352 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
354 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
apostle or other leading Christian figure by someone else), perhaps dating from a generation or more after the lifetime of that individual.83
This issue of pseudonymity, therefore, deserves a few comments here. Author- ship can make quite a difference in how one interprets, say, 1 Tim 2:8-15. For various reasons many scholars deny that Paul could have written the Pastorals. In- stead, they view these three letters as the product of a disciple of Paul a generation later who wrote when the Church was becoming more institutionalized and chau- vinistic. By that time, Christians had allegedly lost sight of the totally egalitarian positions of Jesus and Paul (cf. esp. Gal 3:28) and were lapsing back into the bad habits of the surrounding culture. Such a view, then, allows Christians to disregard the prohibitions in 1 Tim 2:12 against women teaching or having authority over men in church.
More liberal scholars have fi-eely embraced pseudonymity when they perceived
“contradictions” between the theologies of various epistles attributed to the same writer or noted marked changes in style or ethos. On the other hand, more conser- vative scholars have traditionally rejected pseudonymity as incompatible with the inspiration or authority of Scripture. If an epistle begins, “Paul, an apostle . . . ,”
they would argue, no one but Paul could have written it.
Neither of these approaches, however, can withstand close scrutiny. The lin- guistic and theological differences among the epistles have been overblown. Given the limited amount of material we have fi-om any one Scripture writer, and given the different styles authors will adopt for different circumstances, we doubt that a modern reader could ever conclusively say that the person whose name appears in the opening verse could not have written a given epistle.84
But neither must we read such verses uncritically. No one today protests that the ConJressionaZ Record errs when it attributes to a particular senator a speech that was written by one of his aides and possibly was never delivered on the Senate floor!
We understand the literary convention. Nor do readers of an autobiography of a famous public figure accuse its publishers of fraud when they discover in the preface that a ghost writer actually made the celebrity’s memoirs legible. We must ask, there- fore, whether or not pseudonymity would have been an accepted literary conven- tion within first-century Christianity. The proliferation of popular intertestamental Jewish writings suggests that pre-Christian Judaism may have come to accept this device. The battle with Gnostic and other heretical Christian writings, from the mid-second century on, demonstrates that later Christians regularly rejected it. But what of the first century? The jury is still out; the evidence is meager on both sides.85
“3As in most standard critical introductions to the New Testament, e.g., H. C. Kee, Understand- ing the New Testament, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1983).
%For detailed demonstration with respect to the Pastorals vs. the undoubted letters of Paul, see J. A. Libby, “A Proposed Methodology and Preliminary Data on Statistically Elucidating the Authorship
of the Pastoral Epistles” (M.Div. Thesis, Denver Seminary, 1987).
R5For opposing evangelical perspectives, cf. D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed.
(Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1990), loll-28 (against pseudonymity); with D. G. Meade, Pseudonym- ity and Canon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) (for it>.
Genres of the New Testament 355
The most likely way to advance the discussion would be to show that a par- ticular epistle conforms to a demonstrably pseudonymous genre. Of recent hypoth- eses, the most persuasive comes fkom Richard Bauckham, who relates 2 Peter to the consistently pseudonymous testamentary genre.86 To Bauckham, 2 Pet 1:15 pre- sents this epistle as “Peter’s” final instructions to his followers shortly before his death. But, he observes, this is precisely the function of testaments written a gen- eration or more later by a follower of a great individual, telling readers of that day what he believed the person would say if he were present. On this view, Peter’s audience, knowing full well that Peter was long dead, would not have accused the epistle’s author of any deception but would have recognized the attribution of au- thorship as a key to the letter’s genre. Even as late as A.D. 200, Tertullian could explain that “it is allowable that that which pupils publish should be regarded as their master’s work” (Against Marcion 4:5). But, of course, testaments could be written by people in their own names as well, and not every feature of 2 Peter con- forms to the genre; so even Bauckham’s case must be declared only “possible” rather than conclusive. More importantly, this type of theory of pseudonymity does not in any way diminish the authority of the epistle; it remains just as normative for believ- ers irrespective of authorship.
Specific Considerations
To interpret the NT epistles correctly we need to compare them with other Greco-Roman letters of antiquity. A fairly typical structure, which even first-century students were exhorted to follow, began with a salutation (identification of author, recipients, and some kind of greeting) and a prayer or expression of thanks for the well-being of the recipients. Then one proceeded to the body of the epistle, which set forth the major reason(s) for writing. If the writer had advice or exhortation to give, this came after the body. A closing farewell rounded out the document.87
Understanding these conventions enables the interpreter to recognize what is typical and atypical in the NT epistles. The opening prayers and thanksgivings, while obviously more theological than an average “secular” letter, in fact performed what all writers considered a common courtesy. On the other hand, when Galatians has no thanksgiving (had Paul written one, it would have come between 1:5 and 6), and when 1 Thessalonians has two ( 1 Thes 1:2-10; 2: 13-16), readers should sit up and take notice. Paul stresses the severity of the Galatians’ lapse into legalism by ignoring standard conventions and plunging directly into the heart of his complaint against them. Conversely, Paul has more words of sustained praise for the Thessalonians than for any other apostolic congregation. So it is not surprising that he should include an unconventional, added section of thanksgiving.
Greco-Roman letters may also be divided into various subgenres. Au epistle
! like 1 Thessalonians illustrates the “parenetic” or exhortational letter. All the praise
1
%R.1 J. Bauckham,Jude, 2Peter, WBC 50 (Waco: Word, 19831, 131-63.
I H7For a helpful discussion see C. J. Roetzel, 7&e Letters of Paul, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster,
i 1991). 59-71.
i
- I
3 5 6 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
that Paul lavishes on the Thessalonians fits the strategy of this kind of writing. He gives them some very pointed moral instruction in 4:1-12 (particularly on sexual and business ethics), and he corrects crucial points of theology in 4:13-5:ll (re- garding Christ’s second coming). But he tactfully prepares his readers for this ex- hortation by establishing his friendship with them and by emphasizing how well they are progressing and how little they really need any further instruction.88
A second subgenre is the diatribe: a conversational method of instruction in which hypothetical objections from opponents were considered and answered. Most of Rom l-11 fits reasonably well into this classification. So when Paul frequently discusses how someone tight reply to his presentation of the gospel (Rom 2:1,9;
4:l; 6:1,15; 7:7), one must not assume that such objectors were necessarily present in the Roman church. More likely, Paul was anticipating the type of response his letter might elicit and answering those charges before they ever arose.89
Still another subgenre of epistle is the letter of introduction or recommenda- tion, designed to introduce the bearer of the letter to its recipients and then re- questing a certain favor. Often the writer of the letter was a close friend or relative of the recipient(s), who was promising to return the favor in some way. Philemon is an excellent example of this genre. Paul asks Philemon to welcome home his run- away slave Onesimus without punishing him, promises to pay any damages Philemon incurred, and reminds Onesimus of the debts he owes Paul. The entire epistle is a masterpiece of tact and persuasion as Paul steers a delicate course between pleading and demanding. Since the letter of recommendation was a well-established genre of writing, Philemon could have been expected to comply with Paul’s requestsgo
Genre criticism of the epistles is so recent a discipline that many of its propos- als are still quite new; scholars have not yet had time to evaluate them in detail. But many of these proposals, while not as clear cut as the examples of 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philemon, seem to hold out significant promise for honing our hermeneutical approach. So 2 Corinthians is likely an apolofletic letter of self- commendation, a well-known Greco-Roman form of rhetorical self-defense. Al- though Paul recoils at the vacuous rhetoric of his opponents in Corinth, he, nevertheless, crafts a carefully structured and highly rhetorical response.91 Chapters lo-13 are particularly steeped in irony and a kind of legitimate boasting of which rhetoricians particularly approved.92 Recognizing Paul’s strategy prevents a mis- reading of 1 Cor 2:1-5. Paul does not reject all the standards of “secular” wisdom of his day; he merely rejects anything that intractably opposes the gospel of the cross of Christ. Through the Spirit’s power he happily employs effective rhetorical
Yf. A. J. Malherbe, Paul and the Tbessalonians: i%e Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Car?
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
@S. K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Remans (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981).
WD. E. Aune, i%e New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987)) 211-12; Stowers, Letter Writing, 155.
9*L. L. Belleville, “A Letter of Apologetic Self-Commendation: 2 Cor. 1%7:16,” NovT 31 (1989):
142-63.
92Cf. esp. C. Forbes, “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric,” NTS 32 (1986): l-30.
._“,^,, l”_l”~_ . ..,., “.. ,, l,,.^^.^“, ,,,“. “.-.l,l_ ,_., ..“. ..” ..- “__ ,*_““l ..,.. ,_-I .~_.(_I.. ,-I, II,. ~^(-- .*, .“I ,I_ I _...--, ~.- ). ,““I”. I ^. _I _; 1-1.. “_X_ -- -.“,- .-“.~-..“_.- __“,_;_-‘---._- ..,.-” ..~-,.--
Genres of the New Testament 357
devices to persuade his audiences of his views. Good Christian communication in any age should do the same.
Philippians has often been viewed as disjointed, even as a composite product of several epistles gathered haphazardly into one scroll. But more likely, this epistle actually illustrates the structure of the family fetter, combining, in sequence: an ad- dress and greeting (l:l-2), a prayer for the recipients (1:3-l l), reassurance about the sender (1:12-26), a request for reassurance about the recipients (1:27-2:l S), infor- mation about the movement of intermediaries (2:19-30), an exchange of greetings with third parties (4:21-22), and a closing wish for health (4:23). Paul then departs from convention and adds a polemic against false teachers (3:14:1) and various other exhortations and thank-yous (4:2-20). The Philippians have just sent him money, for which he expresses his gratitude, but they have also come under attack, which causes him distress. Because these two sections deviate from the norm, they would have stood out and received the most attention. Paul probably departed from the standard form of a family letter precisely to highlight these two special concerns.93
Another way of subdividing epistles considers the kinds of rhetoric they em- ploy. The ancient Greeks and Romans distinguished three major categories: judi- cial (seeking tc2 convince an audience of the rightness or wrongness of a past action), deliberative (trying to persuade or dissuade certain individuals concerning the ex- pediency of a future action), and epideictic (using praise or blame to urge people to affirm a point of view or set of values in the present). A full-blown rhetorical ad- dress would contain all of the following features, though often one or more sec- tions might be missing:
exordium
nawatio stated the cause and gained the audience’s attention and sympathy related the background and facts of the case
propo.ritio stated what was agreed upon and what was contested probatio contained the proofi based on the credibility of the speaker;
refutatio appealed to the hearers’ feelings and/or logical argument refuted opponents’ arguments
peroratio summarized argument and sought to arouse hearers’ emotions.94 Many of the NT epistles reasonably approximate this structure. As a basis for outlining NT epistles, it can help the student understand how each part of a letter is functioning. For example, 2 Thes 2:1-2 would seem to form the thesis or propositio(n) around which all of the letter is built-the day of the Lord is not as immediately at hand as some in the church have been led to think.95 Galatians 3: l- 4:31 gathers together the proofs (probatio) for Paul’s proposition concerning jus- tification by faith in 2: 15-21. These reveal the diversity of arguments an ancient
93Cf. further L. Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians,” JSNT37 (1989): 87-101.
%CJ. A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: IJni- versky of North Carolina Press, 19841, 24.
95F. W. Hughes, Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Tbessalonians, JSNTSup 30 (Sheffield: JSoT, 19891, 56-57.
358 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
writer or speaker might employ to try to persuade. They also suggest strategies that we may still use effectively today. These include arguments fi-om undeniable personal experience (the Galatians’ reception of the Spirit, 3: l-5 vs. their previous non-Christian lives, 4:8-11); from Scripture (Gen 15:6; Deut 27:26; Hab 2:4;
Lev 18:5; and Deut 21:23 in Gal 36-14); from common human practice (in mak- ing covenants, guarding prisoners, and granting inheritances, 3: 15-l 8,2 l-22; 4: l- 7); from Christian tradition (particularly in baptism, 3:26-3:29); from friendship (4:12-20); and from an analogy (with the establishment of the Abrahamic cov- enant, 4:2 l-3 1) .96
Determining the rhetoric of an epistle often proves more difficult when two or three kinds are mixed together. Almost all NT letters function delibera- tively because a primary purpose was to tell believers how to act or how not to act. Still, one may be able to distinguish an emphasis, say, between 2 and 3 John.97 Third John seems primarily epideictic-“the elder” praises Gaius for his Chris- tian lifestyle and hospitality. Although he encourages him to continue faithfully, Gaius does not need to be persuaded of the correctness of his behavior. But in 2 John, the elder employs primarily deliberative rhetoric, advising “the elect lady”
on the correct course of action in light of the heretics who have seceded from her community. We, too, do well to know our audiences-when to praise and when to persuade. Faithful Christians do not need more sermons that tell them why they should do what they already know is right; in an age of abundant moti- vation by guilt we could do with a little more praise! Conversely, in more evan- gelistic contexts, in an increasingly secularized and paganized world (or church), we dare not assume that the logic of basic Christian beliefs or morals is widely understood or accepted. We need to contend for it with carefully thought-out arguments.
Rhetorical analysis can also demonstrate the unity of epistles previously thought to be composites. We have already observed this with Philippians and 2 Cor l-7 above. A third example is Romans. Some scholars identify the long list of greetings in chapter 16 as a misplaced appendix, perhaps belonging instead at the end of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. More plausibly, Romans uses epideictic rhetoric and the subgenre of an ambassadorial letter.98 That is to say, Paul paves the way for an anticipated visit to Rome by commending his understanding of the gospel to the church there and by explaining the purposes of his travels. It is in his best interests to establish a good hearing for his message by referring to individuals in the Roman Church with whom he is acquainted. As with Priscilla and Aquila, this probably took place when they had met or worked together elsewhere in the empire.
%H. -D. Betz, Gulatiuns, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 19-22; we have modified some of his labels.
97Cf. D. F. Watson, “A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John according to Greco-Roman Convention,”
N7S 35 (1989): 104-30; with id., “A Rhetorical Analysis of 3 John: A Study in Epistolaty Rhetoric,” CHQ 51 (1989): 479-501.
“R. Jewett, “Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter,” Int 36 (1982): F-20.
Genres of the New Testament 359
Distinctives of Hebrews and the “General Epistles”
Hebrews and three of the general epistles-James, 1 John and Jude-vary from traditional letter genres: Hebrews does not begin like a letter, James does not end like one, and 1 John has neither a salutation nor a closing. Hebrews describes itself as “a word of encouragement (or exhortation)” (Heb 13:22). Since this phrase occurs elsewhere in the NT only in Acts 13:15 where it designates a sermon, He- brews may well have been designed as a written sermon or homily. Among other things, this means that the numerous warnings against apostasy (2:14; 3:74:11;
64-12; 10:19-39; 12:14-29) are most likely not hypothetical. The writer of He- brews seriously believed that some in his congregation were in danger of abandon- ing their profession of Christian faith, and he wanted to warn them against it.99
Perhaps the most significant recent study of the genre of a non-Pauline epistle is Peter Davids’ analysis of James as a complex chasmus (for this device, see above).
Three themes stand out: trials and temptations, wisdom and speech, and wealth and poverty. James 1 introduces each of these themes twice, while chaps. 2-5 present them in greater detail in inverse order. loa Even if this outline requires modification at points, it refutes two widely-held notions about the letter. First, James is not simply a collection of teachings loosely strung together, like the book of Proverbs or other ancient wisdom literature. Second, James’ main concern is not faith vs.
works, though that has been the primary preoccupation of commentators ever since Martin Luther. Though this concern is significant, James’ indictment of a faith that produces no works (2:18-26) is actually subordinate to the larger and more crucial topic: the appropriate use of one’s material resources (see 2:14-17). Opponents of
“lordship salvation” and promoters of “the American way of life” would do well to ponder at greater length the implications of 2:15-16 in the context of the rhetori- cal question of v. 14 (which anticipates the answer, no).lol
First John neither begins nor ends like a letter. Of several proposals that have been made, perhaps the best designates this document a deliberative homiZy.102 Like Hebrews, it resembles a sermon more than a letter. Like other forms of deliberative rhetoric, it was designed to persuade. In this case, John calls the Ephesian churches to side with him and embrace true Christian doctrine and practice over against the false teachers who promoted heresy and ungodliness, and who had begun to split the church (2:19). If John had any outline in mind as he wrote, it has defied the
990n the genre and exegesis of Hebrews, see esp. W. L. Lane, Hebrews, WBC 47A & B (Dallas:
Word, 1991).
‘Oop. H. Davids, IlheEpfstle ofJames, NIGTC (Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
“‘According to James, those who profess to be Christians but continue to ignore fellow believ- ers living in abject poverty around the world (to say nothing of the rest of the poor!), when they have the ability to share with them, prove thereby that their professions are vacuous. To James, such people are not saved and remain in danger of eternal damnation if they do not change their ways. On lord- ship salvation, cf. the brief but helpful study by J. F. MacArthur, Jr., “Faith according to the Apostle James,” JErS 33 (1990): 13-34. On James and material possessions see esp. E. Tamez, 7;be Scan&~ous
Message of James (New York: Crossroad, 1990).
“‘Aune, ne New Testament in Its Literay Environment, 218.