Commentaries on the so-called Pastoral Epistles, dealing as they do with many practical matters including church offices, tend to be agenda driven; and the present volume by Benjamin Fiore is no exception. The author, in line with the larger tendency of recent biblical scholarship toward a “theological interpretation,” blurs the distinction between the New Testament (NT) and later reflections upon it, which also advances his larger interest. The process of theological interpretation is seen by many critical scholars as already having begun through the allegedly pseudonymous composition of several epistles attributed to Paul, including the Pastorals. Fiore also takes this position, justifying it only briefly on the basis of these epistles’ “divergence from the other letters of Paul” in terms of being addressed to individuals, exhibiting differences in content and style, and seeming to reflect a later period of the church when the imminent expectation of the parousia had dissipated and attention turned toward the church as an organization (5, 6; cf. 16–19). Based on the ecclesiastical development that he perceives in 1 Timothy and Titus, Fiore dates the Pastoral Epistles to ca. 80–90 c.e. (20). However, in order to retain “the aura of Pauline authorship created by the letter writer” throughout the commentary, reference is made to Paul “as if he were the writer” (21).
The importance of the question of authorship is evident through the dramatic influence it exerts on interpretation, most obvious in discussions of the development of ecclesiastical roles and structure but also in the translation of the text itself: Fiore’s fairly consistent translation of charis (“grace”) as “favor” (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:1, 14; 2 Tim. 1:2, 9; Titus 1:4; 2:11) seems a deliberate effort to distance the Pastorals from Paul. While this is not the place to debate the issue of NT pseudonymity, it should be noted that Fiore, having articulated his position in the introduction, never looks back—not even to explain how the epistles, which devote significant space to combating false teachings, could have been written by an admirer of Paul with the clear aim of passing them off on readers as coming from the apostle himself (a recent commentary arguing persuasively for the traditional view from a Protestant perspective is Ben Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 13 John, vol. 1, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians [Downers Grove, IL: Inter- Varsity Press, 2006], see esp. 49–75). As several recent commentators have pointed out, lumping these three epistles together, as historical criticism since the nineteenth century has done, can paper over their distinctive features. These include different social settings (Timothy was in Ephesus and Titus in Crete) and genre (while 1 Timothy and Titus resemble personal correspondence, 2 Timothy, like 2 Peter, is a kind of last testament). It is just as likely, if not more likely, that any perceptible “shift” in perspective reflected in these epistles represents the transition from the first generation (Paul) to the second (his coworkers), as argued by P. H. Towner, “Pauline Theology or Pauline Tradition in the Pastoral Epistles: The Question of Method,” Tyndale Bulletin 46, no. 2 (1995): 287–314. To be fair, Fiore not only highlights the differences but also the similarities he finds between the Pastorals and other Pauline writings, including those he considers authentic epistles of Paul.
The strength of this commentary is the author’s familiarity with and attention to Greco-Roman background material to illuminate the text. For example, Fiore designates 1 Timothy “an aide memoire, a letter-summary of instructions from a superior to a delegate outlining the latter’s duties” (40). He also gives a lucid yet concise explanation of the chreia form, illustrating it with examples from 1 and 2 Timothy (16–18). The historical and archaeological background is also put to effective use, as in his observation that “Christians did not build churches until after the Edict of Toleration in 313 c.e.” and that earlier Christian assemblies were held in private homes that were only later enlarged and remodeled, such as Peter’s house in Capernaum and the house church in Dura Europos (65).
As is to be expected of volumes in the Sacra Pagina series, a decidedly Catholic perspective colors the interpretative comments. These range from the enumeration of the Decalogue (43) to the Catholic view of justification by which “Christ renders those saved in this way capable of doing good” (65). Yet we also find the Protestant-like assertions that good deeds “express the reaction to faith” (222) and that baptism “symbolizes” the transformation effected within believers by the Holy Spirit (220). Of course, readers will encounter positions expressed that differ from Adventist views. These include their reading of Pauline references to the “last days” as rhetoric for Paul’s contemporaries rather than prophetic portrayals of conditions just before the Second Advent (e.g., 89, 132) and his labeling of “total abstinence from alcoholic beverages” as an “extreme” (213, 214).
Overall, for readers wanting a shorter commentary from a Catholic perspective, this volume will be helpful (though a better one from a more conservative standpoint is Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New Testament in Context [Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996]). Its strength is its attention to Greco-Roman literature and rhetoric. The commentary also includes a short general bibliography (23, 24), brief introductions to the content of the three epistles, and the requisite indexes (Scripture and ancient writings, modern authors, and subjects).
