I was just poking around in Second Clement. Here is §3, in Lake's translation:

1. Seeing, then, that he has shewn such mercy towards us, first that we who are living do not sacrifice to the dead gods, and do not worship them, but through him know the father of truth, what is the true knowledge concerning him except that we should not deny him through whom we knew him?
2. And he himself also says, “Whosoever confessed me before men, I will confess him before my Father”;
3. this then is our reward, if we confess him through whom we were saved.
4. But how do we confess him? By doing what he says, and not disregarding his commandments, and honouring him not only with our lips, but “with all our heart and all our mind.”
5. And he says also in Isaiah, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (2Cl 3)

This is interesting to me because of the progression through references; the homilist here uses both OT and NT references to convey to his reader (hearer) the benefit of confessing Christ, who has saved us from certain death  (recall §1 of Second Clement), before men. If Christians confess Christ before others, then Christ will confess us before his Father.

And how do we confess him? The homilist tells us we confess him in our words and in our actions:  "By doing what he says, and not disregarding his commandments, and honouring him not only with our lips, but 'with all our heart and all our mind.' "

Then comes the quote from Isaiah (actually introduced as a quote from Isaiah ... that's nice). And then we go into §4, where the homilist urges Christians to not be like the people Isaiah was describing:

1. Let us, then, not merely call him Lord, for this will not save us.
2. For he says, “Not everyone that saith to me Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that doeth righteousness.”
3. So then, brethren, let us confess him in our deeds, by loving one another, by not committing adultery, nor speaking one against another, nor being jealous, but by being self-controlled, merciful, good; and we ought to sympathise with each other, and not to be lovers of money. By these deeds we confess him, and not by the opposite kind.
4. And we must not fear men rather than God.
5. For this reason, if you do these things, the Lord said, “If ye be gathered together with me in my bosom, and do not my commandments, I will cast you out, and will say to you, Depart from me, I know not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity.” (2Cl 4)

Again, the application is simple: If the people that confessed with lips but not heart are far from the Lord, then we be must people that confess with lips and with heart. Thus we confess with our deeds, by adhering to the commands set before us (note the homilist's list sounds like Pauline lists of vice/virtue).

In this way we show that we do not fear men over God; for our actions reflect God's leading and commands. In this way, the homilist bases his teaching on both OT and NT passages and makes his teaching practical to those who will hear him.

The quotations in §4 are, according to Lake, likely from the Gospel of the Egyptians, though no real evidence for that is available.

Here's a gem from Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians. The translation is that of Michael Holmes.

For everyone "who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist"; and whoever does not acknowledge the testimony of the cross "is of the devil"; and whoever twists the sayings of the Lord to suit his own sinful desires and claims that there is neither resurrection nor judgment—well, that person is the first-born of Satan. Therefore let us leave behind the worthless speculation of the crowd and their false teachings, and let us return to the word delivered to us from the beginning; let us be self-controlled with respect to prayer and persevere in fasting, earnestly asking the all-seeing God "to lead us not into temptation," because, as the Lord said, "the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak". (Poly 7.1-2)

What's interesting to me in this section is how Polycarp uses references from First John, First Peter and Matthew to provide basis of his condemnation of those who teach and subscribe to improper doctrine. This is interesting in light of Hill's thesis that Polycarp might be Irenaeus' anonymous presbyter, doing the work of heresiologist and perhaps even providing Irenaeus with the foundation to do the work he later did against heresy.

I was just reading through Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. The first few chapters read almost like a creed. Here's chapter 1 in Kirsopp Lake's translation:

¹ I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you; for I have perceived that ye are established in faith immovable, being as it were nailed on the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, in flesh and in spirit, and firmly grounded in love in the blood of Christ, fully persuaded as touching our Lord that He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John that "all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him," ² truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we—that is, of His most blessed passion); that "he might set up an ensign" unto all the ages through His resurrection, for His saints and faithful people, whether among Jews or among Gentiles, in one body of His Church. (ISm 1)

Be sure to check out ISm 2 and ISm 3 as well. Remember, this was likely written in the very early 100's (probably before 115).

Loren Rosson's blog The Busybody has its one-year blog-iversary today.

Last week, Loren posted a retrospective. Be sure to check it out and read a few of the posts. My favorite posts of his to date had to do with his reading through C.S. Lewis' Perelandra.

So visit The Busybody, and check out some of the posts he highlights. And add him to your blogroll, feed reader or whatever if you haven't already done so.

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!

 ... in which "my good friend Roberto" will explain the major points (or at least some of the major points) of where he differs with my take on the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.

Roberto can be a little blunt, so I thought I should warn you of what's coming.

Update: Roberto just emailed what he wants me to post. I'll have it up on Monday. He makes his point, that's for sure. Hope y'all enjoy it.

[Reminder: Opposite Day is tomorrow, July 10, 2006. Join us and have some fun.]

Today was Logos Chili Day, but unfortunately I caught a bit of the flu or something, so I took off just before the festivities started.

But I did bring in my chili, which I made on the morning of July 4. And it turns out I came in second place! Now if I'd only been there to vote for my own chili ... maybe Eli wouldn't have won. But I'm sure his chili (called "Chilisaurus Rex") was yummy.

For Logos cook-offs, each entrant makes a sign. Mine is below, followed by the recipe.

Here's the recipe I based the Pork chile Verde on: http://pork.allrecipes.com/az/ChilVrdII.asp.

I did the following:

Ingredients:

• 2.5 lbs pork ribs, country style, no bones.
• 2 28oz cans Tomatillos
• 11 Jalapeno peppers (note: control heat by amount of Jalapenos)
• 1 bunch cilantro
• 1 massive walla walla sweet onion
• 3 tbsp garlic (or however much you want)
• Spices: Salt, Chili Powder, Red Pepper, "mexican seasoning", Ground Mexican oregano. Don't be bashful with these.

Process:

1. Cube ribs. Trim off major fat chunks but be sure to leave some fat there.
2. Pulverize Tomatillos and Cilantro in food processor (or blender, or whatever).
3. Pulverize Jalapenos (including seeds!) similarly.
4. Chop Onion (I used a food processor for this too).
5. Brown cubed pork in Dutch Oven. Do this with the spices (don't be shy!). I browned the pork in corn oil.
6. When brown, remove pork. Reserve 2 tbsp drippin's in pot, pour balance of drippin's in container with pork. Don't lose that juice, that's flavor!
7. Saute chopped onion & garlic in Dutch oven (in reserved drippin's).
8. Add pulverized jalapenos after a few minutes
9. Add Tomatillo/cilantro mixture after a few minutes
10. Add the cubed/browned pork after a few more minutes
11. Simmer for half an hour
12. Remove from heat, let sit in refrigerator for 3-4 days. Like Eli, I cooked on the morning of July 4 and let it sit in the fridge until I brought it in.
13. Heat in crock pot on high for 2.5 hours.
14. Turn heat down to low. It's ready to go!

Of course, you could probably just eat it at step 12; though I'd probably simmer 45 minutes to an hour if I was eating it the same day.

Enjoy!