Trent and promulgated in 1592 by Pope Clement VIII?

You may think someone is telling lies, but the Catholic Church doesn't.

No the Vulgate is not the only inspired translation.

Again...I'd highly recommend the article on Inspiration in the Jerome Biblical Commentary.

**NotWorthy** · #14 Aug 1, '10, 6:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince1022

You may think someone is telling lies, but the Catholic Church doesn't.

No the Vulgate is not the only inspired translation.

Again...I'd highly recommend the article on Inspiration in the Jerome Biblical Commentary.

I'd say the Vulgate is NOT an inspired translation.

Only Matthew's Greek translation of his Aramaic-written Gospel is inspired.

There are ACCURATE translations but not inspired, as I understand it.

NoelFitz · #15 Aug 1, '10, 9:44 am

I have been advised to read the (N)JBC’s article on inspiration.

I have done this today and am still not too clear. However as I intended to write here about it (even though it is a bit off-topic) I was encouraged to read carefully and reflect.

The starting point, as I learned in the catechism in school over 50 years ago, is that the Bible is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Ghost), so God is truly the author”. Accepting this the problem is to understand what it means.

As I am studying the Pastoral Epistles I note that a key quote is

Quote:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (NRSV, 2 Tim 3:16).

What does scripture (GRAFH, γραφή) mean? It has been defined (in this context) as inspired writings. Thus the statement that inspired writings are inspired is a tautology.

It is not good enough to say that as the KJV was good enough for Jesus Christ it should be good enough for us.

One of the suggestions in this article is that an Ecclesial approach is useful, in so far as what the Church says is inspired is inspired.

The article concludes with:
Since the understanding of Scripture is very much in “process”, an understanding of inspiration must necessarily be “in process” as well.

So to ask what versions of the Bible that we have, since autographs do not exist, are inspired is not a useful question.

PS: NotWorthy wrote

Quote:

Only Matthew's Greek translation of his Aramaic-written Gospel is inspired

Does this exist?