You've read about it. You've waited five whole days for it. Now "Opposite Day" here.

Here's what we've got. This post will be updated over the next few days. If you opposite blog something, drop me a line (or a comment on this post) and I'll add your link here too.

• Rick Brannan (ricoblog, and your opposite-day host) introduces us to his friend Roberto, who writes about why Paul couldn't have written the Pastoral Epistles.
• Loren Rosson (The Busybody) introduces us to Leonard Ridge, who "will tell us why the social science models used by the Context Group are misguided, tools of hypertolerance, and intolerably racist".
• Jim West (Dr. Jim West) introduces us to an upcoming Czech scholar, Mij Tiew, who "will describe the necessity of adhering quite strictly to the exact text of the Hebrew Bible".
• Richard Anderson (dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos theolphilos) takes part in our fun little exercise as well.
• Danny Zacharias (deinde) introduces us to his friend, Hermann Acharias, who explains his "understanding of christian ethics and creation care".
• Rick Sumner (The Dilettante Exegete) introduces us to his friend Ryan Saunders, who offers "a criticism of [Rick's] approach to Jesus' eschatology".
• Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) introduces us to Carl Stephenson, who tells us about the trustworthiness of Morton Smith and does some mental gymnastics in other areas pertaining to Secret Mark.
• Chris Tilling (Chrisendom) takes a little different tack and introduces us to his most insightful friend, Cardinal Spin, who shares "his considered thoughts concerning that most sensitive of subjects: ‘Christian counselling’ "
• Chris Weimer (Thoughts on Antiquity) introduces us to Brooks Vermuli, who "holds that the Gospel of Matthew was written by a self-identifying Jew".

Thanks to Loren, Jim and Richard for their support and opposite-day contributions. I'll update the above as I see the links come available. And if you opposite blog this week, please let me know so I can keep the list complete!

Update: Danny Zacharias joins the fun; I've added his opposite-day link above.

Update II: Rick Sumner (whose blog I am unfamiliar with) joins in as well. Who's next?

Update III: Stephen C. Carlson jumps in the fray and has some fun with Opposite Day. Anyone else?

Update IV: Chris Tilling provides us with a Tillingesque peek at ... well, you've just got to read it. Any other takers?

Update V: Chris Weimer is part of the act as well. Check out what he's got going. Note I'll keep updating this post as I'm made aware of opposite blog entries over the next few days, so keep 'em comin'!

Thanks!

As my beloved fiancé Amy was otherwise occupied working on some issues for our upcoming wedding (!), I spent Sunday afternoon with my good friend Roberto. As usual, we discussed the Pastoral Epistles. Roberto just can't understand my view of the authorship of the Pastorals and begged me to give him a platform by which to espouse his views.

I've always had as soft spot for Roberto, and he caught me in a moment of weakness. I told him to go home and send his missive to me in an email, and I'd make sure to post it here. I regret that now; Roberto can sometimes lack tact and precision in his presentation. But, alas, I am a man of my word, so here is Roberto's diatribe ... er, uh, cogently and well-thought-out position to provide some "balance" on the issue of authorship and style of the Pastoral Epistles.

Rico, first thanks for giving me this platform to reach the two people who regularly read your blog-thingie, whatever it is. I'm sure they'll find this refreshing from your normal, long-winded, over-wordy drivel.

Let's get right into it, shall we? Your position on the authorship of the Pastorals (you attribute them to Paul) is flat-out wrong. And while you camp out in areas of stylometry and syntax because you find it interesting, you're missing the forest for the trees. Open your eyes and see the forest.

First, you're one to always stress the internal evidence. By this, let's be frank: You mean that the epistles themselves say that Paul was their author. And there you stop, saying it's good enough for you. But have you ever read the Pastorals in comparison with the undisputed Paulines? Let me sum it up in four words: It's the ecclesiology, stupid! Can't you get it through your thick skull that the ecclesiology "Paul" describes in the Pastorals is radically different than that alluded to in the undisputed Paulines? The Pastorals have it so much more formal ... so much more, how shall I put it ... Ignatian. Yeah, that's the word. I mean c'mon, Rico, you read the Fathers. Can't you see that the ecclesiology described in the Pastorals — even in Ephesus, the city where "Timothy" is supposed to be ministering in 1 & 2 Timothy — is much more reflective of that described by Ignatius (who wrote in the early 100's ... at least 35 years after Paul's death)?

Second, let's look at this in terms of other canonical books, particularly the Acts of the Apostles. Where, pray tell, do the Pastorals fit in the scope of the history presented in the Acts? There is absolutely no room for them. You (the one who says we need to stick to "internal evidence"?) need to jump through hoops to posit more missionary journeys and prison stays for Paul in order to make room for the composition of the Pastoral Epistles. How is that sticking to the text? You're making it up and you know it.

Third, you blather on about how unique vocabulary doesn't really show anything in regards to authorship. Again, this is a forest and trees issue. It is circumstantial evidence that only serves to reinforce the primary reasons for thinking the Pastorals are non-Pauline. Have you read the Pastorals? And the undisputed Paulines? I mean, at least Acts sounds like Luke when you read it. The Pastorals are all whacked. Some concepts are the same, but the underlying language has changed. Other ideas and concepts not mentioned in the undisputed Paulines are prominent in the Pastorals, and vice-versa. I mean, please, just look into the usage of the following words in the undisputed and deutero-Paulines and compare them with the Pastorals, and report back to me when you've seen the light:

• εὐαγγελίζω/εὐαγγέλιον: Over 100 times in Paul & Pastorals, but only five times in Pastorals. Wasn't "Paul" preaching the gospel?
• εὐχαριστέω: Paul "has thanks" for most everyone he writes to. But why does he write it differently in the Pastorals (e.g. 1Ti 1.12)? Hmmmm? Hint: The answer doesn't have to do with Luke as amanuensis ...
• ἐχουσία: So, 37 times in Paul & Pastorals, but only once in the Pastorals — and that in Titus? I mean, c'mon.
• ἐκκλησία: This is a vital concept in the Pastorals, since they're all about church order, right? So why is the word so relatively infrequent in the Pastorals? Four times in the Pastorals, but 99 times in the undisputed and deutero-Paulines. Really? If "Paul" were writing about the church, wouldn't "Paul" be using the word a little more frequently?
• μυστήριον: Paul uses this concept a lot too. But only four times in the Pastorals (36 times in "Paulines"), and those four are only in First Timothy?
• νόμος: Anyone who's read Romans knows Paul talks about the law. Frequently. Yet the Pastorals only have the word twice (and those within one verse of each other, 1Ti 1.8-9?) out of the 137 times they occur in Paul and the Pastorals? Riiiiiight.
• παρουσία: You mean, "Paul" doesn't mention the return of Christ; or at least not using the same terminology he has elsewhere (e.g. 1 Thess?) And this is supposed to be Paul?
• περιτομή: Only once in the Pastorals, and then only in reference to "Paul" himself? In a letter to, of all people, Timothy? Seems weird to me, especially when it happens frequently (30+ times) in the undisputed and deutero-Paulines. Are you sure this is the same Paul?

I'll spare you other instances, but know that I could go on. (Remember, you've got me reading that paper you're writing for the SBL this November — the one that if you're lucky they'll just laugh you out of the place?) Vocabulary is not the primary reason for thinking Paul didn't write the Pastorals, but it is secondary and somewhat confirming of other problems in dealing with the authorship of the Pastorals.

Finally, let's just look at the whole picture. The setting of the Pastorals, according to their own internal evidence, just doesn't fit what we know about Paul's journeys from Acts and from his other epistles. The content of the Pastorals doesn't jive with what we read from Paul in his other epistles either. The big tip-off is the issue of ecclesiology, it is radically different than anything else we know in Paul or the rest of the NT for that matter. But it fits incredibly well in the early second century (I'll even grant late first century, 80s or 90s ... well after Paul's death). Plug in vocabulary differences and other stylistic discrepancies (look, even your beloved Anthony Kenny's A Stylometric Study of the New Testament finds that Titus is a statistical outlier in the "Pauline" corpus) and if your eyes are open, and your presuppositions laid aside, you'll have to admit that there is a strong case Paul didn't write the Pastorals. Some Pauline ideas, that is to be sure. But the Paul of Romans and First Thessalonians? I don't think so. And if you look at it honestly, you won't think so either.

Rico, thanks again for posting this. I know you don't want to, but it's for your own good. Really. Now swallow the pill and get on with life, my friend. We'll do lunch soon and you can tell me how all your little blog-friends (both of 'em!) reacted to my wisdom.

Blessings, Roberto.

Well, there you go. Now you know what Roberto thinks. I was hoping he'd get into canon lists and text-critical issues, but c'est la vie. Maybe next time!

One of my favorite non-biblioblogs, Marginal Revolution, has an occasional feature called "Opposite Day". On Opposite Day, the primary bloggers Tyler and Alex don their alter egos "Tyrone" and "Axel" and play devil's advocate, arguing opposite what they normally would.

I'm wondering if this could be a productive thing in the realm of biblioblogdom. I've thought for awhile about "opposite blogging" on my PastoralEpistles.com blog, using it to think through some issues from a perspective opposite of my normal views.

Just think of the possibilities:

• A Mark Goodacre alter ego blogging about Q
• A Jim West alter ego blogging about the archaeological reliability of the Hebrew Bible
• [insert your own opposite here]

Anyway, just a thought. Perhaps in the near future biblioblogs.com could attempt to orchestrate a biblioblogdom-wide "Opposite Day" where folks opposite-blog on the issue of their choice?

Update: Loren Rosson (The Busybody) comments here and responds favorably on his own blog. Jim West (Dr. Jim West) offers support and commits to a post. Thanks, gents! With that response, I'll take the lead and declare "Opposite Day" to be Monday, July 10, 2006. That'll give us all a little time to think over the weekend and write something up for Monday's blog readin'.

If you'd like to participate, you certainly may. Just send me a link to your blog and "Opposite Day" entry and I'll list them in a post on Monday. I'd recommend the following for posts:

• Introduce your question/topic. It can be anything, really, as long as you're arguing opposite what you normally would. Arguing against known positions is always enlightening (for reader and writer) but don't feel bound to that.
• Introduce your alter ego. I think this is important, we'll need to make sure that no future google searches stumble upon these entries leading folks to think you yourself are actually supporting something completely opposite of what you normally would. I think Tyler Cowen's example of always introducing "my good friend Tyrone" as the author, then blockquoting as if he's copied the text in from an email, is a good model.
• Make your (alter ego's) point. You can be short or long, doesn't matter. You might be surprised how well your alter ego can argue.

So let me know via email [text geek at g mail dot com is the address] or comments here if you'll participate!