A Text centred rhetorical analysis of Paul's Letter to Titus

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The final word on this matter belongs to Collins, “By the end of the twentieth century New Testament scholarship was virtually unanimous in affirming that the Pastoral Letters were written some time after Paul’s death” (Collins 2002:4). Presently, this status of virtual unanimity is consistently assigned to almost every discussion of the authenticity issue. Thus, for example, J. Roloff (1988:376) insists that “today there should not even be a doubt that Paul did not write directly or indirectly the PE”, a view that is illustrative of the prevailing adamance on the issue. Miller (1997:4) considers pseudonymity to be “entrenched”, while Harding (1998:16) finds “any insistence on the Pauline authorship of the PE, problematical”. Such comments are indicative of the present state of the debate, which has effectively polarised academia. J. Jeremias was, however, not the only contender to challenge the virtual unanimity on the authenticity issue. Reaction from other quarters of the globe to German scholarship was equally rapid. In fact, from the early eighteen sixties till the early nineteen hundreds, an impressive list of conservative scholars, like C. J. Ellicott, being the earliest, J. H. Bernard, T. Zahn (1906) and J. D. James (1906) came to the fore (Guthrie, 1957:15; Johnson, 1996:4). From Great Britain J.B. Lightfoot (1893) articulated an influential defence of Pauline authorship in the English speaking world. Still, the twentieth century saw scholars increasingly oppose the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Letters. Lists of scholars representative of either position are accessible in several extant works and most good commentaries on the Pastorals (Guthrie, 1957:15; Lea and Griffin, 1992:23; Childs, 1984:378-379; Stott, 1997:21; Collins, 2002:3, 4; Hultgren, 1984:13, 14; Quinn, 1990:17, 18). Twentieth century scholarship is almost equally divided on the authorship issue, represented by careful scholarship on both sides of the debate. Lea and Griffin (1992:23) list the following twentieth century adherents to pseudonymity: P.N. Harrison, M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, F.D. Gealy, C.K. Barrett, N. Brox, A Strobel, J.H. Houlden, S.G. Wilson, A.T. Hanson and PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com 9
J. Quinn. Their list of scholars adhering to Pauline authorship include W. Lock, O. Roller, D. Guthrie, J.N.D. Kelly, J. Jeremias, C.F.D. Moule, C. Spicq, B. Reicke, W. Metzger and D.E. Hiebert. The debate continues to elicit support for both positions. Contemporary defenders of Pauline authorship include George W. Knight (1992), Phillip Towner (1994), Luke T. Johnson (1996), William D. Mounce (2000), J.D.G. Dunn (2000), Andreas J. Köstenberger (2003), and Ray van Neste (2003). Equally on the other side very recent proponents of non-Pauline authorship include Mark Harding (1998), Raymond F. Collins (2002) and I. Howard Marshall (2002). Thus, we see respected scholars on both sides of the debate approaching the matter of authorship as something not to be regarded lightly. The complexity of the debate has been succinctly summarised by Quinn (1990:17) as follows: “All scholars of the PE draw inferences from practically the same concrete data in and about the letters, analysing the linguistic, historico-sociological, and theological components of the correspondence. Yet, these data have provoked the most dramatically different hypotheses to explain the origin and purpose of the PE.” b) Summary of key dispute issues In view of the centrality of the authenticity debate, it is expedient to delineate in broad strokes the most salient elements of the debate. They include the following: Vocabulary and style: Comparative studies reveal that these letters collectively contain a high percentage of unique vocabulary and stylistic fluctuations that are uncharacteristic of accepted Pauline letters. Likewise, words that are present in the rest of the Pauline corpus are absent from the Pastorals, while linguistic affinities between the Pastorals and second century literature have been established (Barrett, 1963:6). PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com 10
Page 1 and 2: A TEXT-CENTRED RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
Page 3 and 4: DECLARATION I declare that the diss
Page 5 and 6: SECTION 2 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 2.1 R
Page 7 and 8: SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW
Page 9 and 10: The content of the authorship debat
Page 11: consistently identified as pioneer
Page 15 and 16: Uncharacteristic Pauline theology:
Page 17 and 18: etc. are not referring to actual pe
Page 19 and 20: History never lies” (Titus 1:2)?
Page 21 and 22: meaning as determined by historical
Page 23 and 24: other to explain what these critics
Page 25 and 26: 1.1.2.4 Conclusion The various theo
Page 27 and 28: Excursus: Cumulative-complimentary
Page 29 and 30: Lumping or clustering apparent oppo
Page 31 and 32: these letters on a more individual
Page 33 and 34: Furthermore, the name Jesus Christ
Page 35 and 36: C. 1. qeou` and swthvr depend on do
Page 37 and 38: accentuate the unmistakable role of
Page 39 and 40: order to prove issues of authorship
Page 41 and 42: Miller (1997:124) is particularly u
Page 43 and 44: Next, Van Neste goes on to show how
Page 45 and 46: There have been some recent excepti
Page 47 and 48: The first part of the analysis is e
Page 49 and 50: offer any translations in this rega
Page 51 and 52: novel. To the best of my knowledge,
Page 53 and 54: ather than as a supplement to the T
Page 55 and 56: Accordingly, the research hypothesi
Page 57 and 58: •Step 3: Where deemed necessary,
Page 59 and 60: The rhetorical situation correspond
Page 61 and 62: Titus' primary assignment is to app
Page 63 and 64:
Throughout the letter, Paul shares
Page 65 and 66:
equally negative conduct (1:16). In
Page 67 and 68:
2.2.1.1 Emphasising the legitimacy
Page 69 and 70:
strategically throughout this secti
Page 71 and 72:
This section is suffused with the r
Page 73 and 74:
and trustworthiness. This choice of
Page 75 and 76:
“By whose authority are you imple
Page 77 and 78:
“shared knowledge”. The qualiti
Page 79 and 80:
espectively within the same sentenc
Page 81 and 82:
dichotomy at the front end of this
Page 83 and 84:
church. Implicit contrasting is als
Page 85 and 86:
aijscrokerdhv", and these false tea
Page 87 and 88:
The second part of verse 13 contain
Page 89 and 90:
different groups. He relentlessly p
Page 91 and 92:
implicit contrasting. The negative
Page 93 and 94:
marker is the use of the plural of
Page 95 and 96:
instruction in this regard. “Heal
Page 97 and 98:
almost desirable. Thus, legitimate
Page 99 and 100:
The subject is the older women. Thi
Page 101 and 102:
negatively upon the oJ lovgo" tou`
Page 103 and 104:
2.2.5.6 The behaviour of slaves In
Page 105 and 106:
or originating from God (tou' … q
Page 107 and 108:
to God and this paves the way for t
Page 109 and 110:
This explains the use of inclusive
Page 111 and 112:
Furthermore, through the direct rep
Page 113 and 114:
what grace is instructing the belie
Page 115 and 116:
Paul demonstrates that he is himsel
Page 117 and 118:
The section closes with the apostle
Page 119 and 120:
Another technique is personificatio
Page 121 and 122:
the apostle adopts to persuade his
Page 123 and 124:
Most commentators treat ejxousivai
Page 125 and 126:
person. Interestingly, both instanc
Page 127 and 128:
2.2.8 Titus 3:3: Evoking disgust wi
Page 129 and 130:
purpose while Mounce (2000:446) bel
Page 131 and 132:
negative. Paranomasia and the metap
Page 133 and 134:
conformity to the divine example. I
Page 135 and 136:
as traditional, with verse 3 as an
Page 137 and 138:
aptism effected by the Holy Spirit
Page 139 and 140:
exclusively or that this constitute
Page 141 and 142:
through self-vilification in the op
Page 143 and 144:
crhstovth" and filanqrwpiva of God
Page 145 and 146:
ejpoihvsamen hJmei`" (works) ajlla;
Page 147 and 148:
these titles. The future appearance
Page 149 and 150:
The certainty and completeness of t
Page 151 and 152:
The next two words in v. 7 are exam
Page 153 and 154:
their salvation by God. The divine
Page 155 and 156:
discourse. In this regard, consider
Page 157 and 158:
two groups is accentuated and the d
Page 159 and 160:
Verse 9 opens with the adversative
Page 161 and 162:
awareness of the insidiousness of f
Page 163 and 164:
This is a very tight unit, carefull
Page 165 and 166:
turn, requires the presence of soun
Page 167 and 168:
closing greeting to the Cretans inv
Page 169 and 170:
SECTION 3 CONCLUSION In Section 1,
Page 171 and 172:
7: Titus 3:1-2: Persuading the Cret
Page 173 and 174:
apostles and lay leaders appointed
Page 175 and 176:
In unit 7 (3:1-2), the relationship
Page 177 and 178:
The second objective is to highligh
Page 179 and 180:
These four objectives may be summar
Page 181 and 182:
expected manner can look forward to
Page 183 and 184:
f. Arguments based on the use of vi
Page 185 and 186:
m. Example. For example, in 3:4-7 G
Page 187 and 188:
ehaviour expected of older men. In
Page 189 and 190:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Aageson, J. W. (1997).
Page 191 and 192:
Everts, J. M. (1993). Hope Dictiona
Page 193 and 194:
Lea, D. and H. P. Griffin (1992). 1
Page 195 and 196:
Sumney, J. L. (1996). “A Reading
Page 197 and 198:
ABSTRACT This study has been conduc
Page 199 and 200:
In Section 3 the results of the stu
Page 201 and 202:
amanuensishipotese en die allonieme
Page 203 and 204:
KEY TERMS 1. Pastoral Letters 2. Rh
show all

A Text centred rhetorical analysis of Paul's Letter to Titus

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?