Southern Baptists and American Evangelicals
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 65, No. 2 - Spring 2023
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Lyn M. Kidson. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020, 327pp., $125.19
Lyn Kidson earned her Ph.D. under the supervision of Alanna Nobbs, a professor at Macquarie University, and this monograph is the published version of her thesis. She contends that the command in 1:3-4 “is the key to understanding how the letter functions as a persuasive literary unit” (2, 274). She explains 1 Timothy 1:5-20 then is an “ethical digression” which is “tightly knit” and employs “a range of rhetorical devices and ideologically significant threads” (p. 274). She focuses on chapter 1 of 1 Timothy as the key to understanding the rest of the letter. En route to substantiating her argument she investigates the setting of the letter including the question of background and authorship, rhetorical devices, and a great deal of Greco-Roman background including ideas of sonship, education, hybris. This leads to her central thesis: The letter is primarily aimed at the “certain men” in 1:3, seeking to shame them for their departure from Pauline teaching by showing that this is hubris on their part and, by other means, creating “emotional tension” within these men calling them to the proper example of Timothy, a true son, as portrayed in the letter.
I appreciate the attention to the role of rhetoric and the argument that this letter makes a positive contribution to the canon. Her argument that the letter has a coherent, cohesive argument is most welcome. I also like her argument (following Johnson and contra Mitchell) that 1 Timothy is an administrative letter of some type. Kidson also does a great deal of spade work on lexical issues and Greco-Roman background. It seems at times, though, that any potentially related data has been included such that the train of thought is obscured and that the data may not always be assessed well.
Kidson begins with an assumption that the “certain men” are the real addressees of the letter and later argues that the letter is pseudonymous. At the end of the book, she says that a specific stance on the authorship question does not affect her argument. However, it seems to me that her argument requires pseudonymity. If Paul is actually writing, then the audience is Timothy, first, with the church overhearing (suggested at least by the plural “you” which is the last word of the letter). The second person pronouns and verbs are overwhelming. And Timothy’s concern is for the rest of the church more than specifically for these certain men. I did not see enough argument for these “certain men” and their retrieval being the focus of the letter.
In various places there were inconsistencies. On page 5 she works from the idea of the Pauline Epistles as a collection, but then on pages 28-29 says the letters function independently, then on pages 42-43 she is back to deducing from the idea of the letters as a fictitious collection. She argues that pseudonymous letters were acceptable in the ancient world (pp. 42-43) but does not address the church’s contrary take. She spends a lot of time on education in the ancient world but does not interact at all with Claire Smith’s significant monograph, Pauline Communities as “Scholastic Communities” (2012) which is also in the Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament [WUNT] series. She asserts that the reference to the “other teaching” as “doctrines of demons” is hyperbole (p. 172) but does not substantiate that. It seems to be assumed that such a comment would be an exaggeration, but such a statement would not be out of place in the ancient world (even if does seem to be today). It seems that her argument that the letter is a gentle appeal has required the softening of this charge.
Central to Kidson’s argument is the idea that the letter is a call for these “certain men” to return to their filial obligation to Paul as their spiritual father. To this end she argues that the ἀγάπη which is the goal of Paul’s command in 1:5 is the proper love due to Paul as spiritual father, rather than love for God or for fellow believers. I found this unpersuasive. She also argues at length that the “digression” of 1:5-20 is primarily concerned with hybris, insolence or arrogance, that typically characterized youth. She says the point is that the author seeks to persuade the “certain men” that they are guilty of this hybris by rejecting the teaching of Paul. While Paul does identify himself as a ὑβριστής in 1:13, the argument for this idea being behind this entire section seemed a stretch as did the argument that νόμος here refers to “the Greek law against hybris, which is reflected in the Septuagint” (p. 214).
In general, a thorough editing could have improved the work. In various places words are out of place and odd phrases occur. There are also gaps either in flow of thought or logic. The opening sentence of Chapter 2 says the principal objective of the study will be to identify the rhetorical strategy of the author. The next sentence says, “This means the writer of 1 Timothy must have received, at some point, some training in rhetoric” (p. 3). The goal of the study cannot “mean” that the ancient author had training in rhetoric. This is more than just a typo as it calls into question what is assumed and what will be proven.
In the end, I did not find Kidson’s argument persuasive. However, she has gathered a lot potentially helpful data on lexical and Greco-Roman background issues which can be helpful for others working in these letters.
