Since I'm studying the Pastoral Epistles, and since I'm interested in the Apostolic Fathers, and since Paul wrote 1 Timothy to Timothy while he was in Ephesus ... it makes sense to at least look at Ignatius to the Ephesians, right?

So, during lunch today, that's exactly what I did. I'm not going to comment in-depth on the material, just point to some interesting passages.

First, IgEph 9.1:

¹ But I have learned that certain persons passed through you from yonder, bringing evil doctrine; whom ye suffered not to sow seed in you, for ye stopped your ears, so that ye might not receive the seed sown by them; forasmuch as ye are stones of a temple, which were prepared beforehand for a building of God the Father, being hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross, and using for a rope the Holy Spirit; while your faith is your windlass, and love is the way that leadeth up to God.

The italics are mine. I find this interesting in light of 1Ti 1.3-11, where Paul instructs Timothy to deal with those in Ephesus who are teaching false doctrine. Apparently Timothy (and his successors) did the job if Ignatius' testimony has any merit. Considering the date of Ignatius' martyrdom to be anywhere from 98-117 AD (Holmes' range, though he quotes another who offers a range of 118-137 AD), and doing some backwards math ... the traditional date of the Pastorals (63-65 AD) makes sense. After all, if the Ephesians were in the shape that First Timothy leads us to believe (false teachers as prominent and needing to be dealt with), then that leaves some time (30-50 years) to completely turn the church around and establish them on a strong footing ... and establish a reputation as far away as Antioch (Ignatius' episcopate).

Of course, that is a stretch. But it is an interesting thought (to me) nonetheless. 

More on Ignatius to the Ephesians later.

I changed a few things with the Apostolic Fathers Lookup.

It still works exactly as it did before. However, instead of defaulting to English when no language (or an invalid language) is supplied, it now defaults to a two-column presentation, with English on the left and Greek on the right.

There are a few cases where this is problematic (e.g. MPoly 22.1-4, where the English has four verses but the Greek has three), but overall it should not be noticeable.

So, if you use the tool to display readings from the Apostolic Fathers, you shouldn't have to change a thing. If you'd like to display the two-column text, simply remove the “lang” attribute from your jump string. For instance, like this:

http://www.supakoo.com/rick/af.asp?af=MPoly+22.1-4

Enjoy!

I'm going to be playing around with the Apostolic Fathers Lookup tool, so if you use it, you may end up with some strange results. I'll post here again when things are back up ... along with any news on added features.

Thanks!

Thanks to the generosity of a Logos Bible Software user (thanks!) I now have a Gmail address. I'll use it for blog contact; the contact address on the email link in the column on the right has already been updated.

The address? textgeek@gmail.com. So let's test that Google spamfilter as well as the one gigabyte storage limit.

Yeah, I probably should've made it 'ricoblog' instead of 'textgeek', but it's too late now.

Cheers!

As many of my personal friends who read this blog know, I've been studying the Pastoral Epistles for awhile.

It is time for me to focus on some sort of output from my study. For now, it looks like it will take the shape of some sort of commentary; but we'll see if that persists.

To this end, I've been working on an introduction of sorts. This is more for me to think about what I'm actually going to do. I sincerely doubt that anything like this would end up in whatever it is that I end up writing.

But getting thoughts on paper is a helpful step in the process.

Feedback is a helpful step too. So if you'd like to take some time to peruse my little introduction [PDF file, approx. 150kb] and offer me some thoughts on what I'm thinking about, I'd appreciate it.

Also: Is there any interest in folks reviewing what I write as I write it? That is, as I finish rough drafts of pericopes, is there any interest out there in reviewing my work? Should I post them as I have rough drafts done? I only want to do this if there is genuine interest, so please let me know — either via email or via comments below.

Thanks!

I don't want to bring politics into this blog too often; but I just watched Zell Miller's speech at the Republican National Convention. Zell's a Democrat, so it's saying something that he's got a major speaking slot at the Republican convention. And boy-howdy did he take advantage of it.

If you didn't see the speech and you've got a decent internet connection, you've gotta see it. FoxNews has the videos available.

'Wow' is about the only way I can respond. Or I suppose Jonah Goldberg's response would suit me:

But man-o-man-o-shevitz. Kerry must have smashed a bottle of chablis against the wall after hearing that.

Honestly, whatever side you're on in this thing, the speech is worth watching. Not reading, but watching.

I thought I'd post a little more on the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The following is chapter 12, which picks up right where my previous post left off.

¹ These things then happened with so great speed, quicker than words could tell, the crowds forthwith collecting from the workshops and baths timber and faggots, and the Jews more especially assisting in this with zeal, as is their wont. (MPoly 12.1)

Unfortunately, some of the writings in these “proto-orthodox” documents have an anti-Jewish tinge. Times were touchy between Christians and Jews, and neither side can be proven to be innocent in the words flying back and forth. For other examples, see the Epistle to Diognetus chapters 3 & 4. (EpDiog 3, EpDiog 4).

² But when the pile was made ready, divesting himself of all his upper garments and loosing his girdle, he endeavored also to take off his shoes, though not in the habit of doing this before, because all the faithful at all times vied eagerly who should soonest touch his flesh. For he had been treated with all honor for his holy life even before his gray hairs came. (MPoly 12.2)

This is remarkable to me. The parishioners at Smyrna (Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna) so doted on the venerable old man that he didn't even remove his own sandals. But more important than the particulars of what happened is the general notion that Polycarp wasn't held prior to his execution, but he instead willingly removed his clothes and prepared himself to be burnt at the stake. Wow. 

³ Forthwith then the instruments that were prepared for the pile were placed about him; and as they were going likewise to nail him to the stake, he said; 'Leave me as I am; for He that hath granted me to endure the fire will grant me also to remain at the pile unmoved, even without the security which ye seek from the nails.' (MPoly 12.3)

Even more remarkable. As I understand it, folks that were burnt at the stake were nailed down so that they couldn't run out of the flames once rope that was holding them down had been consumed. Polycarp indicates that they shouldn't worry about such things, that it is his time to go, and that God will grant him the ability to stay put, in the flames. Yikes.

Now, I'm not saying that this account is historically accurate. I'm pretty sure there was a dude named Polycarp who was the bishop of Smyrna at this time, and that he was executed. Whether or not these actions and conversations are accurate recordings is another issue.

But what is so very interesting to me is that, historically accurate or not, the actions attributed to Polycarp in Martyrdom of Polycarp are obviously indicative of actions that would be expected of a holy and pious man persecuted for his faith at the time of his execution. He would be expected to stand firm, and not recant -- but he would also be expected to honor the governor (Ro 13, anyone?) while still remaining true to his faith. It is easy (and convienent) to forget, but honoring the governor may mean submitting to the penalty of the law when the law is irreconcilable with orthodox Christian doctrine. This is pretty much what Polycarp did; this is the example that (historically accurate or not) Martyrdom of Polycarp sets before us.

Again, you should read the whole account in Martyrdom of Polycarp. Only public domain editions are on the internet, so they don't read the easiest (they're all from between 1890-1920, I think). But you can find more information here if you'd like to follow up on the work.

I'm a fan of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. For those who don't know, this is an account of the capture, persecution, and killing of Polycarp. Polycarp (as a child) was, according to early sources, a disciple of the Apostle John.

He was arrested and then killed for sport in a stadium because he wouldn't “repent” for being a Christian. The account, particularly the conversations between Polycarp and the proconsul in the stadium, are the best part. Here are some excerpts, any emphasis provided is mine.

² When then he [Polycarp] was brought before him, the proconsul enquired whether he were the man. And on his confessing that he was, he tried to persuade him to a denial saying, 'Have respect to thine age,' and other things in accordance therewith, as it is their wont to say; 'Swear by the genius of Caesar; repent and say, Away with the atheists.' Then Polycarp with solemn countenance looked upon the whole multitude of lawless heathen that were in the stadium, and waved his hand to them; and groaning and looking up to heaven he said, 'Away with the atheists.' (MPoly 9.2).

I so enjoy the irony here. The proconsul instructs Polycarp to “repent” by saying, “Away with the atheists!” (for reference: Christians were seen as atheists because they denounced all gods but the one God). Polycarp, then, waves his hand around the stadium, indicating he's turning the indictment back upon them, and says, “Away with the atheists”. Can't you just see it? This old man, sure of his faith, doing this?

³ But when the magistrate pressed him hard and said, 'Swear the oath, and I will release thee; revile the Christ,' Polycarp said, 'Fourscore and six years have I been His servant, and He hath done me no wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King who saved me?' (MPoly 9.3)

Polycarp's understanding and response is encouraging to me. Now, I'm sure you're wondering, what does this have to do with 1Ti 1.1? Well, consider that Scripture:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

I've been wondering about the term “savior” in contexts like this in the Pastoral Epistles. The concept of worship of those in power as gods or semi-divine beings did happen, and most likely was happening in Ephesus while Timothy was there. Early citations in LSJ dating back to the third century BC confirm that the Greek word σωτήρ was used in reference to rulers, provincial or otherwise.

Hang with me, I'm going somewhere here.

Could Paul be referring to “God our Savior” with this in mind? The proconsul who persecuted Polycarp could legitimately be seen as a savior of sorts. He was the one with the power to save the life of the one in the arena being persecuted. The proconsul, with a single decision, could stop the persecution and set the prisoner free. He was, in a real sense, a savior.

But in 1Ti 1.1, is Paul pointing back to the real Savior, God, the one with power to save from eternal damnation, to encourage his readers to be properly grounded in God? To recognize the one whom Polycarp later (say, 150 AD) would not deny and, indeed, even testified to while in the arena? Is Polycarp modeling the basic truth of “God our Savior” in 1Ti 1.1 & Titus 1.3? Here's some more from Polycarp:

¹ But on his persisting again and saying, 'Swear by the genius of Caesar,' he answered, 'If thou supposest vainly that I will swear by the genius of Caesar, as thou sayest, and feignest that thou art ignorant who I am, hear thou plainly, I am a Christian. But if thou wouldest learn the doctrine of Christianity, assign a day and give me a hearing.' (MPoly 10.1)

Polycarp refuses to deny. He refuses to be “saved” by the proconsul, but Polycarp is willing to teach the proconsul the ways of the Christian. Hey, I suppose the chance was worth it. But the proconsul continues to be hardnosed:

² The proconsul said; 'Prevail upon the people.' But Polycarp said; 'As for thyself, I should have held thee worthy of discourse; for we have been taught to render, as is meet, to princes and authorities appointed by God such honor as does us no harm; but as for these, I do not hold them worthy, that I should defend myself before them.' (MPoly 10.2)

Heh. Polycarp doesn't want to waste his time with the masses who only want to see him bleed. He realizes his time is up. Next is MPoly 11.1-2:

¹ Whereupon the proconsul said; 'I have wild beasts here and I will throw thee to them, except thou repent' But he said, 'Call for them: for the repentance from better to worse is a change not permitted to us; but it is a noble thing to change from untowardness to righteousness'

² Then he said to him again, 'I will cause thee to be consumed by fire, if thou despisest the wild beasts, unless thou repent.' But Polycarp said; 'Thou threatenest that fire which burneth for a season and after a little while is quenched: for thou art ignorant of the fire of the future judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly. But why delayest thou? Come, do what thou wilt.' (MPoly 11.1-2)

Wow. Polycarp is sure of his status before God. He essentially tells the proconsul, “Bring it on!”

This is just a small part of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, but it reads quickly. The account of his death is sensational but fascinating. There are 22 chapters, all are about the size of the chapters above. Find it in a modern translation if you can.

But I'm curious as to what y'all think about the use of “Savior” in 1Ti 1.1, and whether Paul may, either directly or obliquely, be addressing a situation like this. That is, by reminding his readers that God is our Savior, could Paul also be reminding them that provincial governors, proconsuls, and the like — while they may claim to have some power to save temporally — have no power to save one from “the fire of the future judgment and eternal punishment”?