Loading...I continue now with my nutshell overviews of the Pastorals by summarizing 2 Timothy and Titus. I begin with a 50-word overview of the book Timothy.
2 Timothy, a more intimate letter (allegedly) by Paul to Timothy, recounts their past relationship, expresses hope that his disciple will come to visit him in prison in Rome, and urges him to fulfil his duties as leader of the church by quashing false teaching and maintaining his upright character.
Here is a longer sketch of the book from my New Testament Introduction.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
“ Now, however, “Paul” is in prison in Rome, and he is clearly expecting to be put to death soon after a second judicial proceeding,the first one evidently did not go well”
Would anyone be put in prison and possibly executed for being a troublemaker?
Yes. (I’m not sure what you’re asking: before trials and punishment potential criminals were put in “prisons”)
I was thinking that Paul generally got in trouble for being a troublemaker. He was considered a troublemaker for telling pagans to stop worshipping their family gods.
If this is correct, I was wondering if this was something the Romans executed people for.
It was more than just not worshiping family gods — it was no longer worshiping city and state gods and partipating in municipal sacrifices etc, which were seen as ways of securing the favor of the traditional gods. As it turns out, Socrates was executed on similar grounds.
In the passage on selecting Elders, the NRSVUE translates Titus 1: 6 as someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. I understand the desire for inclusivity, and note that this is one of the passages referenced by those who deny women leadership roles in the church but isn’t this translation rather disingenuous? The author clearly meant men only, right? Shouldn’t modern readers be required to confront the sexism of these ancient texts?
The Greek speaks of “a man with one wife” (where the word “man” means exclusively “adult male” and “wife” means “married woman”); yes, I agree it is an unfortunate translation, since the text itself is patriarchal (for good or ill).
Dear Bart,
I am working through the Gospel of Mark. I have watched your course on Mark several times, read the chapter on Mark from your undergraduate book, read Morna D. Hooker’s and skimmed Jack Kingsbury’s (both recommended by you in the bibliography of the undergraduate course). I am still puzzled at why Jesus would teach in parables “lest they turn and be forgiven”. The explanations I’ve read do not really make sense to me.
Would you mind telling me what your impression is, and maybe what other convincing explanations there are? I can’t figure out why Jesus would want to avoid anyone from repenting when the first thing he says in the Gospel to a multitude is as clear as “Repent and believe the good news”!
It is all part of the “messianic secret.” Jesus does not want people to understand him or his message. If you think about it in actual, historical terms, then you’re right — it makes no sense. But within the context of Mark’s Gospel (that is, on a literary level instead of the historical level of what really happened) it makes sense. Mark wants to show that no one understood who Jesus was, and one way to get to that view is to show (whether it historically makes sense or not) that Jesus kept his identity and teachings secret.
The big question, then, is “historical” not in the sense of what really happened in Jesus’ life but WHY Mark would portray him in a non-historical way. One solution to that is that Mark is trying to explain something about his OWN time and situation. E.g., maybe most people he knows reject Jesus. How could that be? Maybe it is because they just don’t understand him. And why wouldn’t they understand him? Because he was keeping it a secret. And why? Because it was a message only for insiders like those in Mark’s chuch.
That’s just one of the options (the one that I think makes the best sense).
I don’t think this is a way to start a movement: ““messianic secret.” Jesus does not want people to understand him or his message. ”
Followers will be fighting trying to prove their method is the RIGHT WAY. interestingly, buddhism, has many forms as in Protestant Christianity, & I don’t think any brand is squabbling to be dominant.
reminds me of “can’t we all just get along”
the fighting because christianity grew from & evolved from a greco roman doctrine. european dominance to be right