TedM

No bishops or deacons in 1 Timothy?



I noticed that the Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) does not use the terms “bishop� or “deacon� anywhere in the new testament. According the the Catholic Encyclopedia the early use of the terms is quite unclear http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

With regard to an office of bishop I’d like to propose the following:

1. The designation existed during Paul’s day, and Paul was well aware of it
2. The designation may have been given to more than one person in one church.
3. Nothing in 1 Timothy suggests a more evolved position than may have existed during Paul’s day.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia a bishop is derived from a Greek word which means overseer:

Unlike other translations which use “bishop�, the YLT never uses the term “bishop�, but instead uses the term “overseer� in several places in the NT which are related to Paul:

Acts 20:28
`Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit made you overseers, to feed the assembly of God that He acquired through His own blood,
Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timotheus, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with overseers and ministrants;
1 Timothy 3:2
it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,
Titus 1:7
for it behoveth the overseer to be blameless, as God's steward, not self-pleased, nor irascible, not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre;

The use in Acts is applied to a group of elders (see 20:17) at Ephesus whom Paul is allegedly speaking to. The use in Philipians is also in the plural and appears to apply to men at one church or “assembly� (4:18). The use in 1 Timothy is not explicit enough to conclude if it is referring to an office held in the singular or plural. The use in Titus is also not explicit enough, but as in Acts 20 it is applied to elders (see Titus 1:5)


Even if we dismiss Acts and Titus as not credible portrayals of Paul, the evidence from Philipians 1:1 is that the position of bishop existed in Paul’s day and that he was aware of it. It is also clear that it may have been held by more than one person at a given location.

We don’t have further detail from Paul in other letters which might shed light on the role played by these “overseers� other than what we have in 1 Timothy 3. For this reason, it is not clear to me why this is considered to be evidence for a later dating of 1 Timothy. In other words while we can conclude that overseers existed, Paul knew of them--and likely appointed some--we don’t know what their exact role was from Paul's other writings, to which we can compare 1 Timothy. Nor is there even a clear description of the role in 1 Timothy! Therefore 1 Timothy provides no evidence of a later, more evolved role of bishop. It isn’t even clear that it is referring to a role held by only one person.


DEACONS

With regard to the office of Deacon, I propose the same as for bishop:

1. The designation existed during Paul’s day, and Paul was well aware of it
2. The designation may have been given to more than one person in one church.
3. Nothing in 1 Timothy suggests a more evolved position than may have existed during Paul’s day.

Again from the CE:

Unlike other translations which use “deacon�, the YLT never uses the term “deacon�, but instead uses the term “ministrant� in several places in the NT which are related to Paul. It appears to have a broad meaning, like that of a servant of others. Paul applies it to Jesus (Rom 15:8), and to himself (1 Cor 3:5, 2 Cor 6:4, etc), to Apollos (1 Cor 3:5), Phebe (Rom 16:1), Timothy (1 Thess 3:2 and 1 Tim 4:6), and others. (Col 1:7). Again it is used in Philippians 1:1

The use in Philipians is also in the plural and appears to apply to men at one church or “assembly� (4:18). The use in 1 Timothy is in the plural.

It isn’t clear to me that the reference in 1 Timothy is to even that of an defined office of the church, and it may be referring to this broad term of those who serve others in the faith:

The description is never provided as to how they ‘minister’. Paul describes Timothy himself as a ministrant in in the very next chapter, in 4:6

It appears that Paul knew of “ministrants�, and the designation may have been broad enough to apply to a number of people at a given location. The facts that there is no indication of duties in 1 Timothy 3 and Paul’s designation of Timothy and even himself as a ministrant leaves open the question of whether the description in 1 Timothy is that of an evolved position that didn’t exist in Paul’s day. For these reasons, it is not clear to me why this is considered to be evidence for a later dating of 1 Timothy. In other words while we can conclude that ministrants existed, Paul knew of them--and likely appointed some--we don’t know what their exact role was from Paul's other writings, to which we can compare 1 Timothy. Nor is there even a clear description of the role in 1 Timothy! Therefore 1 Timothy provides no evidence of a later, more evolved role of role of deacon.

In summary, I see no basis for the conclusion that 1 Timothy provides evidence for a church hierarchy of bishops and deacons that didn’t exist during Paul’s day in the churches he founded.

ted

spin

Your examples relating to Paul regarding the use of episkopos is not found in any of the universally, or even majority, accepted Pauline works. In those accepted works you find the church in the house of such and such and no overseer type figures whatsoever.

Philippians make a clear distinction in roles; there are all the saints and beside them there are the episkopoi and the diakonoi. These latter are clearly related to the saints at Philippi, but at least the episkopoi, by their name have a superior position, not found in the accepted Pauline works nor expected in the church which is in the house of this person or that. Diakonoi in such a context also places them outside the rank and file saints. Paul attempts to be the general authority in his assortment of house-churches and his role of authority shows no space in those accepted works for people above the rank and file.

Paul used the term diakonos, though always in the singular and usually about important people to him, Jesus, Peter, Apollos. This usage doesn't match the notion of sundry people set apart from the rank and file (as in Phil. 1:1), who in later times have specific roles within the church structure.

Don't you find the glaring omission of the term episkopos in the accepted works a strong argument against your position?


spin

TedM

I don't understand. Isn't Philippians considered one of the authentic, accepted works? Isn't episkopoi the plural of episkopos? If the answer is yes to both, I guess I'm not catching your point. If it is that 1 Timothy is refering to a singular position, I already addressed that by saying the context of Timothy doesn't make it clear that it is talking about an office held by one person. All it does is describes the attributes of a person who wants to be an overseer. That doesn't indicate how many people oversee a church. As for diakonos or diakonoi, I'm not sure what point you are making. Isn't the same tense used for both Philippians and 1 Timothy?

ted

spin

Philippians is a compound work, ostensibly made up of two letters of Paul and some glue. One letter comes to a functional end at 3:1a, while the content of the other starts at 3:1b, ending perhaps at 4:7. How much of the beginning and how much of the ending is Paul's I wouldn't know.

Yup.

I don't understand the question. Could you repackage it for me?


spin

TedM

If the conscensus is that it is authentic--two or not--then my points stand.

You wrote:

If Philippians 1:1 is authentic, Paul didn't always use the term in the singular. It may well be that the people he refers to in 1:1 are also important to him, though not specifically mentioned. There is no indication that I see in 1 Timothy of "specific roles within the church structure" for the ministrants. Rather, he discusses specific personal attributes that they should have.

No. It is the singular of a plural word which he only uses 1 other time in the accepted works, to my knowledge (Phil 1:1). If I wrote a letter to a principal of a school and said "say hi to all the teachers there" and then in another letter wrote that "a teacher should be knowledgeable in his subject matter", is the fact that I never wrote "teacher" in a few other letters that dealt with many subjects particularly significant? I don't think so. It doesn't indicate that there is only one teacher in the whole school and it doesn't indicate some kind of 'evolution' in the role of a teacher and it doesn't indicate that someone interpolated my greeting in the first letter.

One might expect Paul to write about the role of those who led the early churches he founded. Surely after a certain number of years they existed since organizations usually have leadership positions, and the omission of such a discussion in other letters may reflect an earlier period in their development. Even if it is a glaring omission for him not to discuss those folks much, I don't see how that is an argument against my position. Simply, he just didn't discuss them much. Do you think that indicates that there weren't any overseers in his churches by perhaps 60-64 AD? I don't.

ted

spin

I'll leave you with the uneasy consensus over Philippians. (Check out Peter Kirby's site on the fiddling about over the problems of Philippians.)


spin

TedM

I don't see any 'unease' there. So what if they combined 2 letters into one? That shows all the more how much they respected Paul's writings, which reduces the likelihood of 1:1 interpolation, a concept I didn't see anywhere in the link you provided. Instead, the link talks about how practical the Philippians were, which it seems to me is in keeping with the appointment of overseers. And organized--enough to make the Corinthians jealous.

Again, I see no basis for even seeing a higher level of church hierarchy in 1 Timothy than Paul indicates elsewhere, and therefore using that as a reason to date 1 Timothy later. Paul mentions the same designations elsewhere and 1 Timothy doesn't indicate any official positions, nor what those roles entail.

As I see it, this particular argument for a late date is really an argument from silence which includes plenty of conjecture.

ted

S.C.Carlson

An interesting article in this connection: T. C. Skeat, “Did Paul Write to ‘Bishops and Deacons’ at Philippi? A Note on Philippians 1:1,� NovT 37 (1995): 12–15.

Skeat uses stichometry to conclude that the opening of Phil that has disappeared from codex P46 is missing 24–25 letters (p. 15). Skeat states that two candidates are possible: (1:1) σὺν �πισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις (“with the bishops and deacons�) if the phrase is an interpolation as sometimes conjectured and (1:3-4) τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν πάντοτε �ν πάσῇ (“in every time I remember you always�) due to skipping from the πάσῇ right before it.

andrewcriddle

It may be worth noting that as well as bishops/overseers and deacons/helpers the pastoral letters also mention presbyters/elders as a type of church leader, apparently more or less equivalent to bishops/overseers.

None of the works attributed to Paul, apart from the pastorals, makes any reference to presbyters/elders as church leaders.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Baur's case against the authenticity of Philipians van Manen on Philipians

Darrel Doughty on Philippians 3:2-21 as a Deutero-Pauline Passage