" H U M A N SPEECH" IN PAUL AND THE PAULINES: THE INVESTIGATION AND MEANING OF (1 TIM. 3:1) by J.

LIONEL NORTH
Hull, England

Students of the Pastoral Epistles are, of course, familiar with the five so-called Faithful Sayings which are distributed through these thirteen chapters, and with their introductory or concluding for mula (1 T i m . 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 T i m . 2:11; Titus 3:8).* Though the text of the last three examples of the formula is utterly secure, this is not the case at 1 T i m . 1:15 and particularly at 1 T i m . 3:1. T h e evidence for the variations is chiefly Latin. I J e r o m e is the first scholar to discuss the variant humanus, for fidelis, referring probably to 1:15 rather than 3:1, where the same variant occurs. Writing to Marcella in 384 (ep 27), J e r o m e attributes the reading humanus (along with two others) to nameless opponents whom he testily dismisses as inferior men: quidam homuncuh (could this be a play on their preference for humanus?), and even as inferior horses: astnus, nostri bpedes aselli and, bringing the series of insults to a rhetorical climax with a phrase from Plautus Aululana 495, Gallici cantem. H . J . Vogels argued that Jerome had Ambrosiaster in mind, whose Pauline text and/or commentary does contain all the three renderings that Jerome repudiated with such scorn (the others are at R o m . 12:11 and 1 T i m . 5:19).* But in fact
* A version of this article was read as a lecture in M a y 1993 to the Institut fur neutestamenthche Textforschung, M u n s t e r i W I am very grateful to Professor Barbara Aland and her colleagues for their generous welcome and criticism 1 Ambrosiaster und Hieronymus, RBen 66, 1956, 14-19 Earlier discussions of this letter and its reports of the three sets of textual variation include M -J Lagrange, La Vulgate latine de l'ptre aux Galates et le texte grec, RB 14, 1917, 424-450 445ff , who suggested that J e r o m e himself fabricated humanus*, J Chapm a n , St J e r o m e and the Vulgate New Testament l,JTkS 24, 1923, 33-51 33ff , cf also D S Wiesen, St Jerome as a Satirist (Cornell U P 1964), 20Iff , and, very briefly, J Moffatt Letters to W o m e n on the Christian Faith J e r o m e to Marcella, T 4 5 , 1933, 117-123 118f

E J

Brill, Leiden, 1995

Novum Testamentum X X X V I I , 1

' 'HUMAN SPEECH* ' IN PAUL AND THE PAULINES

51

Ambrosiaster is only repeating Old Latin renderings. A full state ment of the evidence for humanus at these two places is as follows: 2 1:15 b m r vgR AMst AU PS-AU FAC? MSS ap H I PS-HYG J U L - E M A R - M PS-PEL 1. PS-VIG; 3:1 D * () b d g m AMst PS-AU FAC? PS-HI SED-S. 3 At the beginning of the modern era in the study of the New Testament text stands Erasmus. Already in his 1516 edition he had noticed Ambrosiaster's reading at 1 Tim. 3:1, but it was not until the 1519 edition that he ventured to add an explanation of it. Ambrosiaster had read instead of . Erasmus first
These two reports are fuller than Nestle-Aland and even U B S For Old 27 Latin M S S I use the lower case sigla adopted by Nestle-Aland (716f ), and for the Latin fathers the sigla developed at Beuron For full references and details I refer to the Beuron edition of the Pastoral Epistles prepared by J Frede in VL 25 (Freiburg im Br 1978-1983) r is not extant for 1 T i m 3 1 T h e reading of v g R (homano, sic) is found twice and is reported by H Q u e n t i n , Manuscrits dmembrs, RBen 28, 1911, 257-269 262, 266 (cp 260, n 2'), and by A Dold, Die im Codex Vat Reg lat 9 Vorgeheflete Liste pauhnischer Lesungen fur die Messfeier (Beuron 1944), = T A B 35, 12, 24 A U is familiar with both fidelis sermo and humanus sermo, he preached three sermons on both forms of the text in 412-414 It is not clear whether FAC is referring to 1 15 or 3 1 D ' s original reading is changed by two correctors to g has a double rendering humanus (aut) fidelis sermo, written over only at 3 1 (contra U B S 1 3 which adduced it for 1 15 as well) In his three articles on Die Doppelubersetzungen im lateinischen Texte des cod Boernerianus der Paulinischen Briefe, in ZWTh 25, 1882, 488-509, 26, 1883, 73-99, 309-344, Ronsch classified all these double renderings in g and of course noted 1 T i m 3 1 (26, 1883, 86), but why did he include it in the category Verschiedene Bedeutungen des griechischen Wortes (84) rather than in Griechische Textvarianten (87) ? Surely he evaluated the reading of D * more highly than the sort of suggestions proposed by Petavius and Mill(s) (see below), e that it was a synonym or marginal gloss Cf Tmnefeld (n 3), 30 3 C a n we attempt to date the source of these Latin quotations-* F H Tmnefeld, Untersuchungen zur altlateinischen berlieferung des I Timotheus brief es Der lateinische Paulustext in den Handschriften D E F G und in den Kommentaren des Ambrosiaster und des Pelagius (Wiesbaden 1963), = K P S 26, refers to 1 15 and 3 1 at 30, 5 1 , 99, llOf , and, most importantly for our purpose, at 56f Here, in a section entitled Der rekonstruierte Text ( = the archetype of d(ef)g, cf 5), he reads humanus at 3 1 but not at 1 15 But Tmnefeld nowhere conjectures a date for z, however, its presence in quotations from 1 T i m in the writings of Lucifer of Cagliari (12, 62) takes back to the middle of the fourth century Unfortunately, neither Lucifer nor a frequent source, Cyprian, quotes 1 15 or 3 1 Tmnefeld's 1963 monograph could not take account of Frede's 1964 and 1973-74 studies of the M o n z a and Budapest M S S (recorded in text as m b , cf A G L B 4, 7-8), both of which read humanus at both places Frede confirms the midfourth century date for the archetype, cf A G L B 4 94, 7 78 VL 25 reveals that no Latin father before J e r o m e shows any knowledge of fidelis There can be no doubt that humanus is attested earlier than fidelis m both continuous texts and in quotations For speculation about the O L of 1 T i m , see n 26
2 27 4

52

J . LIONEL NORTH

noticed the reading humanus at 1:15 in the third edition of 1522 but this time his source was the Greek MSS that Erasmus assumed J e r o m e (better, his asinine opponents) was using; for it he offered the same explanation as at 3:1. But how could Erasmus have thought that Ambrosiaster and some Greek MSS moved from to ? H a d Erasmus meant to say , a synonym for and much more akin to ?4 Erasmus could work directly only with Latin materials. But by c. 1580 codex Claromontanus (D), the famous Graeco-Latin bil ingual version of the Pauline letters, had somehow fallen into the hands of Theodore Beza in Geneva. He made only a slight use of it in editions of his Greek New Testament from 1582 onwards, and never reported its reading of at 1 Tim. 3:1. 5 By 1594 at the latest, D had come into the possession of Claude Dupuy, the distinguished Parisian jurist, scholar and bookcollector. O n his death in 1594 6 it passed to his sons Pierre and Jacques, the famous
O n the close affinity between and , see C Spicq, Notes de lexicographie neo-testamentaire 2 (Gottingen 1978), = O B O 22/2, 924f , 972f and notes, F Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Cambridge 1899), on Acts 28 2 and especially Titus 3 4 Other routes between , and are very tentatively suggested on pp 59-60 Erasmus also noted Ambrosiaster's reading in his note on Titus 1 9, from the first edition of 1516 onwards, without ever offering an explanation 5 T h r o u g h Beza, D has even had an influence on the English Authorized Ver sion At R o m 5 17, instead of , Beza has introduced into his last three folio editions, quite explicitly from D, From Beza it passed into the margin of the editto princeps of the AV (1611) " b y one offence" 6 D u p u y died on the first of December 1594 and m an inventory of his books mention is made o Pauli Epistolae, grec-latin, petit fol, rei en maroquin de velin dor Following Leopold Dehsle, Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothque Impriale 1 ( P a n s 1868), 262, H O m o n t identified this as D , cf Inventaire des Manuscrits de Claude D u p u y (1595), Bibliothque de l'cole des Chartes 76, 1915, 526-531 528 and n H J de J o n g e appears to be unaware of O m o n t ' s evidence, it clinches his case, against the handbooks, that D was already in the possession of Claude D u p u y at least 11 years before Beza's death (1605), cf Eine Konjektur Joseph Scaligere zu Philipper II 30, 17, 1975, 297-302 300f Tischendorf also was inclined to believe that D was in D u p u y ' s hands before Beza's death, cf his edition of D (Leipzig 1852), xxvin I realise that Corbie is less than 50 miles from Cler mont, where Beza claimed that D was found, but, if Suzanne Solvente thought that D u p u y obtained from Corbie, perhaps she has confused D with E, another Graeco-Latin bilingual of the Pauline epistles, that certainly was at Corbie at that time, cf Les Manuscrits des D u p u y la Bibliothque Nationale, Bibliothque de l'Ecole des Chartes 88, 1927, 177-250 192f (It is quite a different matter that D may have been copied in or near Corbie, cf Karl der Grosse [ed W Braunfels] 2 [Dusseldorf 3 1967], Fischer, Bibeltext und Bibelreform unter Karl dem Grossen, 156-216 188 ) T h o u g h D u p u y must have obtained D from Beza, it
4

" H U M A N S P E E C H " IN PAUL AND THE PAULINES

53

fratres Puteani, who made the readings of D available to several scholars resident in Paris. This is how Isaac Casaubon, who had settled there in 1600, was able to write in May and September 1601 to Scaliger, confirming from D the latter's conjecture at Phil. 2:30. 7 A generation later in 1633, the Oratorian J e a n Morin reported the M S ' s reading at 1 T i m . 3.1, without comment and the first to do so. 8 Thereafter it became a regular feature in the apparatus critici of seventeenth century Greek Testaments. Although Claude Saumaise (Salmasius) migrated from Paris to Leiden in 1632 and so, presumably, his acquaintance with D preceded both 1632 and Morin's book, he did not publish his com ment on 1 T i m . 3:1 until 1640 In his Dissertatio de Foenore Trapezitico, published that year in Leiden, 41 If , Salmasius argued that an original was altered to when ceased to mean financial administrator and began to imply the dignity of M y Lord Bishop, now was too derogatory. 9 Three years later in 1643, Denis Petau (Petavius), Salmasius's old Jesuit sparring partner, resisted this minimising view of , choosing to see in only a synonym for : Quod utrumque sensu non absimili intelligendum est Ut enim incredibile videtur, quod humanum modum et captum superai, sic e contrario credibile est, quod humano more usuque continetur But Petavius did not explain how or why got into the text. 1 0 In 1646 Grotius (in loc.) surmised that there had been a confu sion of similar abbreviations for and , viz and

remains a mystery as to how or why Beza came to give this M S to him Did he donate D P to the Catholic D u p u y to match his gift of D e a to the Protestant University of Cambridge in 1581 ? 7 I wonder if Scahger had read it in D years earlierhe had taught philosophy in the Academy m Geneva from August 1572 until September 1574then forgot ten its source and in 1600when he was now 60 years oldpublished it as his own, no doubt sincerely I am very grateful to Prof H J de J o n g e for helping me to sharpen u p this suggestion 8 J M o n n u s , Exercitationes Bibhcae ( P a n s 1633), pars prior, 1, 2, 4, 59 in the 1660 edition 9 Salmasius appears to have made considerable use of the rediscovery of D H e had already drawn on its readings earlier in the Dissertatio, 129, 138, 145, 154, 344, just as he had the previous year m De Modo hJsurarum, 198 (this reference from de J o n g e [n 6 301, n 13]) 10 Ecclesiastica Hierarchia ( P a n s 1643), 3, 8, 10-14, 200 I have modernized the punctuation and orthography

CONTENTS JAMES E. MILLER, T h e Practices of Romans 1:26: Homo sexual or Heterosexual? T. C . SKEAT, Did Paul Write to b i s h o p s and Deacons' at Philippi? A Note on Philippians 1:1
DAVID ALAN BLACK, T h e Discourse Structure of Philippians:

1 12 16

J.

A Study in Textlinguistics LIONEL NORTH, " H u m a n Speech" in Paul and the Paulines: the Investigation and Meaning of (1 T i m . 3:1)

50 68 76

J O H N CHRISTOPHER THOMAS, T h e O r d e r of the Composition

of the Johannine Epistles M. J . EDWARDS, T h e Epistle to Rheginus: Valentinianism in the Fourth Century
SHORT N O T E

MICHAEL BARKER, T h e Slavonic Version in U B S 4

BOOK REVIEWS

92

G. N . STANTON, A Gospel for a New People; Studies in Matthew

( H . BENEDICT GREEN CR) 95

J . K. ELLIOTT (ed.), C. H . TURNER, et alii, The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark ( J . HEIMERDINGER) 97 D . S . N E W , Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two Document Hypothesis ( J . K. ELLIOTT) 99 K. ALAND, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, 3 Die Apostelgeschichte ( J . K. ELLIOTT) .. 101 Biblia Patristica. Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la lit

trature patristique, 5 (J. K.

ELLIOTT)

104

ISSN 0048-1009

CONTENTS JAMES E. MILLER, T h e Practices of Romans 1:26: Homo sexual or Heterosexual? T. C . SKEAT, Did Paul Write to 'Bishops and Deacons' at Philippi? A Note on Philippians 1:1
DAVID ALAN BLACK, T h e Discourse Structure of Philippians:

1 12 16

J.

A Study in Textlinguistics LIONEL NORTH, ' ' H u m a n Speech'' in Paul and the Paulines: the Investigation and Meaning of (1 T i m . 3:1)

50 68 76

J O H N CHRISTOPHER THOMAS, T h e O r d e r of the Composition

of the Johannine Epistles M. J . EDWARDS, T h e Epistle to Rheginus: Valentinianism in the Fourth Century
SHORT N O T E

MICHAEL BAKKER, T h e Slavonic Version in U B S 4

BOOK REVIEWS

92

G. N . STANTON, A Gospel for a New People; Studies in Matthew

( H . BENEDICT GREEN CR) 95

J . K. ELLIOTT (ed.), C. . TURNER, et alii, The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark ( J . HEIMERDINGER) 97 D . S . N E W , Old Testament (Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two Document Hypothesis ( J . K. ELLIOTT) 99 K. ALAND, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, 3 Die Apostelgeschichte ( J . K. ELLIOTT) .. 101 Biblia Patristica. Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la lit

trature patristique, 5 (J. K.

ELLIOTT)

104

ISSN 0048-1009

56

J . LIONEL NORTH

tant of the five Faithful Sayings and most deserving of attention. It was this that required him to deal with . He asks: " W a s bedeutet .? Vergeblich suchen wir in den Kommentaren nach gengender Erklrung'', and, if we may gather his own answer from his seven rather disjointed paragraphs, he appears to reply: suggests a h u m a n folly (77) or human wisdom (79) that is non-mystical (78) and fleshly (79) (my italics). It was introduced by an ascetic " R e d a k t o r " who disliked the idea that wives' achieve ment of salvation through bearing children was orthodox doctrine and who regarded this doctrine as erroneous and unspiritual. Mayer's ideas deserve to be more widely known, even if finally unacceptable. 1 7 In one of the last pieces that he wrote, H . B . Swete, assuming the correctness of in both places, asked: " D i d the O.L. translator read I l I C T O C at the beginning of a line as IIINOC, and take it for the end of , his mind running perhaps on humanum dico (Rom. vi 1 9 ) ? " . 1 8 This seems very unlikely, and to suppose it happened twice, at 1:15 as well, is to strain credulity. In 1924 Walter Lock published his commentary on the Pastorals and, with considerable wavering and not without contradiction, thought "possibly r i g h t " at 1:15, translating it " t r u e to human n e e d s " , and thought it " m o r e appropriate" at 3:1, if it refers to the following verses. 1 9 In 1948 B.S. Easton also argued for the originality of . 20 The New English Bible, New Testament ( = NEB) appeared in 1961. It reads " T h e r e is a popular saying". This is very close to Moffatt's second rendering fifty years earlier, and to Easton's, and open to the same question. Three years later, R . V . G . Tasker published the NEB translators' reasons for their decision: they add nothing to the debate. Perhaps there was nothing to add. I shall return to the NEB in a moment. O n e of the NEB translators was C . F . D . Moule and in the meantime, in an excursus to his The Birth of the New Testament (London 1962), he had defended , not only at 3:1 but also, apparently, like Lock, at 1:15.

Mayer, ber die Pastoralbnefe (I II Tim Tit) (Gottingen 1913), = F R L A N T 20, 76-79 In his study of the question, W h a t does it mean to be 'Saved by Childbirth' (1 Timothy 2, 1 5 ) ? , J S N T 4 9 , 1993, 87-102, S E Porter does not appear to have noticed that 3 1a may be part of his text 18 Swete, T h e Faithful Sayings, JThS 18, 1916-1917, 1-7 1 19 W Lock (Edinburgh 1924), xxxvi, 33ff 20 B S Easton (London 1948), 129f , 133

17

"HUMAN SPEECH" IN PAUL AND THE PAULINES

57

H e described the postulated altering of to as a ''desperate expedient", "very violent and a r b i t r a r y " . 2 1 Two doctoral dissertations take us the next step, both published in 1968. In his textcritical study of the Greek text of the Pastorals, J . K . Elliott defended at both places. 2 2 But G.W. Knight's monograph on The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters adopts the opposite view. H e argues for the originality of , but hardly convincingly. H e shows no knowledge of Moule's excursus, though he lists the book in his bibliography (158) and refers to Moule's immediately preceding pages (150, . 19). 2 3 Unfortunately Bent Noack's article on the Faithful Sayings appeared too soon after these to be able to take account of them. His assessment of Elliott would have been especially interesting, since he concludes that is original at both places (18f.). 2 4 In his A Textual Com mentary on the Greek New Testament (London etc. 1971), B.M. Met zger briefly reviewed five proposals which favour , four of which seek to explain the emergence of from it on clerical/transcriptional grounds. Unaccountably he does not notice any of the attempts to defend . Most recently, I see that the R E B (1989) has revised NEB's " T h e r e is a popular saying" with " H e r e is a saying you may t r u s t " . I wonder whether this change was prompted by A.E. Harvey's puzzlement about NEB's rendering " l e a d e r s h i p " for at 3:2. Apparently, though his comment is not entirely clear, his concern was not about the choice of text, . 25
21 C F D Moule (London 1962), 222, = 2 1966 See n 23 On the other hand, one reviewer of NEB said that its reliance on D at 3 1 should be treated "with cau tion", cf M Black, Modern English Versions of the Scriptures, in The New Testa ment in historical and contemporary Perspective (Oxford 1965), edd H Anderson and W Barclay, 83-98 94 Here he seems to have confused D P with D e a 22 J Elliott, The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (Salt Lake City 1968), = Studies and Documents 36, 27f , 45, 229, 238, 242 23 G W Knight (Kampen 1968), 31f , 50ff , cf his commentary on the Pastorals (Grand Rapids etc 1992), 153 In the material added to his excursus in the third edition of his 1962 book (n 21) (London 1981), 283, Moule comments on Knight's monograph and disposes of the argument, so often found, that arose because it was hardly to desire 24 Noack, Pastoralbrevenes "trovaerdige tale", Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 32, 1969, 1-22 18f I am very grateful to Prof Noack for sending me an offprint of his otherwise unobtainable article and to Mrs Skov-Jacobsen for assistance with the Danish 25 A E Harvey, The New English Bible, Companion to the New Testament (Oxford etc 1970), 666f

58

J . LIONEL NORTH

II All in all, Salmasius, Zahn, Moule and even Nestle have struck some shrewd blows that Petavius, Knight, Mayer and Metzger have not parried or even considered. But several issues remain unresolved. The main problem is that the arguments on either side are so finely balanced. In favour of is its very wide attesta tion. Against is its very narrow base ( D * O L ) . O n the other hand, /humanus is as early as the earliest witness for (), and if we grant that Ambrosiaster reproduces the original Old Latin reading, it could well go further back, into the second century. 2 6 Thus far, 1-1, distribution v. antiquity. But the third question, Which is the harder reading? Which better helps to explain the other? is much more difficult. In favour of being the harder reading is the apparent lack of theological weight and of congruence of either of its two referents with the other Faithful Say ings. Whether refers to 2:15 or 3:1b, it would be difficult, though certainly not impossible, to argue that either Advice on how to have a successful pregnancy or Volo episcopari is a Faithful Saying and on a par with e.g. 2 Tim. 2:1 Iff. Being less appropriate makes it the harder reading and, per contra, the congruence of with either 2:15 or 3:1b is obvious: to wish to be in control is all too h u m a n , and the advice to Christian women to stay at home and have children is just what men could be expected to say! In favour of as the harder reading is its very hardness. Mayer's question remains unanswered: " W a s bedeuter .?" Those of its supporters and opponents who attempt to answer it, do so dif ferently. Ambrosiaster making no effort to define humanus, we recall Zahn: " e i n Sprichwort von allgemeinerer Bedeutung", "allge meinmenschlich" (Khl, Wohlenberg), " p o p u l a r " (Moffatt, Easton, NEB), " t r u e to human needs" (Lock at 1:15), " c o m m o n "
26 If we may assume that a Latin document lies behind Eusebius's Greek report of the letter from the churches of Lyons and Vienne in Gaul (HE 5 1), and if we may recognize an allusion to 1 T i m 6 13 ( ... ) at 30 ( ... ), the letter's greater closeness to the Vulgate rendering testimonium reddidit (with its "flavour of a n t i q u i t y " [Robinson]) may enable us to conclude that 1 T i m was current in Latin in at least one part of the Empire just after the middle of the second century, cf J A Robinson, The Passion of S Perpetua (Cambridge 1891), = T a S 1/2, vnf , 97-100, for this and other examples, and, now, VL 25, 621 O n the Old Latin renderings of in the J o h a n n i n e let ters, cf W Thiele, Wortschatzuntersuchungen zu den lateinischen Texten der Johannesbriefe (Freiburg im Br 1958), = A G L B 2, 19, 25f , 37, 39 nn 58 & 60, 41f

"HUMAN SPEECH" IN PAUL AND THE PAULINES

59

(Lock at 3:1, Moule, Metzger), " h u m a n " (Whiston, J . N . D . Kelly), " i n general u s e " ( C . K . Barrett), "commonly accepted" (J.L. Houlden), " i t is a saying of m e n " or " t h e saying is current among m e n " ( R . F . Horton). Further, how can we account for its origin, if it is not original? Though a champion of might defend the appropriateness of the correction along the lines I have suggested, now I want to enquire, Can we imagine a correction that turns out to be not an amelioration or simple modification but a contradiction? says we can trust this declaration; implies we cannot: it is the sort of thing men will say, but not God. Evidence elsewhere (e.g. Matt. 21:31) obliges us to allow the possibility of contradictory variants, but only under duress: hard cases make bad law. In addition, the temptation to harmonize to the other o must have been overwhelming, especially when it was felt that the in question referred to 3:1b and that its centre of gravity was less the highly ambiguous verbs / and more the and the 'job description' that follows. Both positions can be and have been argued, and it is not easy to see that one variant is more difficult than the other. T h e canons of textual criticism pull in different directions. It all depends where you start. Again I think we must declare a draw, though I feel that on balance has the edge. T h u s far we have assumed that the change was made deliber ately. We should also consider whether it is the result of an unpre meditated accident. There is more than one possibility here, but in the nature of the case all are beyond our control. The most plausi ble will remain only a possibility. A reason facilitating the change of to may lie in the proximity of these words at 1 Cor. 10:13. Here we have ... * ... Is it possible that a scribe, already unhappy with on ecclesiological grounds, has subconsciously remembered another unusual use of in Paul (cf. . 29), and the word immediately following it, and, with the phrase else where in the Pastorals already moving about in his head, has exchanged the now difficult for the familiar and unex ceptional ? Other Biblical examples of this combination lie close to hand: L X X Isaiah 8:2 ; similarly at Tobit 5:3 tf; 10:6 N; and even 1 Cor. 4:2f. For /, cf. Philo, Viri. 66 , and Josephus, Bell. 4:96

60

J. LIONEL NORTH

. Much further afield, I notice Aristotle, De coelo 270M2 ; 287b33 , . Finally, has the similarity, both orthographic and conceptual, of , , , played a role at 1 T i m . 2:15-3:2 (cf. Titus 1:6-9)? These examples show only the possibilities for confusion, no more. One has only to consider the proposals that have been made to account for the variants and some recent discussions of the issues, to see their limited character. It is difficult to see progress being made on narrowly textual grounds, whether they be palaeographical and clerical (Grotius, Mill(s), Swete, Metzger), contextual (Zahn, Khl, Wohlenberg, Moule, Elliott, Knight), or historical and confessional (Salmasius, Petavius), certainly not on grounds which show no premeditation (see above). One wonders, in some desperation, whether there may be another approach that leads towards a final solution of what Harvey called an "exceedingly puzzling" verse (n. 25: 666). I suggest that there is one, so far untried, one that takes account of Paul's general view of " h u m a n speech". Ill Paul manifests an ambiguous and nuanced concern over " h u m a n speech", especially over his own as a sinful human being who has been summoned to preach and interpret the gospel to other sinners. When he considers the subject matter of the gospel, he describes its human-Christian expression as (2 Cor. 4:7). When he attempts to explain the gospel, he shows his awareness of the fragile instrument he must use, by drawing on and , both positively and negatively. The trail begins with R o m . 6:19a, where Paul interrupts 15-23, which juxtapose the two slaveries (to sin and therefore to death, and to righteousness and to God), with the apologetic . But wherein does the lie? Is the metaphor of slavery to righteousness such an outrageous one, as many commentators sug gest? 2 7 Is not Paul's enslavement to Christ a favourite self27 E g D Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London 1956), eh 17 " I speak after the M a n n e r of M e n " , 394-400 394f H e discusses only R o m 3 5, 6 19, 1 C o r 9 8, Gal 3 15

' 'HUMAN SPEECH" IN PAUL AND THE PAULINES

61

designation, in this letter already at 1:1? How can this metaphor represent an accommodation to h u m a n weakness? 2 8 Is h u m a n weakness more likely to understand and accept whatever the metaphor represents in that form than in any other? What would Paul have said had his readers been strong? Paul has been speaking about slavery since v. 6 and about slavery to righteousness since 16; why the apology only at 19? Was it only here that he stopped for breath or Tertius reached for the inkwell?! Rather, I suggest that the reason for the apology is the apparent contradiction between being slaves and being free at the same time (the new thought men tioned for the first time at 18). However, Paul does not stop; after his apology he goes on to repeat and develop the contradiction (19, 22). Such is the unavoidable incompetence and necessity of human-Christian speech. But in another letter that also uses the adjective in connection with speech, Paul does disclaim the use of uninspired h u m a n words: ' (1 Cor. 2:13), or, better, he disowns the formulations of so-called Christian truth that are dic tated by h u m a n wisdom. Perhaps we have examples of these in and (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23; 7:1). If so, we can see how Paul has disowned them, not by rejecting them out of hand, but by Christianising them in a wider context and understanding. 2 9 T h e transition from to was an easy one for Paul to make, not least because of the same ambiguous use in

This is the only place where Paul provides a reason for his 'human speaking'. elsewhere in Paul does not describe speech activities: 1 Cor. 4:3 ; 10:13 (see below); outside Paul it is never so used: Acts 17:25 ; Jas. 3:7 ; 1 Peter 2:13 . The reading to qualify in 1 Cor. 2:4 is clearly secondary, being derived from 2:13. In a letter written to Algasia c. 407 (ep. 121, 10, 2-5) Jerome cited what he took to be four provin cialisms in Paul's language. Two of them are the phrases including , at Rom. 6:19 and 1 Cor. 4:3. Jerome might well have known what he was talking about. He had spent six or seven years in and near Syrian Antioch (120 miles from Tarsus by road) in the 370s, inter alia learning or improving his Greek. His com ment in the letter might be a polite version of the derivation of the word solecism from Soli (25 miles SW of Tarsus) repeated by Diogenes Laertius 1:51 and Strabo 663 (14, 2, 28 fin.). It might be Jerome's way of saying that Paul had used in a very idiosyncratic way, just as Ngeli (n. 31) called a Pauline "Charakteristicum".
29

28

62

J . LIONEL NORTH

the same area of activity. 3 0 In fact, is far more closely associated with speech in Paul than is .31 Very probably all six examples of describe human-Christian speech, four rather more positively, two rather more negatively. At R o m . 3:5 (si I ) 3 2 and Gal. 3:15 Paul confesses . The first example is clearly an aside, again apologizing for the conclu sion that some might draw from the protest that i.e., [] ; Paul means, Though I do not accept it myself, I am simply repeating what sinful man might conclude, answers the question ; and indicates the limited nature of Paul's immediate reply. Gal. 3:15 is more straightforward. Paul is apologizing for the way in which he is going to illustrate the fact (17f.) that posterior law cannot invalidate anterior will/covenant with its promises about inheritance. But after the apology he has every intention of carrying on: * ' ... picks up just as (17) picks up in 15. In these two passages Paul shows himself uncomfor table about even repeating his hearers'or opponents'views concern ing God's apparent injustice and about using h u m a n categories to explicate divine realities, but when he has no alternative, he per sists. Barth (in R o m . 6:19) said: " W a g e n wir es, als die Gebrochenen zu r e d e n " . H e might have added: Broken men, we must use broken language. H u m a n " T a l k about G o d " requires the impertinence implied by . The third instance is a little uncer tain, though less so than 1 Cor. 15:32 (see below). Although 1 Cor. 3:3 speaks of , examination of the context

30 At Plato, Apol 20de and ' are almost syn onymous, similarly, at Plutarch, Mor 1041 f- 1042a, Chrysippus is quoted , and Plutarch caps the last eight words with 31 Nageli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus (Gottingen 1905), 77f , calls the phrase a Pauline "Lieblingsausdruck", a " C h a r a k t e r i s t i c u m " , and also awkward " d i e uns ungelenk a n m u t e n d e W e n d u n g " 32 Note that at R o m 3 5 is not absolutely secure Origen and Rufinus refer to Greek and Latin M S S which support both it and , which apparently was their own preference, cf PG 14, 923D-924A, 926B, = A G L B 16 (1990), 195, 199 ( H a m m o n d Bammel) In an earlier book H a m m o n d Bammel discussed Origen's reading very fully, cf Der Romerbrieftext des Rufin und seine Orgenes-bersetzung (Freiburg im Br 1985), = AGLB 10, 215f J C O'Neill (Harmondsworth 1975) in loc preferred it

"HUMAN SPEECH" IN PAUL AND THE PAULINES

63

shows that it is verbal halacha that Paul has in mind, and (3) are usually revealed through speech, but when Paul illustrates these (), he makes the verbal application quite clear: ... ; (4). obviously picks u p , and altogether is concretely defined as and . More uncertainty hangs over 1 Cor. 15:32: , ; What is the force of here? Vani vane exphcant.33 T h e problems are eased a little if we are ready to see in an abbreviated form of , 3 4 and understand it as an apology for the very rare and insulting verb , even when used of murderous opponents. They had behaved like wild animals, but however badly they had behaved, perhaps a Christian should not call them beasts. The two rather more negative uses of are no less instructive, and the first (1 Cor. 9:8) is still making a positive point. In 1 Cor. 9 Paul is discussing his rights as an apostle, one of which is the right to financial support. Having argued from equity (5f.: we ought to be extended the same rights as other Christian workers) he proceeds to three parallels drawn from secular work (7: soldier, horticulturalist, shepherd). This is clearly (8a), but since in this case the law confirms the point that Paul has argued for from equity and daily life (8b-12), Paul does not need to labour the point. Once the law has spoken, arguments might have been thought redundant. But the fact that his defence does include them shows that they still have some probative force. In Gal. 1-2 we gain a clear insight into what means. Since Paul's apostleship is ' ' (1:1), and since he has not received the apostolic message
Nicolaus Zegerus (died 1559), reprinted m Critici Sacri (London 1660), 7,3093, to these vani should now be added G D Fee's commentary (1987), in loc (771 with nn 55-57) 34 This suggestion is sometimes traced back to Estius at the beginning of the seventeenth century In fact, I have found it made two generations earlier, among the notes of the Italian Benedictine Isidorus Clanus (1495-1555) which were pub lished in 1541-42 and reprinted in Critici Sacri, 7, 3089 sed melius est, ut sit paren thesis, ut sic dica* (uid mihi prodest (secundum hominem dico, hoc est ut mos est hominum dicere) pugnasse ad bestias, si mortui non resurgunt Amongst moderns J Jeremas espoused this idea at ThWNT 1, 1933, 365 But if we are not ready to allow this suggestion, then this example of must be regarded as eccentric and excluded from our investigation, as of course must Rom 7 22 and at 2 Cor 1 1 1 7
33

64

LIONEL NORTH

(1.12), the gospel that Paul preaches (another verbal activity) cannot be (1.11). This dichotomy may explain the two different but negative uses of in 1:16 and 2:6 . The positive aspect is provided in: 1:1 , 1:12 8t' , 1:15f ... 35 and 2:2 . Even less familiar are other uses of the + accusative con struction to make the same point. O n e of the major themes of 2 Cor. 7-12 is boasting, like preaching, a form of speech, and in 11:16ff. Paul says that he too will join in the boasting that he overhears in some of his readers (18), although he has just admitted that , xuptov (17). 3 6 Whatever the irony or rhetorical strategy, it is difficult to get away from the idea that Paul is again aware of the ambiguity of h u m a n speech but can not resist it and will not avoid it (1 Cor. 9:16; cf. Phil. 1:15, 17f.). T h e ambiguity in these eight or nine examples is absolutely clear! While there are occasions when human-Christian speech is transcended by sources outside itself (1 Cor. 2:13: divine inspira tion; 1 Cor. 9:7ff. : divine law; Gal. 1-2: the revelation of the divine son and the divine gospel; cf. 1 Cor. 13:1: divine love), there are others when Paul is thrown back on his own understanding, his own perception of what his readers can comprehend, and his own argumentation. The four or five positive uses gives us some idea of what constitutes / : in addition to the obvious use of jealous, factious language (1 Cor. 3:3f.), there is the use of language that formally contradicts itself (Rom 6:19), that, for argumentative purposes, actually repeats irreligious con35 We have already seen from the same letter how the requirements of debate and elucidation can modify this polarisation and how language can be used positively (Gal 3 15-18) In a very useful study, " N a c h menschlicher Weise rede i c h " Funktion und Sinn des pauhnischen Ausdrucks, StTh 26, 1972, 63-100, C J Bjerkelund takes further the investigations of Strack-Billerbeck in R o m 3 5 and of D D a u b e (n 27) and, concentrating on the Jewish background of the phrase, examines the polemical use of the parable-form in argument not based on Scripture But, like D a u b e , he limits himself to R o m 3 3, 6 19, 1 Cor 9 8, Gal 3 15 Both leave to one side 1 C o r 2 13, 3 3, 15 32, Gal 1 1 1 36 This is the only place in Paul where the very common phrase is used, like and , of speech activities 1 C o r 3 3 shows that and belong to the same semantic field, similarly, and at R o m 6 19

' 'HUMAN SPEECH" IN PAUL AND THE PAULINES

65

elusions (Rom. 3:5), or extrapolates analogies from secular life (Gal. 3:15; 1 Cor. 9:7f.), or (?) indulges in excessive vilification (1 Cor. 15:32). One is reminded of the familiar distinction that Paul draws, at the level of subject matter, between his having a word of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:10) and his having to make do with his own insights (1 Cor. 7:6 [?], 12, 25, 40). Finally, Paul has yet other ways of discriminating between h u m a n and divine speech. In 1 Cor. 1-2 he describes his role in the communication of the latter four times in terms derogatory of the former, each prefaced with the now familiar negative: , ' , () (), (1:17; 2:1, 4, 13). In a heavily ironic section in 2 Cor. he accepts his opponents' assessment of his speaking ability (10:10 , 11:6 ) and happily accepts the corollary, that he is (11:1, 16f., 19, 21, 23 ; 12:6, 11), in fact, interlac ing / boasting, themes we have already noticed, with (cf. 11:16ff., 23; 12:6; cf. also 5:12f.). Paul's own assessment of his critics and their pretensions is expressed in 6:13 , which may not be as paternal as some commentators feel. If it is not, it may approximate to . But an earlier letter shows that it was not simple problems at Corinth and in Galatia that provoked Paul into setting up these stark contrasts. In 1 Thess. 2:13, 5 he had already distin guished the content of his message ( ) from , delivered . IV How does this wider background, with its analysis of speech that is both Christian and (or or or ), both positive and negative, bear on in D * O L at 1 T i m . 3:1? As a hypothesis I am prepared to accept the case made for by Salmasius, Zahn and its other champions, but propose, pace Zahn, that we do not have in the tag a locus communis taken from the pagan world (I have found nothing of relevance in the Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum [Gttingen 1839-1851]); rather, it is a 'Christian' observation made by the author's readership ('Timothy') about office in the church. The analysis of Paul's own general view of human speech suggests that

66

J. LIONEL NORTH

the author, probably a disciple and admirer, might regard 'Timothy's ' observation, that implies that desire for office is good, as at least ambiguous. It represents a second-rate, hardly Christian opinion without any basis in Christian law or gospel (cf. Mark 10:37f.) or revelation. 3 7 However (cf. above), since we must have and , the author reluctantly accepts humanChristian ambition but immediately hedges it about with ethical, sanitising prescriptions, to show that is more than the exercise of naked power. Since neither law nor gospel nor Spirit provides any direction about the qualities required, 3 8 the author must have recourse, for his 'job description', to qualities drawn from lists current outside the church, in the Graeco-Roman world, all very worthy, not specifically Christian, the best one can do in an imperfect world, one might almost say, from lists to match his reader's . If a case can be made for the originality of , not only on the basis of some of the arguments put forward by earlier scholars, but also on the basis of the coherence between the view of human-Christian speech in Paul and in 1 Tim., we are left with the question of the origin of . Supporters of have always been able to point to harmonization with the three certain cases of later in the Pastorals. This would occur once the idea grew in strength that was a function given by God to his church (cf. Ignatius of Antioch) and that, since Scripture

37 Whatever their views about and , others also have expressed a guarded or even negative assessment of 3 l b We recall Zahn " E s wird ein Sprichwort von profanen Ursprungs s e i n " According to Moule (n 23 283), Harvey thought that it " m a y reflect an attack on episcopacy" Even Swete (n 18 3) said that the writer endorses the saying " n o t without subconscious i r o n y " Fur ther, if this assessment is correct, could there be some connection between it and the hostile attitude towards bishops and deacons put onto the lips of the Saviour in N a g H a m m a d i tractate VII,3 {The Apocalypse of Peter)? T h e passage runs " T h e r e shall be others of those who are outside our [Gnostic] n u m b e r who n a m e themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they received their authority from G o d " , cf The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Leiden 1977), 343 1 T i m 3 2 , 8 also have the singular followed by the plural If there is a connection, then these verses should be added to Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible A Synopsis and Index, edd C A Evans, R L Webb, R A Wiebe (Leiden 1993), = N T T S 18 38 4 Iff show that the Spirit can speak, and does so , but the communica tion concerns the characteristics of evil teachers, not the qualities desired in 'good' Scripture also speaks, but, m the Pastorals, explicitly only once (1 T i m 5 18) in connection with the payment of elders ( = [?] )

' 'HUMAN S P E E C H " IN PAUL AND THE PAULINES

67

must have said something about such an important issue, 1 T i m . 3:1-7 could be very easily adapted to become the basic document, alongside Titus l:7ff., describing the qualities God desires in an . The disparaging, at best, ambiguous, would need to go, and the presence of other would readily suggest that this too must be no less . What had originally been a concession to human-Christian ambition has become canon law. 3 9 T h u s far I have concentrated on 1 T i m . 3:1. What about 1:15? Without the support of either the Greek or Latin side of Claromontanus (Dd), humanus is very much weaker than at 3:1. I do not understand why Moule is not content with Westcott and H o r t ' s explanation of humanus here: "probably transferred from this p l a c e " (sc. 3:1). H e calls such a transfer " u n l i k e l y " . H e admits that is "poorly attested", but hints that we may be "driven to accept in 1 T i m . i. 15 also" (n. 23: 283f.). None of this is argued and I feel safer with the hypothesis that humanus in the Old Latin of 1 T i m . 1:15 is a harmonization from 3 : 1 . 4 0 There cannot be the same uncertainty over the claim of a statement about the purpose of the incarnation to be a Faithful Say ing (1:15) as there has been over either How to have a successful pregnancy (2:15), or, as I have chosen to take it, How to be ambitious and get away with it (3:1b). 4 1
39 Cf. Nestle above on ordination. Although other explanations are available (cf. 1 T i m . 3:7; Titus 1:7), it is possible that the transition from to has led to an adaptation of the connection between vv. 1 and 2. oportet autem (2) implies a contrast and seems to draw attention to the ambiguous verbs and : in spite o/ h u m a n ambition, still requires good people. T h e transition to implies a different logic and demands either oportet ergo: because is a , it requires good people, or, oportet enim: we know is good because it requires good people. Cf. FL 25, 483 for all details. 40 Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 639 and Roloff (1988), in l o c , concur. But if I am right and can force its way into such a theologically weighty verse as 1:15, its standing at 3:1 is indirectly emphasized. It will not do to argue that, since is characteristic of the Pastorals, we must read it at both 1:15 and 3:1, as A. Sand does, EWNT 1, 1980, 248. 41 P. Ellingworth deals fully with the question of the reference of the reading (backwards or forwardshe prefers the latter), but he does not men tion the doubt about its originality; cf. T h e " T r u e S a y i n g " in 1 Timothy 3,1, BiTr 31, 1980, 443ff.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.