There is a school of thought that says Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. There was once a time when I might have found this disconcerting because it seems deceptive at first. For if the author isn't Paul, why does the letter begin, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope, to Timothy, my true child in the faith..."? Regardless of whether or not Paul wrote 1 Timothy, even considering the possibility that he is not the author raises important questions on the nature of Scripture and moves us to question how we will respond to this and other such tensions in the Bible.
On the surface, it may seem deceptive. My initial question was, "If Scripture is true, why would it contain the untruth of attributing the authorship of a letter to Paul when it was really written by someone else?" The question is valid, but the Christian must ask another question while he seeks the answer to that one. Succinctly: If it is true and the Bible contains "error" or untruth such as this, does this undermine the authority of Scripture? Does perseverance in the faith necessitate intellectual dishonesty? We must let Scripture be what it is. We must not let our idea of what is true dictate how we read Scripture, but let Scripture determine our ideas of truth. If Paul didn't write 1 Timothy, he didn't write it. Period. Are we going to keep insisting that he did so that we can have a false sense of security in our ideas about how God reveals Himself to His people?
As a Christian, I operate on the assumption that God speaks. He has spoken through His prophets and through His Son Jesus Christ. He speaks both through the textual witness of the Scriptures about the Christ event (and everything leading up to it) and also the witness of the Church. While there is debate over the authority of certain books and how close our copies come to the originals of the books which are considered canonical by all of Christendom (if, indeed, "originals" actually existed), there is no doubt that these texts have preserved the faith from generation to generation. God is still redeeming people today. We know that Scripture is true because we have seen how God uses it to speak to His people.
I still have not answered the question about 1 Timothy, nor am I educated enough to answer it well. However, I will say that it, in part, involves the issue of expectations. For example, it is not unusual for presidents and politicians to have other people write their speeches. In fact, it is expected. The president speaks as though the speech contains his words - and in a way they are his words because the speech says what he intends to say even if he didn't write it. Can it not be the same way with Scripture? Maybe the elusive authorship of 1 Timothy is meant to tell us that it really doesn't matter who wrote it because ultimately it is the Word of God. If Paul didn't write 1 Timothy, are we to assume that some evil impostor wrote the letter to lead people astray and the letter somehow found its way into the canon? No; the book still contains wisdom and has been passed down through the ages and has helped to keep the faith alive.
Along similar lines, I have been wondering how to take the Septuagint and Apocryphal books. Are the vast differences between the Hebrew Esther and the Septuagintal Esther really "problems"? Each has different theological points and things to teach. God speaks through both versions of the ancient story. Is it a problem that Bel and the Dragon gives a different account of Daniel's experience in the lion's den from the book of Daniel? Both stories testify to Yahweh's deliverance of the righteous man who takes refuge in Him.
Maybe, instead of insisting that Scripture meet our expectations, we should let the text speak for itself and testify to its truth in whatever manner it chooses. Maybe we should trust God to speak even through the errant words of man. Maybe we should let the text shape our expectations of what it means for something to be "true." Maybe we should stop telling God to shut up.
1 comment:
First of all, well said. Secondly, I have a question: Is authorship the only area where "mistakes" or "contradictions" are allowed to be made? I'm confident your answer is "No," and that you would add history and science, for example, to that list. But what about ethics and doctrine? Dr. Enns points out that theological diversity is a part of the multiplicity of perspectives, but what about ethical dichotomies (Rahab's lying, for example)? What about doctrinal inconsistencies (let's say a universal vs. a limited atonement, for example)? What's your take on "biblical non-truths" (to use an oxymoron) of this nature?
Post a Comment