Myths and Genealogies
The coupling of the terms myths and genealogies is
already found in Plato and elsewhere. In the passage under discussion the use
is, to be sure, not specifically literary. “Myth” (μῦθος) is used here, as is frequently the case elsewhere, to denote false and
foolish stories. As a formal parallel, cf the reproachful question in Epictetus
Diss. 3.24.18 “And do you take Homer
and his tales as authority for
everything?” (σὺ δʼ Ὁμήρῳ πάντα προσέχεις καὶ τοῖς μύθοις αὐτοῦ;), cf Plut. Mor. 348a–b. See
also the double meaning of “myth” in Clement of Alexandria, Quis div. salv. 42: “Hear a story that
is no mere story, but a true account of John the Apostle that has been handed
down and preserved in memory” (ἄκουσον μῦθον, οὐ μῦθον, ἀλλὰ ὄντα λόγον περὶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἀπόστολου παραδεδομένον καὶ μνήμῃ πεφυλαγμένον). “Endless” (ἀπέραντος) is used in the same sense in the criticism of “those
who want to speak at length” (μακρολογεῖν ἐθέλοντες) in Galen (ch. VIII, p. 748.8 [Kühn]). What are we to
understand by “genealogies”? Is the commonly heard alternative between Gnostic
enumerations of aeons and Jewish, Biblical speculations adequately formulated
in this way? Philo (Vit. Mos.
2.45–47) designates a portion of the historical presentation of the Pentateuch
as “genealogical matters” (γενεαλογικόν):
“One division of the historical side deals with the creation of the world, the
other with genealogical matters, and this last partly with the punishment of
the impious, partly with the honouring of the just.” (ἔστιν οὖν τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως, τὸ δὲ γενεαλογικόν, τοῦ δὲ γενεαλογικοῦ τὸ μὲν περὶ κολάσεως ἀσεβῶν, τὸ δʼ αὖ περὶ τιμῆς δικαίων) [Loeb modified]. The word is not used here to designate
a literary genre, but rather refers only to the content. Moreover there is no
corresponding “mythological part” (μυθολογικόν)—which
is an impossibility for Philo. Since the genealogies are mentioned together
with “myths,” they cannot, in this passage, refer to the Jewish proof for
kinship of Abraham, nor to the demonstration of Israel’s historical continuity.
Neither Paul nor a pseudo-Paul could mention such things in the same breath
with “fables.” Kittel has pointed out that in post-exilic Judaism genealogical
speculations about Biblical persons led to discussions which could under
certain circumstances be regarded as heretical, in view of their criticism of
Biblical accounts. That Christians too could be involved in these discussions
is shown by Baba Batra 91a, where
statements are made about the mothers of the men of the OT: “Why does one have
to know about that? To answer the Minim
(that is, the heretics).” To be sure, in the Pastorals it is not a question of
debates within the frame of (rabbinic) interpretation of scripture, as the
whole controversy shows, but rather of a gnosticizing Judaism. (Cf. Tit 1:14;
3:9 on the one hand; 1 Tim 4:3; 6:20; 2 Tim 2:18; Tit 1:16 on the other.).
Gnosticizing interpretations in which Old Testament genealogical registers are
understood mythologically (Iren. Adv.
haer. 1.30.9) and, moreover, mythical speculations about sequences of
principalities and aeons are as fundamental to the theology of Gnosticism (see
below the excursus to 1 Tim 4:5) as they are destructive to the belief in the
divine education for salvation (οἰκονομία) which is
held by the writer of the Pastorals. To be sure, Irenaeus and Tertullian are
wrong to refer such passages from the Pastorals to the advanced Gnosticism of
their time; they naturally took the statements as prophecy. Cf. Iren. Adv. haer. 1, Preface 1: “Inasmuch as
certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain
genealogies, which, as the apostle says, ‘minister questions rather than godly
edifying which is in faith’ … 2 … I have deemed it my duty (after reading some
of the Commentaries, as they call
them, of the disciples of Valentinus ….)” (ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παραπεμπόμενοί τινες ἐπεισάγουσι λόγους ψευδεῖς καὶ γενεαλογίας ματαίας, αἵτινες ζητήσεις μᾶλλον παρέχουσι, καθὼς ὁ ἀπόστολός φησιν, ἢ οἰκοδομὴν θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει … 2 … ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην, ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, Οὐαλεντίνου μαθητῶν). Cf. also Tertullian, Praescr. haer. 33. Rather, we must think
of early Jewish or Judaizing forms of Gnosticism, which are reflected elsewhere
within the horizon of deutero-Pauline literature. Characteristic are:
speculations about the elements, but no systematic cosmology; a tendency towards
soteriological dualism and the observation of ascetic rules. All this applies
to the false teachers opposed by the Pastorals; a similar picture emerges from
the epistles of Ignatius. Thus we may view the different reproaches (“teachers
of the law,” “ritualists,” “Jews,” “Gnostics,” and “speculators”) as forming a
unified picture. A surprising parallel, which points in the same direction, is
found in the Manual of Discipline
from Qumran: “For the man of understanding, that he instruct and teach all the
sons of light concerning the succession of the generations of all the sons of
men, all the spirits which they possess with their distinctive characters;
their works with classes; and the visitation with which they are smitten,
together with the times when they are blessed.” (Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The
Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia—a
Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1972], 16–17)
genealogies—not merely such civil genealogies as were common
among the Jews, whereby they traced their descent from the patriarchs, to which
Paul would not object, and which he would not as here class with “fables,” but
Gnostic genealogies of spirits and aeons, as they called them, “Lists of
Gnostic emanations” [ALFORD]. So TERTULLIAN [Against Valentinian, c. 3], and
IRENAEUS [Preface]. The Judaizers here alluded to, while maintaining the
perpetual obligation of the Mosaic law, joined with it a theosophic ascetic tendency,
pretending to see in it mysteries deeper than others could see. The seeds, not
the full-grown Gnosticism of the post-apostolic age, then existed. This formed
the transition stage between Judaism and Gnosticism. “Endless” refers to the
tedious unprofitableness of their lengthy genealogies (compare Tit 3:9). Paul
opposes to their “aeons,” the “King of the aeons (so the Greek, 1 Ti 1:17),
whom be glory throughout the aeons of aeons.” The word “aeons” was probably not
used in the technical sense of the latter Gnostics as yet; but “the only wise
God” (1 Ti 1:17), by anticipation, confutes the subsequently adopted notions in
the Gnostics’ own phraseology. (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David
Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible [Oak
Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997], 2:404)
These myths
were legendary tales characteristic of the false teachers in Ephesus and Crete.
See parallels in 1 Tim 4:7; 2 Tim 4:4; and Titus 1:14. They were perhaps built
by speculation from the patriarchal narratives in the OT; hence the connection
with genealogies and with wanting to be teachers of the law (v. 7). (Note to 1
Tim 1:4, The NET Bible)