Did Paul Write the Pastoral Epistles? – The Inerrancy Question
This morning Aaron Armstrong at Blogging Theologically responded to my question about Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.
Specifically, he asked if it matters if Paul didn’t write them, and answered with a resounding, yes!
In his words,
“if these documents were based upon a lie—that is their authorship—then they absolutely cannot be trusted whatsoever, meaning you have to reject them or reinterpret what it means for something to be inspired of God. This then becomes even more problematic, is that then the entire doctrine of inerrancy evaporates, because you’re left with a position that forces you to say that Scripture errs. And if Scripture errs, then it throws your entire view of the Bible into question and in the end you’re left with either a collection of documents that you choose to trust out of preference (a subjective view) or you’re left having to throw the whole thing away because it’s not trustworthy.”
Now I appreciate Aaron’s response, and he may be entirely right in arguing for Pauline authorship [in his post he points to some important evidence], but this is what worries me about the whole inerrancy discussion – it works in the wrong direction.
By that I mean too often inerrancy starts with an assumption about what a text without error must look like, and then insists we find the Bible to be that sort of book: so that an inerrant text must not include pseudonymous writings (The Pastoral Epistles), or multiple authors over a span of many years (Isaiah), or science that is reliant on the cosmology of the Ancient Near East (Genesis).
This seems like an inherently problematic approach, because if one day we find the Bible is not the sort of book we have insisted it must be, we are forced to, in Aaron’s words, “throw the whole thing away because it’s not trustworthy.”
If we are going to speak of the Scriptures in terms of inerrancy, better to start with the text, ask the difficult questions, and then define inerrancy around the Bible we actually have instead of the hypothetical Bible our system demands.
Well said, Mason. We start with Scripture itself, not with what we think a “divine book” must look like.
yup. inerrancy is a concept that requires that we bring all sorts of extra-biblical, enlightenment assumptions to the text instead of letting scripture and context inform scripture.
Yeah, count me in, too. My understanding is that, especially with 2 Timothy, it was commonplace for a rabbi’s students to produce is “last work” in his name–more like an “open secret” than an outright lie. Even our ideas about what is true, or how to define truth, change over the centuries, but the Spirit’s revelation does not.
Pingback: Flotsam and jetsam (11/10) « scientia et sapientia
I agree with your assessment Mason. If Armstrong’s black-and-white, either-or is the casse, we are in all kinds of trouble.
Mason you said, “If we are going to speak of the Scriptures in terms of inerrancy, better to start with the text, ask the difficult questions, and then define inerrancy around the Bible we actually have instead of the hypothetical Bible our system demands.”
The ironic thing about your comments is that you cite your opinion but Aaron engages the Scripture. You call for your readers to “start with the text”, but in both of your posts (your first one, and this one, your response to Aaron) you haven’t offered any Scriptures or explained them. In order to establish your case and thus establish your point; you should actually engage the Scriptures. I’m all for asking questions, but lets actually engage the Scriptures rather than give our opinion. Its easy to say “well he doesn’t get it” but rather than just stating that, lets actually do the hard work of asking actual questions from the Scripture themselves rather than questions that float around with no actual Scriptural engagement. In responding as you have Mason you have proved Aaron’s point and demonstrated that you don’t want to actually engage in conversation thus far. I hope you will actually engage the Scriptures as you call your readers to do rather than just offering questions. In other words, I am calling you to actually engage the Scriptures which you want to “ask difficult questions about, and then define Inerrancy around the Bible.” If that is your goal then engage the Word of God instead of just asking questions.
Dave,
Thanks for your comment and your call to engage the Scriptures. You’re right, it is vital to do the exegetical and theological work of engaging the Word of God – I just don’t think blogging, or at least this blog, is the venue for that.
As you may have noticed these thoughts and questions were sparked by work I’m doing for a seminary class, and it is in that venue that I’m doing the hard work of wrestling with the text and scholarship. Blogging is something I do to extend the conversation, not to write a multi page essay showing every source and verse I’m engaging with. Some people do that well, and that’s fine, but it’s simply not the sort of writing i’m interested in doing online.
Besides, we both know that questions like “Did Paul write the Pastoral Epistles?” are not simply a matter of pointing out verses. Clearly the book says Paul wrote it. The issues are the authors rhetoric and style, language, theology, ecclesiology, etc. and how those compare with uncontested Pauline epistles.
Mason,
I know you said you weren’t interested in writing up an essay online on this issue, but it may prove helpful to your readers (and yourself) to perhaps write out a “question and answer” type of post that details briefly (500-1000 words) the issues you see in this debate. I do this weekly on Servantsofgrace.org and people enjoy it. I believe that doing this will help bring the issue out from the ivory tower of a seminary classroom, and into the real world where people have questions and need guidance from the Word of God. I offer this only as a suggestion and for your prayerful consideration. God bless you.
Pingback: Did Paul Write the Pastoral Epistles? « Cognitive Discopants