Are The Pastoral Epistles Forgeries?

By: AC

There is a falsehood being circulated that claims “the Pastoral Epistles (PE) are forgeries and were not written by the Apostle Paul.” This assertion might stem from individuals who are either uninformed and speaking out of ignorance or, more concerningly, from those who are deliberately attempting to mislead others. It could also be a combination of both factors.

To clarify, it is more accurate to say that there are certain arguments—primarily put forth by liberal scholars—that question the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. These scholars often point to perceived discrepancies between the Pastoral Epistles and the other Pauline Epistles to support their claims.

However, it’s important to recognize that these arguments are not universally accepted and are subject to significant debate within the scholarly community. The claim that “the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries” is not a settled fact but rather a theory proposed by those who approach the texts with a particular critical perspective.

Unfortunately, this misleading narrative has been adopted and repeated by some Muslim apologists and other anti-Bible polemicists, who use it to undermine the authority of the New Testament and Christian doctrine. It is essential for Christians to be aware of these challenges, understand the context from which they arise, and be equipped to respond with sound, well-researched counterarguments. A big thanks to Dr. George W. Knight III for his insightful commentary in The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles (p. 21-52). Dr. Knight meticulously analyzes both sides of the debate, providing a robust and well-rounded defense of the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles by addressing the assertions head-on from multiple angles.

“This article is quite detailed and lengthy, but it’s packed with valuable information. While I plan to create videos on this topic in the future, for now, the content will be available here for everyone to read and analyze. You’ll gain insights into how to effectively refute objections related to this subject. This will be a multi-part series that delves deeply into the analysis and conclusions presented. Please note that I’ve added bold emphasis for key points, and there will be occasional quotes from the original author. I also won’t include the references marked through the original book, please but the Dr. Knight’s commentary on the PE for any additional information. The commentary will also be shortened in this article, without losing any of the meaning.” – AC 

CONTENTS

1. CRITICAL ARGUMENTS CONCERNING AUTHORSHIP
2. INTRODUCTION
3. THE MANNER OF ADDRESSING AND INSTRUCTING TIMOTHY AND TITUS
4. WARNINGS AGAINST FALSE TEACHING
   • The Method of Addressing the Problem
   • The Nature of the Teaching
5. ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION
   • Church Leaders
   • Provision for Care of Widows
6. THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES
   • Absence of Basic Pauline Concepts
   • Terms Used in Non-Pauline Ways
   • A Different Attitude toward Doctrine
7. VOCABULARY AND STYLE
   • Methodological Questions
   • The Arguments
8. PSEUDONYMITY
9. THE LUCAN PROPOSAL
   • The Relationship between Paul and Luke
10. CONCLUSION
11. SOURCE REFERENCE

CRITICAL ARGUMENTS CONCERNING AUTHORSHIP

In the 19th century, questions about Paul’s authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (PE) emerged and have continued to this day. The first major challenge came in 1807 from Schleiermacher (Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher), who questioned the authorship of 1 Timothy based on its language and biographical content. Schweitzer later criticized this, suggesting Schleiermacher’s doubts were more aesthetic than critical. In 1812, Eichhorn (Johann Gottfried Eichhorn) extended this skepticism to all three Pastoral Epistles, citing differences in religious language. By 1835, Baur (Ferdinand Christian Baur) and the “Tübingen school” expanded the doubt to most of Paul’s letters, concluding that only four were authentically Pauline. Holtzmann (Heinrich Julius Holtzmann), in 1880, compiled these objections into a comprehensive critique against the Pauline authorship of the PE.

This view gained further acceptance, particularly after Harrison’s (Percy Neale Harrison) 1921 book, The Problem of the Pastorals, which used linguistic and stylistic analysis to argue against Paul’s authorship. Due to the strong claims within the letters themselves that Paul is their author, scholars who reject Pauline authorship generally fall into two camps: those who believe the letters were written pseudonymously (like Dibelius-Conzelmann, Gealy, Barrett, Brox, and Hanson), and those who think they contain genuine fragments of Paul’s writings (such as Harrison, Falconer, Easton, and Scott). 

INTRODUCTION

Despite challenges and denials of Paul’s authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (PE), several capable scholars stood firm in affirming his authorship and addressed the questions raised against it.

The list of 19th Centrury Scholars that Afirm the Pauline Authorship:

Henry Alford (1810–1871)

• An English churchman, theologian, and scholar. He is best known for his multi-volume commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Charles John Ellicott (1819–1905)

• An English Christian theologian and Bishop of Gloucester. He is noted for his biblical scholarship, especially his commentaries on the New Testament.

Johann Eduard Huther (1807–1880)

• A German Lutheran theologian, known for his commentaries on the New Testament, particularly in the Meyer’s Commentary series.

Alfred Plummer (1841–1926)

• An English Anglican priest and biblical scholar. He wrote extensively on the New Testament, including well-regarded commentaries on the Gospels and the Epistles.

Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828–1889)

• An English theologian and Bishop of Durham. He was a prominent scholar of early Christianity and authored influential commentaries on several New Testament books.

Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892)

• An Irish theologian and biblical scholar, best known for his work on the critical edition of the New Testament text, particularly the Westcott and Hort edition.

Frédéric Louis Godet (1812–1900)

• A Swiss Protestant theologian, renowned for his commentaries on various New Testament books, including the Gospels and Pauline Epistles.

The list of 20th Centrury Scholars that Afirm the Pauline Authorship (among others):

19th and Early 20th Century:

1. Thomas Dehany Bernard (1815–1904)
   • An English theologian and preacher. He authored several theological works and commentaries, contributing to the understanding of biblical texts.
2. Bernhard Weiss (1827–1918)
   • A German Protestant theologian and New Testament scholar. He is recognized for his critical work on the text and interpretation of the New Testament.
3. William White (1816–1886)
   • An English theologian and biblical scholar, contributing notably to biblical studies and commentaries during his time.
4. Reginald St John Parry (1858–1935)
   • An English scholar and theologian, known for his work on the New Testament and his commentaries on the Pauline Epistles.
5. Gustav Wohlenberg (1847–1928)
   • A German theologian and biblical scholar, recognized for his work in New Testament studies and his contributions to biblical commentary.
6. Walter Lock (1846–1933)
   • An English theologian, academic, and clergyman. He served as Warden of Keble College, Oxford, and authored commentaries on the New Testament.
7. Archibald Robertson (1853–1931)
   • A Scottish Anglican bishop and scholar, known for his work in New Testament exegesis and his role in biblical scholarship.
8. Adolf Schlatter (1852–1938)
   • A Swiss-German theologian and New Testament scholar. He was a significant figure in conservative biblical scholarship and wrote extensively on Pauline theology.
9. Theodor Zahn (1838–1933)
   • A German Lutheran theologian and New Testament scholar. He is best known for his work on the canon of the New Testament and his Introduction to the New Testament.
10. James Maurice Wilson (1836–1931)
    • An English theologian and scholar, known for his monograph on the Genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles. He contributed to biblical scholarship in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Middle 20th Century to Present:

11. Ceslas Spicq (1901–1992)
    • A French Dominican priest and biblical scholar, known for his work on the Epistle to the Hebrews and his detailed exegesis of New Testament texts.
12. Joachim Jeremias (1900–1979)
    • A German Lutheran theologian and New Testament scholar, renowned for his research on the historical Jesus and early Christian studies.
13. Thomas Walter Manson (often referred to as T.W. Manson) (1893–1958)
    • A British New Testament scholar known for his critical work on the Pauline Epistles and other New Testament writings.
14. Donald Guthrie (1916–1992)
    • A British New Testament scholar and professor of New Testament studies. He authored widely-used introductions and commentaries on the New Testament, including on the Pauline Epistles.
15. William Hendriksen (1900–1982)
    • An American New Testament scholar and pastor, known for his commentaries on the New Testament, particularly within the Reformed tradition.
16. John Norman Davidson Kelly (1909–1997)
    • A British theologian and scholar of early Christian doctrine, well-known for his work on the history of the early church and the Pastoral Epistles.
17. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1832–1910)
    • A German New Testament scholar, recognized for his critical work on the synoptic problem and the Pauline Epistles.
18. Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos (1909–2007)
    • A Dutch Reformed theologian and New Testament scholar, known for his work on Pauline theology and redemptive history.
19. Otto Bürki (Dates not readily available)
    • A Swiss theologian and biblical scholar. Though specific details on his life are less readily available, he contributed to the scholarly discussions surrounding the New Testament.
20. Gordon D. Fee (1934–2022)
    • An American-Canadian biblical scholar, particularly known for his work on the Pauline Epistles and his co-authorship of How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. He was a leading figure in Pentecostal scholarship.

“Appealing to scholarship as the ultimate authority in an argument on this topic, or similar ones, can be fallacious, as it risks becoming an appeal to authority. This is particularly true because there isn’t a consensus among scholars on the issue. While scholars can certainly provide valuable evidence to support a claim, their opinions should not be treated as the final word in an argument. Instead, scholarly insights should be part of a broader, well-rounded discussion rather than the sole basis for concluding the debate.” – AC

THE METHOD OF COMMUNICATION

Brox (Norbert Brox) highlights an argument against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, noting that the communication style in these letters is quite different from Paul’s usual approach in his other writings, where he typically presents and defends his arguments.

CRITICAL ARGUMENTS CONCERNING AUTHORSHIP

He directly engages with those he disagrees with or seeks to correct, presenting his arguments in detail and addressing anticipated objections. In contrast, the author of the Pastoral Epistles (PE) does not engage in lengthy arguments but instead appeals to adherence to established truth. In the PE, false teachings and teachers are more often warned against than debated. Apart from Timothy and Titus, the Christian community is addressed indirectly through these two, rather than directly. While there is truth in this analysis, the differences may be somewhat exaggerated.

“But the differences are what one would expect from an apostle dealing with and through his apostolic assistants. It would be strange indeed if he wrote to them in the way that he wrote to the members of a local church. Thus the differences in and of themselves are evidence not of non-Pauline authorship but of a more personal form of letters addressed to apostolic assistants.”

Paul’s approach in his address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:17ff. reflects his typical method of communicating with church leaders. Instead of developing new teachings or arguments, Paul warns about future false teachers and urges the leaders to remain vigilant, relying on the teachings he has already provided. This method, particularly in 2 Timothy, closely resembles the style found in the Pastoral Epistles, supporting the idea that the PE’s approach is consistent with Paul’s established practices.

“Furthermore, even in the other Pauline letters Paul sometimes does not develop his argument but simply appeals to the body of truth that has been given as the standard that his readers should uphold and act in accordance with (note the classic statement of Phil. 3:17, 18 and the discussion of it below under Warnings against False Teaching). Examples of this are Rom. 16:17 and 2 Thes. 3:6 (cf. 2:13; 3:14). One might even say that this is a pattern Paul follows where he is writing to the reader(s) concerning a third party. And in the PE it is often with third parties, especially false teachers, that Paul is dealing.

It would also be an overstatement to say that the PE only appeal to a known body of truth…”

The teaching on prayer is thoughtfully developed (see 1 Tim. 2:1-7), and the instruction that women should not teach men and should learn in silence is more detailed in 1 Tim. 2:11-15 than in other letters.

1 Corinthians 14 offers a similar approach. The theological statement in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 addresses why one should not follow the asceticism of false teachers. Arguments for slaves serving their masters (1 Tim. 6:1f.; Tit. 2:9-10) mirror those in Ephesians and Colossians. These examples effectively illustrate the point.

In summary, while there are differences in method, they are typical of an apostle writing to his assistants and are seen elsewhere in the New Testament when dealing with church leaders. Similar methods are also found in earlier Pauline letters, especially when Paul addresses third parties. Therefore, the writing style in the Pastoral Epistles aligns with Paul’s usual approach to communicating with his assistants, supporting Pauline authorship rather than contradicting it.

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The author of the Pastoral Epistles (PE) does not engage in detailed arguments but appeals to adherence to established truth.
2. In the PE, false teachings and teachers are warned against rather than debated.
3. The Christian community is addressed indirectly through Timothy and Titus, not directly.
4. The differences in the PE’s approach suggest non-Pauline authorship.
5. The PE only appeals to a known body of truth without developing arguments.

Response:

1. Differences in style are expected when an apostle writes to his assistants versus a church; it supports, rather than contradicts, Pauline authorship.
2. Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17ff.) shows a similar method of warning against false teachers, aligning with the PE’s style.
3. Paul’s other letters sometimes appeal to a body of truth without developing arguments (e.g., Philippians 3:17-18, Romans 16:17, 2 Thessalonians 3:6).
4. It is common for Paul to address third parties, like false teachers, in his letters; this pattern appears in the PE as well.
5. The PE includes developed teachings on prayer (1 Timothy 2:1-7) and women’s roles (1 Timothy 2:11-15), which are consistent with Paul’s other letters.
6. The PE’s writing style aligns with Paul’s typical approach when communicating with church leaders, supporting Pauline authorship.

THE MANNER OF ADDRESSING AND INSTRUCTING TIMOTHY AND TITUS

Some argue that the way Paul addresses Timothy and Titus in the Pastoral Epistles is historically inaccurate, noting that these men were long-time associates with significant authority, not young protégés (1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4). However, this objection likely stems from modern perspectives rather than the actual historical context. In fact, Paul’s earlier letters show similar language, where he calls Timothy his “beloved and faithful child in the Lord” (1 Cor. 4:17) and instructs him authoritatively. Paul frequently directed Timothy and Titus in their roles, even sending a “command” (ἐντολήν) for them to come to him (Acts 17:15), which aligns with the way they are addressed in the Pastoral Epistles.

58. Gealy, 344. Cf. also Hanson, who says (p. 4) of the instructions in the PE to Timothy and Titus that “this does not seem at all the sort of thing the real Paul would write to old and trusted colleagues.”

Paul sends his associates as needed (cf., e.g., Acts 19:22; 1 Cor. 4:17; and 2 Cor. 8:6; 12:18, where he twice “urges” Titus to act). Timothy’s fears were long-standing, prompting Paul to ask the Corinthians to “see that he is with you without cause to be afraid” (1 Cor. 16:10) and to instruct them not to “despise” Timothy (v. 11). Similarly, Paul later wrote to Titus, “let no one disregard you” (Tit. 2:15).

“The pattern found in the PE is, therefore, found in Paul’s earlier dealings with these associates, though it may appear to be different because it is a more sustained presentation of what we see only glimpses of earlier. Furthermore, the references in the PE to the youthfulness of Timothy (1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22) must be understood from the perspective of that day, when a man was considered youthful until he became old…”

The differences between Paul’s letters to his apostolic assistants, Timothy and Titus, and his earlier letters to the churches can be understood through the unique nature of his relationship with them. These differences in communication style, content, theological terminology, and vocabulary are expected when addressing close associates rather than entire congregations. Rather than questioning the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles (PE) based on these differences, one should recognize them as natural variations that reflect Paul’s specific relationship with Timothy and Titus. In fact, these differences may actually support the authenticity of the PE, as similar characteristics are found in Paul’s interactions with other spiritual leaders in the New Testament.

and go as he calls or sends them (cf., e.g., Acts 19:22; 1 Cor. 4:17; and 2 Cor. 8:6; 12:18, where Paul twice “urges” Titus to do certain things). The need to alleviate Timothy’s fears was apparently long-standing, since Paul asks the Corinthians to “see that he is with you without cause to be afraid” (1 Cor. 16:10) and says that no one is to “despise” Timothy (v. 11), just as later he was to write to Titus, “let no one disregard you” (Tit. 2:15).

The pattern found in the PE is, therefore, found in Paul’s earlier dealings with these associates, though it may appear to be different because it is a more sustained presentation of what we see only glimpses of earlier. Furthermore, the references in the PE to the youthfulness of Timothy (1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22) must be understood from the perspective of that day, when a man was considered youthful until he became old (see the commentary on these verses).

The nature of Paul’s relationship to Timothy and Titus is a crucial element in understanding most of the differences between these letters written to his apostolic assistants and the earlier letters written to the churches. We have already noted some difference in Paul’s method of communication. We will also note differences in content and subject matter, theological terminology, linguistic style, and vocabulary. We will often find that these are not disparate differences but aspects of one difference manifesting itself in interrelated ways. Thus, if in writing to an apostolic assistant rather than to a church the apostle uses at times a different method, his writing will most likely also show differences in content, both of which in turn will probably be expressed in part in different theological terminology, linguistic style, and vocabulary. Therefore, rather than having to explain the differences under the assumption that the PE are Pauline, one should expect that the letters to apostolic assistants will be noticeably different in comparison with those to churches. In fact, one should think they were not genuine if they did not have these differences. This is especially the case when we have found that certain characteristics of these letters are also discovered in his dealings with these apostolic assistants and other spiritual leaders elsewhere in the NT. They may well be marks of authenticity rather than strange differences from the earlier Pauline letters.

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The way Paul addresses Timothy and Titus in the Pastoral Epistles is historically inaccurate, as they were not young protégés but long-time associates with significant authority.
2. The instructions to Timothy and Titus in the PE do not seem like something Paul would write to trusted colleagues (Gealy, Hanson).
3. The differences in communication style, content, theological terminology, and vocabulary between Paul’s letters to his assistants and his letters to churches raise doubts about the authenticity of the PE.

Response:

1. The objection likely stems from modern perspectives rather than the historical context. In his earlier letters, Paul also used similar language, calling Timothy his “beloved and faithful child in the Lord” and issuing authoritative instructions.
2. The pattern of addressing Timothy and Titus found in the PE is consistent with Paul’s earlier dealings with his associates; it just appears different because the PE presents a more sustained version of what is only glimpsed earlier.
3. References to Timothy’s youthfulness (1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22) should be understood in the historical context where “youthful” applied until one was considered old.
4. Differences in Paul’s communication style, content, and vocabulary when addressing his assistants versus churches are expected and reflect his specific relationships with Timothy and Titus, supporting rather than questioning the authenticity of the PE.
5. These variations are natural and demonstrate the close relationship between Paul and his assistants, suggesting these letters are authentic, as similar characteristics are found in Paul’s interactions with other spiritual leaders in the New Testament.

WARNINGS AGAINST FALSE TEACHING

The Method of Addressing the Problem

“A large part of the objection to the Pauline authorship arises from the way in which the false teaching and false teachers are handled in the PE. As was noted above, it is said that Paul uses a reasoned presentation concerning error in his other letters but that here that presentation is lacking and only warnings and appeals are given.”

There is no significant difference in Paul’s method of addressing false teaching between the Pastoral Epistles (PE) and his other letters, though the approach varies depending on the audience. When Paul addresses those at risk of being misled, he actively persuades them, while in cases where he has already taught extensively, he simply warns against false teachers, similar to his approach in earlier letters.

A clear example is in Philippians 3, where Paul strongly warns against false teachers (3:2), later emphasizing his own example as the standard to follow (v. 17) and describing the false teachers as “enemies of the cross” with misplaced priorities (vv. 18, 19).

“What we find, for example, in Philippians cannot be called evidence of a non-Pauline approach when it appears in the PE. Moreover, that which Paul says he has done “often” (πολλάκις, Phil. 3:18), even if few or no other instances were to be found in the other Pauline letters, can hardly be called an adequate basis for declaring the PE non-Pauline. This is particularly true with regard to the PE in that they are addressed to Paul’s apostolic assistants and Paul is dealing with the false teachers as third parties. His colleagues are not being allured by false teaching as so many Christians were who were the objects of his concern in his earlier letters. If lengthy arguments against following the false teaching appeared in the PE, as in the earlier letters, they would be an incongruity indeed and a basis for considering the PE inauthentic.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The objection to Pauline authorship partly arises from how false teaching and teachers are addressed in the Pastoral Epistles (PE); unlike his other letters, Paul does not use a reasoned argument but only warnings and appeals.

Response:

1. There is no significant difference in Paul’s method of addressing false teaching between the PE and his other letters; the approach varies depending on the audience and context.
2. When addressing those at risk of being misled, Paul actively persuades them, while when dealing with already instructed audiences, he simply warns against false teachers, similar to his approach in earlier letters, such as in Philippians 3.
3. “What we find, for example, in Philippians cannot be called evidence of a non-Pauline approach when it appears in the PE. Moreover, that which Paul says he has done ‘often’ (πολλάκις, Phil. 3:18), even if few or no other instances were to be found in the other Pauline letters, can hardly be called an adequate basis for declaring the PE non-Pauline.”
4. The PE are addressed to Paul’s apostolic assistants, dealing with false teachers as third parties. Therefore, a reasoned argument against false teaching, as in his earlier letters, would be inconsistent and suggest inauthenticity if found in the PE.

The Nature of the Teaching

The argument is made that the false teachings in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) do not align with the time of Paul but rather with a later period. The teachings in question had Jewish elements, like a focus on the law and Jewish “myths,” as well as esoteric aspects involving “myths and genealogies,” controversial questions, and “antitheses” identified as knowledge (γνῶσις). These teachings also included ascetic rules, like abstaining from marriage and certain foods, and in Ephesus, some false teachers claimed the resurrection had already occurred.

Hanson notes that the specific nature of the false teaching opposed in the PE has led to much speculation. He suggests that those who place the Pastorals later believe the author was addressing an early form of Gnosticism. This view is supported by the use of γνῶσις in 1 Tim. 6:20 and references to genealogies in 1 Tim. 1:4 and Tit. 3:9. Hanson connects these to Gnostic beliefs, where complex genealogies of aeons (spiritual beings) were common, arguing that these elements of the heresy present a serious threat to the faith.

“But it is precarious to make too much of Paul’s one use of γνῶσις in the PE since he has used it so widely and frequently before (some 22x) where Gnosticism is not in view and has also from time to time warned against a false view of the significance of “knowledge” in earlier contexts (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 8:1, 2). Furthermore, the context of “myths and genealogies” in the PE suggests not gnostic aeons but matters relating to Jewish speculations and given an erroneous religious significance (see the commentary at 1 Tim. 1:4ff. and Tit. 3:9).

Brox connects the false teachers’ doctrine that the resurrection had already taken place with a gnostic perspective. Since errors had already arisen concerning the resurrection (1 Cor. 15) and the form of existence that Christians now have (1 Cor. 4:8) in the other Pauline letters, it is unnecessary to say that the error about the resurrection having taken place already is gnostic.”

We’re dealing with extra challenges because there’s a lot we don’t know about where Gnosticism came from and how it grew. It also isn’t clear how the mistakes people made during the New Testament times relate to those made later on. Dibelius and Conzelmann suggest that instead of the full-blown Gnosticism we see later, what we’re seeing here is more like a version of Gnosticism mixed with Jewish beliefs, which can be seen in other places too.

“They include Colossians here, and this association with Colossians is probably the key to locating the false teachers of the PE temporally. The false teachers in Colossians have a Jewish orientation (Col. 2:16, 17), are interested in philosophy and human traditions (cf. v. 8), and are ascetic (vv. 18, 21-23). Although the terminology of the positions is not identical, the areas of interest and the concerns are so similar that the long-standing comparison between the two remains valid. Since the false teachers and false teaching can be so readily associated with similar patterns in the NT, i.e., in Colossians, it would seem more appropriate to look there than to insist that the error of the teachers is that of a later period. Kelly summarizes the question well when he says the following:

It is in fact unrealistic to look to the well-known Gnostic, or near Gnostic, systems of the second century for light on the  teaching that provoked the Pastorals. Everything suggests that it was something much more elementary; and it is significant that much of the writer’s polemic is directed, not so much against any specific doctrine, as against the general contentiousness and loose living it encouraged. It is best defined as a Gnosticism form of Jewish Christianity… There is no need…to look outside the first century, or indeed the span of Paul’s life, for such an amalgam of Jewish and Gnostic traits in the Levant.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The false teachings in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) reflect a later period than Paul’s time, possibly addressing an early form of Gnosticism, due to references to “knowledge” (γνῶσις), genealogies, and ascetic practices.
2. Hanson argues that elements like “myths and genealogies” and the idea that the resurrection has already occurred suggest a Gnostic influence, a belief system that emerged after Paul’s time.
3. Some scholars believe that the teachings in the PE could not have been addressed by Paul, as they resemble Gnostic ideas, which were more developed in the second century.

Response:

1. “But it is precarious to make too much of Paul’s one use of γνῶσις in the PE since he has used it so widely and frequently before (some 22x) where Gnosticism is not in view and has also from time to time warned against a false view of the significance of ‘knowledge’ in earlier contexts (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 8:1, 2).” The use of γνῶσις does not necessarily indicate a Gnostic context; Paul previously used the term in various non-Gnostic contexts.
2. The “myths and genealogies” in the PE are more likely related to Jewish speculations rather than Gnostic aeons, as indicated by the commentary on 1 Timothy 1:4ff. and Titus 3:9.
3. “Brox connects the false teachers’ doctrine that the resurrection had already taken place with a gnostic perspective… it is unnecessary to say that the error about the resurrection having taken place already is gnostic.” Misunderstandings about the resurrection were already present in Paul’s earlier letters, like 1 Corinthians 15, without implying Gnostic influence.
4. The false teachings in the PE likely reflect a blend of Jewish and proto-Gnostic elements rather than a fully developed Gnosticism, aligning with similar issues addressed in Colossians, where the heresy had a Jewish orientation with ascetic and philosophical elements.
5. “It is in fact unrealistic to look to the well-known Gnostic, or near Gnostic, systems of the second century for light on the teaching that provoked the Pastorals… It is best defined as a Gnosticism form of Jewish Christianity… There is no need…to look outside the first century, or indeed the span of Paul’s life, for such an amalgam of Jewish and Gnostic traits in the Levant.” The teachings could be from Paul’s time, reflecting a mix of Jewish and early Gnostic ideas.

ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION

Some scholars argue that the church organization described in the Pastoral Epistles (PE), particularly in 1 Timothy and Titus, seems too developed for Paul’s time. The letters depict Timothy and Titus as having roles similar to monarchical bishops, a form of leadership more typical of a later period. Additionally, the PE’s discussion of elders, bishops, deacons, and a formal order of widows suggests a more advanced ecclesiastical structure than what is seen in Paul’s other writings.

Church Leaders

Kelly argues that in the (PE), Timothy and Titus are “not presented as monarchical bishops” but rather as the Apostle’s “personal emissaries, with an ad hoc, temporary mandate.” He suggests that “had the author intended to represent them as bishops, he would surely have avoided using the title in dealing with the other officials.” Guthrie supports this view, stating that the roles described in the PE “could just as well be executed by apostolic delegates,” as demonstrated in Acts and other Pauline Epistles. The debate centers around whether the New Testament focuses more on spiritual gifts than formal leadership, with some scholars suggesting that formal church leaders only became prominent later as spiritual gifts declined. The distinction between charismatic and institutional, or between charismatic and non-charismatic ministries in the church, is fundamentally misleading and incorrect.

“Pastors and teachers, helps, and administrations (the charisma of governing) are in the first rank of the charismata that Christ gives to the church (Eph. 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28). Thus Paul in one of his earliest Epistles can speak of a group of leaders who labor diligently among the Christians of Thessalonica and who “have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction” (1 Thess. 5:12). He charges the Thessalonians to “esteem them very highly in love because of their work” (v. 13). Thus we see that from his earliest writings Paul is concerned about a simple but definite form of order and authority in the church and about those whom we may rightly designate spiritual leaders. Paul expressed a concern of this sort to nearly every church he wrote to (1 Thess. 5:12, 13; Gal. 6:6; Rom. 12:7, 8; 1 Cor. 12:28; 16:15, 16; Eph. 4:11, 12; Phil. 1:1; only the church at Colossae is not represented here). Other than when leadership is referred to in generic terms (i.e., Gal. 6:6; Rom. 12:7, 8), it is described in plural terms, indicating that local church leadership was done by groups (the remainder of the references just given above).

Such leaders are designated either in descriptive phrases as having charge over the Christians and giving instructions to them (1 Thess. 5:12, 13) and as those to whom Christians should be in subjection (1 Cor. 16:15, 16), or by such key terms as “teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28), “pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11), “bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1; the same two terms are in 1 Timothy 3 and the first in Titus 1). The descriptive phrases and the key terms “pastors, teachers, bishops” are virtually synonymous in meaning and significance. This pattern in the Pauline letters fits well with the activity of Paul described in Acts of returning to the cities he had gone to during his first missionary journey in order to appoint “elders in every church” (14:23; “elders” are also mentioned in 1 Tim. 5:17 and Tit. 1:5). If Paul regards the leaders in Thessalonica as responsible for caring for and teaching the people, it is understandable that he calls the Ephesian elders to him and discusses with them the same responsibilities (Acts 20:17ff.). The PE are thus in accord with Paul’s understanding of spiritual leadership in the local church. More, indeed, may be said in the PE about the leaders, including instructions regarding their qualifications, but the qualifications are an enlargement and specification of the general characteristics already required in the early days of the church (cf. Acts 6:3: “men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom”). One may assume that these instructions were often given orally by Paul during the initial stages when a local church was being strengthened and established (cf. again Acts 14:23). Paul now considered it important for Titus (and the local churches to whom he writes through Titus) to have the instructions in writing as elders were being appointed in every city. He apparently also thought that it would be good for Timothy (and the church at Ephesus) to have them in writing for the ongoing selection of elders in the church there, particularly since problems had arisen there with reference to elders (cf. 1 Tim. 5:19-25). Paul may also speak for the first time in the PE of the laying of hands on those set apart to serve, but in doing so he reflects the practice of the early church whereby the Spirit’s direction and enabling power was acknowledged (cf. Acts 13:2-4). Furthermore, the functions these elders/bishops in Ephesus are to perform are no different from those exercised by the leadership in Thessalonica (e.g., προϊστάμιυ is used both in 1 Tim. 3:4, 5; 5:17 and in 1 Thess. 5:12; Rom. 12:8). From these considerations there seems to be no real substance to the charge that the officers in the PE are different from what one finds in the earlier letters (especially since the only other place in the NT in which ἐπίσκοποι and διάκονοι occur together is in Paul’s letter to the Philippians [1:1]).”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The church organization described in the Pastoral Epistles (PE), particularly in 1 Timothy and Titus, appears too developed for Paul’s time, suggesting a later period.
2. Timothy and Titus are depicted as having roles similar to monarchical bishops, which aligns more with a later church structure.
3. The detailed discussion of elders, bishops, deacons, and a formal order of widows indicates a more advanced ecclesiastical structure than what is seen in Paul’s other writings.

Response:

1. “Kelly argues that in the (PE), Timothy and Titus are ‘not presented as monarchical bishops’ but rather as the Apostle’s ‘personal emissaries, with an ad hoc, temporary mandate.’ He suggests that ‘had the author intended to represent them as bishops, he would surely have avoided using the title in dealing with the other officials.’” Timothy and Titus are described as temporary delegates, not monarchical bishops, supporting their roles as apostolic emissaries.
2. Guthrie argues that the roles described in the PE “could just as well be executed by apostolic delegates,” as seen in Acts and other Pauline Epistles, suggesting the church leadership structure aligns with Paul’s earlier letters.
3. The argument that the New Testament focuses more on spiritual gifts than formal leadership is misleading. “Pastors and teachers, helps, and administrations (the charisma of governing) are in the first rank of the charismata that Christ gives to the church (Eph. 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28).” This indicates a consistent concern for church order and authority across Paul’s letters.
4. Paul’s early letters already demonstrate a concern for church order and authority, describing leaders in plural terms, suggesting a group-based local church leadership model. This aligns with the leadership roles in the PE, where terms like “bishops” and “deacons” are synonymous with “pastors” and “teachers.”
5. The PE’s detailed instructions on leadership qualifications are an extension of the general characteristics required in the early church (e.g., Acts 6:3), not evidence of a different church structure. Paul’s concern for providing written instructions for Timothy and Titus reflects practical needs for church order, especially in dealing with specific local issues.
6. The practices described in the PE, such as laying on of hands, align with the early church’s acknowledgment of the Spirit’s direction and power (cf. Acts 13:2-4). Therefore, the leadership roles and instructions in the PE are consistent with those in Paul’s earlier letters and do not suggest a later period.

Provision for Care of Widows

Paul’s instructions regarding widows in 1 Timothy 5:3-16 are more developed than any other guidelines on this topic in the New Testament. The only other reference to the church’s care for widows is found in the early days of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 6:1ff.), where there was already some formal structure in place for their care. Given that the early church, under the apostles, had to adjust their methods for caring for widows, it’s understandable that Paul would find it necessary to make further adjustments to the practices in Ephesus.

In 1 Timothy 5, Paul specifically directs that care should be provided only to widows who are over sixty years old, have no family to support them, and are spiritually qualified for any special service the church might require. This approach seeks to limit the church’s institutional role by emphasizing family responsibility and reducing formal organizational involvement, which contrasts with the more structured approaches that developed later in church history.

“​​That it is only in the PE that Paul deals with widows does not mean that the PE cannot be from Paul. Arguments from silence are always dubious. One needs only to be reminded that the Lord’s Supper is only dealt with once in the Pauline corpus (in 1 Corinthians) and that does not make that letter or that account suspect.”

Arguments/Objections:

1. The instructions regarding widows in 1 Timothy 5:3-16 are more developed than any other New Testament guidelines, suggesting a later period than Paul’s time.
2. The structured approach to caring for widows seems to reflect a more formal church organization, which some argue developed after Paul.

Response:

1. The early church already had some structure for caring for widows (Acts 6:1ff.), and as circumstances evolved, it was natural for Paul to provide more specific guidelines to address new needs, such as those in Ephesus.
2. Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy 5 emphasize limiting the church’s institutional role by prioritizing family responsibility and reducing formal church involvement, contrasting with later, more structured approaches.
3. “​​That it is only in the PE that Paul deals with widows does not mean that the PE cannot be from Paul. Arguments from silence are always dubious.” The fact that Paul only discusses widows in the PE does not indicate a non-Pauline origin; similar reasoning would wrongly suggest other Pauline topics are inauthentic due to their singular mentions, such as the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians.

THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES

The perceived differences in theology between the PE and Paul’s other letters are regarded by some as constituting one of the weightier arguments against authorship by Paul. It is contended that the PE omit basic concepts that Paul uses, that they utilize the same words and terms but with different meanings, and, most significantly, that they utilize terms and concepts not used in Paul’s other letters. We mention only in passing the charge that the PE teach only a “middle-class ethics,” since this matter has been thoroughly investigated in the Schwarz’s dissertation and is dealt with in our comments on the relevant passages (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:2; Tit. 3:1ff.), both of which show that this charge is not only erroneous but also sets an inappropriate disjunction between the other Paulines and the PE.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The perceived theological differences between the Pastoral Epistles (PE) and Paul’s other letters suggest that Paul is not the author.
2. The PE omit basic concepts found in Paul’s other letters and use the same terms with different meanings.
3. The PE introduce terms and concepts not found in Paul’s other writings.
4. The PE are accused of teaching only a “middle-class ethics,” which differs from Paul’s other letters.

Response:

1. The perceived differences in theology are not necessarily indicative of a different author. The context and audience of each letter may account for variations in terminology and emphasis.
2. Using the same terms with different meanings or introducing new terms does not automatically negate Pauline authorship; it could reflect the specific issues Paul was addressing at the time.
3. “We mention only in passing the charge that the PE teach only a ‘middle-class ethics,’ since this matter has been thoroughly investigated in the Schwarz’s dissertation and is dealt with in our comments on the relevant passages (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:2; Tit. 3:1ff.), both of which show that this charge is not only erroneous but also sets an inappropriate disjunction between the other Paulines and the PE.” The charge of “middle-class ethics” has been refuted through thorough investigation, and this perceived disjunction between the PE and Paul’s other letters is unwarranted.

Absence of Basic Pauline Concepts

“It is rather more difficult to establish that the PE omit basic Pauline concepts than it might appear because, as a matter of fact, Paul does not always use in his letters those concepts that are most often associated with him. For example, the verb “to justify” (δικαιόω) is found in Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Timothy, and Titus but not elsewhere. To make this point one must come up with a term or concept that Paul always uses and never omits. Easton charges that “the full Pauline use of ‘faith’ as the justifying principle is absent from the Pastorals,” but then the same charge would have to be leveled against 1 Thessalonians and Philemon, to mention only two Pauline letters. As it is, the affirmation in 1 Tim. 1:16 about “those who would believe on him and receive eternal life,” used in connection with the statement that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” refers to that kind of faith, as does the statement about “those who have trusted in God” (Tit. 3:8), which refers to those who have been “justified by his grace” (v. 7). Hanson describes as “most startling” the absence in the PE of use of υἱός, “son,” for Christ “and the total absence of any mention of the cross.” But υἱός is not used at all in Philippians or Philemon and is used of Christ only once each in 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians. With regard to “cross” (σταυρός), it must be pointed out that it is also not found in Romans, 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, or Philemon. Hanson concludes his list of key concepts in Pauline theology absent from the PE by citing Barrett’s list of “words of great importance to Paul” absent from the PE: εὐαγγελίζομαι, εὐχαριστέω, παύχομαι, πνευματικός, σοφία, σώμα, and ψυχή. Barrett himself noted that “a list of this kind can prove little”; each of these seven words is missing from at least one of the other Pauline letters, two are absent from five of the letters, two others from four of the letters, one from three of the letters, and one from two of the letters. Even those that are found in several letters are often found only once each in a few of them. All this goes to demonstrate that not one of these terms is so Pauline that a letter of his could not be written without it. In fact, one is struck by the paucity of hard evidence in this area, by the fact that terms and concepts once proposed as so Pauline that their absence from a letter would demonstrate that it was not Pauline are not being repeated after being analyzed by others, and by the fact that a new group of terms is being put forward that, like those listed above, represent at best matters of degree but not clear-cut matters of difference.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The Pastoral Epistles (PE) omit basic Pauline concepts, which suggests they were not written by Paul.
2. The PE do not contain the full Pauline use of key theological terms like “faith” as the justifying principle.
3. The absence of terms such as υἱός (“son”) for Christ and any mention of the “cross” (σταυρός) in the PE is unusual and argues against Pauline authorship.
4. Barrett’s list of important Pauline words, such as εὐαγγελίζομαι (to preach the gospel), εὐχαριστέω (to give thanks), and others, are absent from the PE, which raises doubts about their authorship.

Response:

1. “It is rather more difficult to establish that the PE omit basic Pauline concepts than it might appear because, as a matter of fact, Paul does not always use in his letters those concepts that are most often associated with him.” For example, the verb “to justify” (δικαιόω) is found in some Pauline letters but not others, demonstrating that Paul did not consistently use all key concepts across his letters.
2. Easton’s charge that the PE lack the full Pauline use of “faith” as the justifying principle would also apply to other letters like 1 Thessalonians and Philemon, showing that such omissions are not exclusive to the PE.
3. “Hanson describes as ‘most startling’ the absence in the PE of use of υἱός, ‘son,’ for Christ ‘and the total absence of any mention of the cross.’” However, these terms are also missing from other Pauline letters, such as Philippians and Philemon (for υἱός) and Romans, 2 Corinthians, and Philemon (for σταυρός).
4. Barrett’s list of absent words from the PE (e.g., εὐαγγελίζομαι, πνευματικός) is not conclusive evidence against Pauline authorship, as these terms are also missing from at least one other Pauline letter, demonstrating that no single term is so essential that its absence would prove non-Pauline authorship.
5. “All this goes to demonstrate that not one of these terms is so Pauline that a letter of his could not be written without it.” The absence of certain terms or concepts is not definitive proof of non-Pauline authorship; rather, it reflects natural variation in Paul’s writings based on context and purpose.

Terms Used in Non-Pauline Ways

We next turn to terms supposedly used in the PE in a “non-Pauline sense.” Hanson cites as the first in a list of such examples ἀγάπη, “the key virtue in Paul,” which is in the PE, Hanson says, “just one virtue among others.” However, ἀγάπη does occur in lists of other virtues in 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22, but then the same phenomenon occurs also in Gal. 5:22. Furthermore, ἀγάπη is hardly regarded as just one virtue among others in the key statement at the beginning of 1 Timothy: “the goal of our instruction is love (ἀγάπη)” (1:5).

Hanson argues that the word πίστις (“faith”) in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) tends to mean the “content of faith,” a usage he acknowledges is not unique to the PE but also present, though less frequently, in Paul’s other letters, such as in 1 Timothy 1:2. He reiterates Easton’s concern that the phrase en Christō (“in Christ”) in the PE does not have the mystical sense found in Paul’s other writings, where it often describes believers being closely united with Christ. Instead, in the PE, the phrase refers to gifts “found in” Christ. Allan agrees, noting the different use of the phrase in the PE compared to the Pauline letters. However, Allan’s emphasis on differences may be flawed, as it overlooks similarities found in other Pauline letters. Guthrie counters that the difference in approach between 2 Timothy 1:13 (“with faith and love in Christ Jesus”) and Colossians 1:4 (“your faith in Christ Jesus”) is not significant. He also argues that if “in Christ” is understood as a synonym for “Christian” in the PE, it should be considered the same way in other Pauline writings, such as Colossians 1:2 (“the saints in Christ at Colossae”).

Easton also maintains that the infrequent references to the Holy Spirit in the PE and the way in which it is referred to there shows that though the author of the PE accepted the doctrine it “meant little to him.” Infrequency can hardly be a safe and sure norm when in two of the other Pauline letters the Spirit is mentioned only once and in another it is not mentioned at all. Haykin demonstrates that a vibrant pneumatology exists in the PE and that there is nothing concerning the Spirit in the PE that Paul could not have written. The conclusion must be that the supposed differences are most often not differences at all, but are at best more fairly described as more intensive use of different nuances of terms already found in the other Pauline letters. And then differences in subject, recipients (the apostolic assistants), or other factors may explain these phenomena. Both in its own right and when considered in the light of other contributing factors, this objection is certainly an inadequate ground to deny Pauline authorship.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. Terms in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) are used in a “non-Pauline sense,” which suggests they were not written by Paul.
2. Hanson argues that ἀγάπη (“love”), a key virtue in Paul’s writings, is treated as just one virtue among others in the PE.
3. The word πίστις (“faith”) in the PE tends to mean the “content of faith,” which is different from its use in Paul’s other letters, where it more often refers to a personal trust in Christ.
4. The phrase “in Christ” in the PE lacks the mystical sense of union with Christ found in other Pauline writings.
5. The infrequent references to the Holy Spirit in the PE suggest that the author accepted the doctrine but that it “meant little to him.”

Response:

1. “Hanson cites as the first in a list of such examples ἀγάπη, ‘the key virtue in Paul,’ which is in the PE, Hanson says, ‘just one virtue among others.’” However, ἀγάπη is listed among other virtues in both the PE (1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22) and in Paul’s other letters (Gal. 5:22), and is also central in the statement in 1 Timothy 1:5: “the goal of our instruction is love (ἀγάπη).”
2. Hanson’s argument about πίστις (“faith”) referring more to the “content of faith” in the PE is acknowledged as not unique to the PE and is found, albeit less frequently, in other Pauline letters, like 1 Timothy 1:2.
3. “Allan’s emphasis on differences may be flawed, as it overlooks similarities found in other Pauline letters.” Guthrie points out that the difference in the use of “in Christ” between the PE and letters like Colossians is not significant, and if “in Christ” is understood as “Christian” in the PE, the same interpretation could apply to other letters.
4. The infrequent references to the Holy Spirit in the PE are not a valid argument against Pauline authorship, as in two of Paul’s other letters, the Spirit is mentioned only once, and in another, not at all. Haykin demonstrates that a vibrant pneumatology exists in the PE, consistent with what Paul could have written.
5. “The conclusion must be that the supposed differences are most often not differences at all, but are at best more fairly described as more intensive use of different nuances of terms already found in the other Pauline letters.” The differences in terminology or frequency of use in the PE are explained by differences in subject matter, audience, or other contextual factors and are not grounds to deny Pauline authorship.

A Different Attitude toward Doctrine

It is also charged that the author of the PE cannot be Paul because of an entirely different attitude toward doctrine. Hanson sums up this criticism:

The author of the Pastorals seems to have an attitude toward doctrine that is not Paul’s. For him [the author of the PE] Christian doctrine is a parathēkē, “what has been entrusted to you” (1 Tim. 6:20). This deposit of faith has been delivered by Paul to Timothy and must be in turn handed on by Timothy to trustworthy successors (2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14). . . This is not the way the historical Paul handles Christian doctrine.

“But in fact Paul in his earlier Epistles does have this same attitude toward doctrine. Paul can speak of “the teaching that you have learned,” which serves as the standard for identifying false teaching (Rom. 16:17). In 1 Cor. 15:1-3 the gospel itself is described as that which Paul himself has “received” (παρέλαβον), “made known,” and “delivered” (παρέδωκα), which the readers “received” (παρελάβετε), in which they “stand,” and which they must “hold fast” (κατέχετε). The verbs “receive” (παραλαμβάνω) and “deliver” (παραδίδωμι) are the language used of “handing on” a “tradition.” At an earlier point in 1 Corinthians Paul praises the readers because they “hold firmly” (κατέχετε) to the traditions (τὰς παραδόσεις), just as I delivered (παρέδωκα) them to you” (11:2). He urges the Thessalonians to “hold to (κρατεῖτε) the traditions (τὰς παραδόσεις) that you were taught” (2 Thes. 2:15) and to take disciplinary actions “according to the tradition (τὴν παράδοσιν) that you received (παρελάβοσαν) from us (παρ’ ἡμῶν)” (2 Thes. 3:6). The only apparent difference is that in the earlier letters there is less explicit comment about passing the tradition on. Undoubtedly this is because the earlier letters were written to churches, not, like the PE, to fellow workers who were particularly responsible for the teaching ministry. Even in the PE this note is found only in the more personal last letter to Timothy, where

Hanson argues that in the PE, the word πίστις (“faith”) is used differently, meaning more as “content of faith.” However, he acknowledges that this meaning is also present in Paul’s other letters, though perhaps less frequently, as seen in 1 Timothy 1:2. Hanson also highlights Easton’s concern that the phrase en Christō (“in Christ”) in the PE does not carry the mystical meaning it does in Paul’s other writings, where it suggests a close, almost physical unity between believers and Christ. Instead, in the PE, it describes gifts “found in” Christ, which Allan agrees is a different usage than in other Pauline letters. However, Allan’s focus on differences may be flawed because he overlooks the similarities found in Paul’s other letters. Guthrie counters these criticisms by noting that there is little difference in meaning between phrases like 2 Timothy 1:13 (“with faith and love in Christ Jesus”) and Colossians 1:4 (“your faith in Christ Jesus”). He argues that if “in Christ” is understood as synonymous with “Christian” in the PE, it should be interpreted similarly in other Pauline contexts, such as Colossians 1:2 (“the saints in Christ at Colossae”).

“Easton also maintains that the infrequent references to the Holy Spirit in the PE and the way in which it is referred to there shows that though the author of the PE accepted the doctrine it “meant little to him.” Infrequency can hardly be a safe and sure norm when in two of the other Pauline letters the Spirit is mentioned only once and in another it is not mentioned at all. Haykin demonstrates that a vibrant pneumatology exists in the PE and that there is nothing concerning the Spirit in the PE that Paul could not have written. This emphasis is appropriate. But even in the earlier letters this note is not completely absent. Timothy’s task as Paul’s ambassador to the Corinthians was to “remind you of my [Paul’s] ways in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17). There we see the note of communicating a teaching.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The author of the Pastoral Epistles (PE) cannot be Paul because of a different attitude toward doctrine, treating it as a fixed deposit to be guarded and passed on, unlike Paul’s more dynamic approach in his earlier letters.
2. Hanson argues that the word πίστις (“faith”) in the PE is used differently, referring more to the “content of faith” than to personal trust in Christ, as it does in Paul’s other writings.
3. The phrase “in Christ” in the PE lacks the mystical meaning of unity with Christ found in Paul’s other writings and instead describes gifts “found in” Christ.
4. The infrequent references to the Holy Spirit in the PE suggest that the doctrine “meant little” to the author, indicating a different theological perspective.

Response:

1. “But in fact Paul in his earlier Epistles does have this same attitude toward doctrine.” Paul uses similar language about doctrine in his other letters, such as referring to the gospel as something “received” and “delivered” (1 Cor. 15:1-3) and urging believers to “hold to the traditions” (2 Thess. 2:15). The difference in emphasis in the PE is due to the letters being addressed to fellow workers responsible for teaching, not churches.
2. Hanson’s argument about the different use of πίστις (“faith”) in the PE is acknowledged as a matter of degree; the “content of faith” meaning is also present in Paul’s other letters, like 1 Timothy 1:2.
3. “However, Allan’s focus on differences may be flawed because he overlooks the similarities found in Paul’s other letters.” Guthrie notes that phrases like “with faith and love in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13) and “your faith in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:4) have similar meanings, and if “in Christ” is synonymous with “Christian” in the PE, it should be interpreted the same way in other Pauline letters.
4. The infrequent references to the Holy Spirit in the PE are not indicative of a different theological perspective; in two other Pauline letters, the Spirit is mentioned only once, and in another, not at all. Haykin demonstrates that the PE contains a vibrant pneumatology consistent with Paul’s other writings.

The Use of Different Terms in the PE

The PE use unique terms like “deposit” (παραθήκη), “sound doctrine” (ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία), and “faithful is the saying” (πιστὸς ὁ λόγος), which are not present in Paul’s other letters. These differences reflect variations in style and vocabulary, influenced by the content and audience of the letters. However, only two of these terms (παραθήκη and ὑγιαίνω) are completely absent from Paul’s other writings, suggesting these differences are not significant enough to indicate a different author.

“As significant as this may or may not be, a much more significant factor, which can be observed in the other letters, is Paul’s use of a word or phrase in a couple of letters and not at all in the other letters. For example, he uses “tradition,” παραδόσις, only five times in four letters and in a positive sense only in two letters — once in 1 Corinthians and twice in 2 Thessalonians. No one would say that the use of this word, which is unknown in nine of the Pauline letters and not used in a positive sense in eleven of the letters, could serve as an indicator that these two letters are not by the same Paul who wrote the others. The same norm should be applied to otherwise unused words and terms in the PE. It might still be asked why Paul did not return to the use of παραδόσις in the PE rather than turning to the word παραθήκη. One cannot give dogmatic answers to such questions involving near synonyms. Perhaps the negative significance that παραδόσις could have for Paul (so Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8) had finally had its effect and brought him to use a word that was not so encumbered. Perhaps Paul thought that παραδόσις was more appropriate for the congregation that primarily received the message and that παραθήκη was more appropriate for Timothy and other ministers whose responsibility was both to receive and to pass on faithfully that which they had received. Or Perhaps the language of the context simply triggered the word παραθήκη (rather than παραδόσις) because the verb “guard” was used in all three contexts (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:12, 14). Certainly in 2 Tim. 1:12 “deposit” is more appropriate than “tradition” for referring to Paul’s own life (see the commentary), and then it was natural for Paul to use the same term when he turned to Timothy’s responsibility. These very likely possibilities make it hazardous to put weight on the fact that a previously unused word occurs three times in the PE.”

The text suggests that instead of dismissing the Pastoral Epistles (PE) as non-Pauline due to certain unique words and phrases, we should consider plausible explanations for these differences. For example, the term ὑγιαίνω (often associated with medical contexts) could have entered Paul’s vocabulary through his contact with Luke, the physician. Additionally, the phrase ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία might have been more appropriate for conversations with colleagues rather than congregational teachings. The author argues that we should explore such explanations before concluding that the letters are not from Paul.

The “faithful sayings” are mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) but not in Paul’s other letters, possibly because these sayings became more established in the church before the PE were written or were brought to Paul’s attention while he was in prison. Luke, who was interested in collecting what others said, might have shared these sayings with Paul. Since the PE were addressed more briefly to Paul’s colleagues rather than churches, Paul might have found these concise sayings helpful for summarizing his teachings. Paul could have also become more appreciative of clear summaries of Christian teachings and wanted to share these with his fellow leaders.

“Why also are the “faithful sayings” consistently designated as such in the PE? Perhaps this designation for such sayings had been recently developed and had come to be the convenient way of speaking of them. Or perhaps Paul himself devised this formula to call attention to the fact that they were sayings and to commend them. Unfortunately, we do not know which of these possibilities represents the actual state of affairs, though it is clear that there are a number of plausible explanations that do not demand the denial of the claim of the PE to be Pauline.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The Pastoral Epistles (PE) use unique terms, such as “deposit” (παραθήκη), “sound doctrine” (ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία), and “faithful is the saying” (πιστὸς ὁ λόγος), which are not found in Paul’s other letters, suggesting a different author.
2. The absence of certain terms in other Pauline letters indicates that the vocabulary and style of the PE are distinct, possibly reflecting a different authorship.

Response:

1. The use of unique terms in the PE does not necessarily indicate a different author. “Only two of these terms (παραθήκη and ὑγιαίνω) are completely absent from Paul’s other writings,” which is not significant enough to suggest a different authorship.
2. “Paul’s use of a word or phrase in a couple of letters and not at all in the other letters” is observed in his other writings as well, such as “tradition” (παραδόσις), which appears only five times in four letters. This inconsistency in usage does not imply non-Pauline authorship.
3. Several plausible reasons could explain why Paul used certain terms in the PE. For instance, “the negative significance that παραδόσις could have for Paul (so Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8) had finally had its effect and brought him to use a word that was not so encumbered.”
4. The term ὑγιαίνω, often associated with medical contexts, may have entered Paul’s vocabulary through his contact with Luke, the physician. The phrase ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία might have been more suitable for discussions with colleagues rather than congregational teachings.
5. The “faithful sayings” mentioned in the PE might have become more established or were brought to Paul’s attention during his time in prison. Luke, interested in collecting sayings, could have shared them with Paul, making them useful for concise communication with his colleagues.
6. “There are a number of plausible explanations that do not demand the denial of the claim of the PE to be Pauline.” These variations in vocabulary and style are better explained by context, audience, and practical needs rather than suggesting a different author.

The Context of the Differences

“We are left with the fact that the theological expressions in these letters of Paul to his colleagues are somewhat different from those in his letters to churches. They are not contradictory to the theology of the earlier letters nor do they introduce matters either of form or content that are unthinkable for Paul. Furthermore, these dissimilarities must be put in the larger context of the great similarities in theological viewpoint between the PE and the other Paulines. Kelly aptly sums up the echoes of what we know of Paul’s teaching from his earlier letters that we find in the PE:”

The text describes the author’s acknowledgment of God’s mercy through Jesus Christ and his personal transformation as a sinner and blasphemer (1 Timothy 1:12-17; Titus 3:3-7). It affirms that justification is solely based on God’s grace, not on human merit (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5), and presents Christ as the redeemer who gave Himself for sinners (1 Timothy 2:5-6; 1:15). The author also discusses eternal life as both a future goal for Christians and something they can experience now, achieved through faith in Christ (1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:2; 3:7). Moreover, the text reflects Paul’s teachings that God called believers by His grace before creation (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 2:11) and aligns with Paul’s views on societal roles, such as slaves and governing authorities (1 Timothy 6:1; 2:1-2; Titus 3:1).

**“Scott, who does not advocate Pauline authorship, says of these teachings that “these are no mere perfunctory echoes of Pauline thought.”** Without this pervasive similarity of basic truths and without the knowledge of Paul’s own versatility and occasional use of terms and phrases that he did not use again, one might conceivably think that the differences were the crucial and deciding factor. But since both the similarities and the differences fit within the framework of Pauline practice, it does not point to a compelling argument against Pauline authorship.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The theological expressions in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) differ from those in Paul’s letters to churches, suggesting they might not be authored by Paul.
2. Some argue that these differences in style and content could indicate a different author since the PE use terms and expressions not found in Paul’s earlier letters.

Response:

1. “They are not contradictory to the theology of the earlier letters nor do they introduce matters either of form or content that are unthinkable for Paul.” The theological expressions in the PE are different but not contradictory to Paul’s earlier letters, nor do they present concepts that Paul could not have written.
2. “These dissimilarities must be put in the larger context of the great similarities in theological viewpoint between the PE and the other Paulines.” Despite some differences, there are significant similarities in theological viewpoint between the PE and Paul’s other letters.
3. Kelly summarizes the similarities: both the PE and Paul’s earlier letters emphasize God’s mercy through Jesus Christ, justification by grace, Christ as the redeemer, and eternal life through faith in Christ, among other doctrines. These points show strong continuity with Paul’s theology.
4. “Scott, who does not advocate Pauline authorship, says of these teachings that ‘these are no mere perfunctory echoes of Pauline thought.’” Even scholars who question Pauline authorship acknowledge that the teachings in the PE are deeply rooted in Pauline theology.
5. The differences in theological expressions align with Paul’s versatility and occasional use of unique terms and phrases. Since both similarities and differences fit within the framework of Paul’s practices, they do not provide a strong argument against Pauline authorship.

VOCABULARY AND STYLE

The text discusses the importance of examining vocabulary and style, particularly in the use of different theological terms, as these are closely related. Harrison and other scholars have noted significant differences in style and vocabulary in the texts, often measured by counting how frequently certain words are used. The focus here is on analyzing these differences to better understand the texts’ authorship and theological content.

Methodological Questions

Just as in most of the questions or objections examined above, here also one needs a norm or standard to determine what range of variation is beyond that of writers in general and of Paul in particular. Metzger raises this question most effectively, directing attention to the work of the statistician Yule. Yule’s volume deals with both the legitimacy and the limitations of using word counts to establish literary authorship and concludes that this approach is legitimate but needs certain controls. One control is that the treatise to be examined be about ten thousand words long. **Metzger observes that “since the sum total of the words in all three Pastoral Epistles is far less than this figure, the New Testament scholar who uses the statistical method on them must at the outset resign himself to accepting results that are less than generally trustworthy.”**

Metzger also formulates the key methodological question that Yule’s study addresses: “How different can the results of a particular analysis of the two texts be before they throw serious doubt upon the theory that they have a common author?” He summarizes the transferable results of Yule’s study as follows:

• The “allowed deviation” . . . must vary according to the text and subject matter, and may vary according to the change of a particular author’s habits between the composing of two works. In this case we must take into account not only the amount of time that may have elapsed between the composition of two works, but also whether we are dealing with an author whose ways of writing fluctuate surprisingly. This latter question involves not only certain intangible considerations of the personality of the author, but even of the literary habits of the age in which he was living.

In addition to calling attention to this most basic methodological point, Metzger also points out that others have raised questions about how the variables are calculated, again indicating a basic question of methodology. **“Hitchcock pointed out that when Harrison cites non-Biblical occurrences of words that appear in the Pastoral Epistles but not in the acknowledged Pauline Epistles, in many cases he does not cite the earliest appearance but the latest and thus creates the (erroneous) impression that these words occur only after the first century A.D.”** Michaelis shows that Harrison would **have reached entirely different results if he had calculated the percentage of hapax legomena in relation to the total number of different Greek words per book rather than in relation to the number of pages of Greek text in a book. Using this other procedure Romans has nearly the same percentage of hapax legomena as 2 Timothy and Titus.** Metzger concludes his article as a whole with a significant statement: “It seems, therefore, that a discreet reticence should replace the almost unbounded confidence with which many scholars have used this method in attempting to solve the problem of the authorship of the PE.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. Significant differences in style and vocabulary, particularly in the use of theological terms, suggest that the Pastoral Epistles (PE) may have a different authorship from Paul’s other letters.
2. Word count and frequency analysis have been used to establish these differences, raising doubts about whether Paul wrote the PE.

Answers:

1. “One needs a norm or standard to determine what range of variation is beyond that of writers in general and of Paul in particular.” Establishing authorship based on vocabulary and style requires a proper standard to determine acceptable variation, especially considering differences in subject matter and audience.
2. Metzger, referencing Yule’s statistical work, notes that using word counts to determine authorship has limitations, particularly for shorter texts like the PE. “Since the sum total of the words in all three Pastoral Epistles is far less than this figure, the New Testament scholar who uses the statistical method on them must at the outset resign himself to accepting results that are less than generally trustworthy.”
3. Yule’s study indicates that the “allowed deviation” in word use must account for various factors, including the time elapsed between compositions and changes in the author’s writing habits. This variability means differences in style and vocabulary do not necessarily imply different authorship.
4. “Hitchcock pointed out that when Harrison cites non-Biblical occurrences of words that appear in the Pastoral Epistles but not in the acknowledged Pauline Epistles, in many cases he does not cite the earliest appearance but the latest and thus creates the (erroneous) impression that these words occur only after the first century A.D.” This methodological flaw suggests that some arguments against Pauline authorship based on word usage may be misleading.
5. Michaelis shows that calculating the percentage of hapax legomena differently could yield very different results, such as showing that Romans has a similar percentage of unique words as 2 Timothy and Titus. This challenges the reliability of statistical methods used to argue against Pauline authorship.
6. “Metzger concludes his article as a whole with a significant statement: ‘It seems, therefore, that a discreet reticence should replace the almost unbounded confidence with which many scholars have used this method in attempting to solve the problem of the authorship of the PE.’” This suggests that scholars should be cautious in relying heavily on statistical methods for determining authorship of the PE.

The Arguments

Scholars like Morton and McLeman have attempted to determine the authorship of Paul’s letters using statistical methods, such as analyzing sentence length, but these methods have been heavily criticized. For example, their criteria would incorrectly exclude parts of Romans from being Pauline. Kenny and others have identified significant flaws in these approaches, including issues with the use of specific words like καὶ as a test. Additional methods, like examining the grammatical category of the last words in sentences, have also been critiqued for their lack of reliability. Overall, these statistical methods are seen as inadequate for conclusively determining Pauline authorship. “We have shown that none of [Morton and McLeman’s] tests stand up completely to detailed study.”*Clark*

Grayston and Herdan refine Harrison’s linguistic analysis by introducing a new ratio, “C,” which accounts for both unique and common words in an Epistle, divided by the total vocabulary of that Epistle. This method shows some differences between the PE and the other Pauline letters. However, their approach of grouping the PE together might influence the results, unlike other Pauline letters, which were calculated separately. This grouping could potentially bias the analysis by making the PE seem more similar or different depending on how the calculation is framed.

When Clark and Robinson ran the same test with the PE treated as separate letters, they both found that the PE fit well into the range set by the Pauline letters. In fact, because of this outcome Robinson concluded that “until the time that a method is found that is much more discriminating than those before us, literary critics of the New Testament must recognize the possibility that there may exist no relationship between the percentage of hapax legomena in different works that could be used to detect a difference in authorship.”

Harrison’s analysis of the PE involved four main types of data: hapaxes (words appearing only once), non-Pauline words in the PE shared with other New Testament writings, Pauline words missing from the PE, and grammatical and stylistic differences between the PE and other Pauline letters. He concluded that these differences were significant enough to suggest different authorship. Harrison’s mathematical analysis showed that the frequency of hapaxes ranged from 3.3 to 6.2 per page in the other Pauline letters but was much higher in the PE, ranging from 12.9 to 16.1 per page, totaling around 175 hapaxes in the PE. He argued that this difference was too significant for one author, suggesting the PE were written in the second century. Additionally, Harrison identified 306 words in the PE that are not found in the other Pauline letters, a number he believed Paul would not have included in his known working vocabulary of around 2,177 words from the other ten Pauline letters.

The text argues that the unique words found in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) are not so unusual that Paul would not have used them. Of the 306 words not found in the other Pauline letters, 131 were used by Paul’s contemporaries and others with whom he had personal contact, suggesting Paul would have known these words. Only 28 of these 306 words are unknown in writings before AD 50, and fewer than 20 are unknown before AD 90. Additionally, about 80 of the hapaxes (words occurring only once) are found in the Septuagint (LXX). These factors suggest that the vocabulary of the PE could plausibly be attributed to Paul, challenging Harrison’s claim that the vocabulary is from the second century.

To this must be added the fact that the great majority of the new words are found in sections dealing with new subject matter,** a phenomenon to be expected in letters to colleagues rather than to churches. The Latinity of some of the new words would suggest that Paul has been increasingly influenced by his environment.** Since several of the hapaxes are cognates of Pauline words and several are new compounds that have analogies in the other Pauline Epistles, the logical conclusion is that they point toward Paul as the author rather than away from him.** Paul often takes over the language of his opponents; perhaps this has also played a role in the PE. Finally, as shall see later, certain words are also shared with Luke his companion.**

Our conclusion is that we expect Paul to use more new words when he writes to his colleagues (in contrast to his previous letters to churches) about new subjects and that the various factors listed above account adequately for a great number of the new words used.

Harrison cites a large number of words absent from the PE but present in anywhere from five to nine other Pauline letters,139 and also whole groups of such words derived from a common root having approximately the same span of occurrence (with one group occurring in all of the other ten Epistles).140 As impressive as it is to find four words that occur in nine of the other Pauline epistles and not in the PE, the fact that this happens for nine rather than ten speaks for itself. We cannot say that Paul must use any single word in any one of his letters. There is no word (leaving aside, as Harrison does, the article, conjunctions, etc., which are so common that they are not unique to a writer) that Paul always uses and must use in any letter that he writes. This should give us pause in evaluating the groups with a common root, for here there is one root that occurs in all ten of the other Paulines, the verb ἐνεργέω and its cognates. But since the most basic form of the root would be ἔργον rather than ἐνεργέω, it would not be right to say that the PE cannot be Pauline because they do not use some form of the root ἐργ- with ἐν-, even though they use ἔργον, ἐργατης, εὐεργεσία, and other compound forms. It is, instead, more significant that the most basic form of the root of the one word grouping that is present in the ten other Paulines, namely the root form ἔργ-, is present also in the PE. As is often the case, the evidence against the Pauline authorship proves to be lacking in conclusiveness and points in the opposite direction.

Harrison argued that the distinctive writing style in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) suggests a different author from Paul. He pointed out that many particles, prepositions, and pronouns found in the other ten Pauline letters are absent in the PE. This difference in what Hunter calls the “connective tissue” of the text—basic grammatical elements—raises questions about whether the style is genuinely Paul’s.

Initially the argument seems quite impressive. Harrison lists 112 particles, prepositions, and pronouns, etc., that are in Paul’s other ten letters but not in the PE. 142 But the impressiveness begins to wane when we realize that 58 of these occur in only one or two letters and three of the letters have less than 20 of them. Furthermore, of the 112 words only 28 occur in at least five Pauline Epistles. ** 

Ephesians and Colossians, which are closely related, share only 6 particles, illustrating that no single particle is used consistently across all ten of Paul’s letters. Out of 93 additional particles and prepositional forms in the New Testament not included by Harrison, all but one (ἀνά) appear in the Pastoral Epistles (PE), and all but 7 are found in the other ten Pauline letters. Among these 93 particles, 73 are found in 1 Timothy, 61 in 2 Timothy, and 43 in Titus, with the other Pauline letters showing numbers ranging from the mid-40s to a high of 73 (except Philemon, which has 32). This demonstrates that the PE and other Pauline letters share a significant number of connective words, but no single word or particle is present in all of Paul’s letters, indicating variation is typical and does not necessarily imply different authorship.

“The particles and other words that are part of the connective tissue are like all the other words at issue in that they are aspects of the content communicated and the method by which it is communicated. We have already noted above that the style of the PE, just because they are written to colleagues, differs from that of the earlier letters (just as those letters also differ among themselves). White has pointed out that out of some 24 characteristic Pauline particles more are found in the four great Epistles, which contain more rhetorical passages, and that less are found in the Prison Epistles, where rhetorical passages are less frequent. We should expect this trend to continue in the even less rhetorical PE, and we should not be surprised that it does. To put the matter in its broadest perspective, we need to remind ourselves that there are 205 particles, pronouns, prepositional forms, etc., found in the NT, and 204 are found in one or more Pauline letters if we include the PE and 197 if we exclude the PE. It is true that a large number (112) do not appear in the PE. But that number is put into perspective when one realizes that more than 112 particles, etc., do not appear in six of the ten other Paulines.

Thus the PE compare favorably with the other Paulines in the variety and number of particles, etc., or “connective tissue” (to use Hunter’s phrase) that they use. Kenny’s study of stylometrics (using regarding the PE regarded as a group.

The PE do have certain differences in vocabulary and style from the other ten Paulines, but these differences are not out of the range of “a single, unusually versatile author,” to use Kenny’s designation of Paul. They are differences in the midst of many similarities. When one takes into account the various factors that legitimately enter into these differences, they are adequately explained and in fact shown to be normal rather than abnormal. As we said earlier, the several differences between the PE and the Paulines are all interrelated and mutually explanatory parts of one overarching and comprehensive difference. These letters are written to different recipients about essentially different matters in a style and vocabulary consistent with these two factors and with any effect that the environment might have had on the author.

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. Statistical methods used to analyze sentence length, word frequency, and other stylistic elements suggest that the Pastoral Epistles (PE) differ significantly from Paul’s other letters, raising doubts about Pauline authorship.
2. Differences in vocabulary and the presence of unique words in the PE, such as a high number of hapaxes (words appearing only once) and non-Pauline words, suggest a different author.
3. The absence of certain particles, prepositions, and pronouns in the PE, compared to Paul’s other letters, implies a different style that is not consistent with Paul’s known writings.

Response:

1. “We have shown that none of [Morton and McLeman’s] tests stand up completely to detailed study.” The statistical methods, like analyzing sentence length and word usage, have significant flaws and do not provide reliable conclusions. Kenny and others have identified problems with these methods, such as the inappropriate use of specific words as tests for authorship.
2. Grayston and Herdan’s refined linguistic analysis showed some differences between the PE and other Pauline letters, but when the PE were treated as separate letters, the differences fell within the range of variation seen among the Pauline letters. “In fact, because of this outcome Robinson concluded that ‘until the time that a method is found that is much more discriminating than those before us, literary critics of the New Testament must recognize the possibility that there may exist no relationship between the percentage of hapax legomena in different works that could be used to detect a difference in authorship.’”
3. The unique words in the PE, though not found in Paul’s other letters, are not unusual enough to suggest a different author. Many of these words were used by Paul’s contemporaries or were familiar terms, reducing the significance of their absence from other Pauline letters.
4. The differences in vocabulary can be explained by the new subject matter addressed in the PE, which would naturally introduce new terms. “The Latinity of some of the new words would suggest that Paul has been increasingly influenced by his environment.” Additionally, some hapaxes are cognates of Pauline words, pointing toward a consistent author.
5. “The particles and other words that are part of the connective tissue are like all the other words at issue in that they are aspects of the content communicated and the method by which it is communicated.” Differences in particles and prepositions are expected given the different audiences and purposes of the letters. For example, the PE, written to colleagues, are less rhetorical than Paul’s letters to churches.
6. The absence of certain grammatical elements in the PE, which are present in other Pauline letters, does not conclusively prove different authorship. “More than 112 particles, etc., do not appear in six of the ten other Paulines.” This shows variation in style across all of Paul’s letters, not just the PE.
7. Kenny’s study of stylometrics supports the idea that the differences in the PE are within the range of variation expected from “a single, unusually versatile author” like Paul. The PE’s differences are normal variations consistent with different recipients and subject matter, rather than evidence of different authorship.

PSEUDONYMITY

The self-testimony to Pauline authorship in the PE and the specificity with which they refer to Paul and his circumstances, fellow workers, concerns, etc. (see above under Self-Testimony regarding Authorship, Recipients, Setting, and Purposes), pose a challenge to those who deny Pauline authorship.

Harrison and others regard some sections as genuine fragments written by Paul and incorporated into the letters by the pseudonymous writer. But this approach has had fewer defenders as time goes on. 

More often it is said that all the contents of the three letters were composed by a writer using the pseudonym of Paul. 157

This more thorough pseudonymity view carries with it the problem of explaining why the author has included such details regarding Paul and other persons in his work.

Some scholars, like Hanson, believe that the detailed sections in the PE reflect a genuine historical tradition about Paul. Others argue that these details were entirely fictional, created by the author to make the narrative seem more authentic. Trummer suggests that these seemingly historical elements were fabricated to serve as examples for church leaders. Building on this idea, Meade proposes that writing letters in Paul’s name was justified as a means of communicating and preserving Paul’s teachings, especially since Paul encouraged others to imitate him.

Hanson finds Trummer’s argument unconvincing. But to say, with Hanson, that these sections in the PE with apparent historical details represent genuine historical traditions, is still to say that they were included to “give verisimilitude” to the pseudonymous composition.

Footnote:

157. Cf. also Cook, “Pastoral Fragments.” Cook concludes his study with these words: “The intermediate ground occupied by the defenders of the fragment hypothesis proves to be rather a no man’s land not suited for

The ethical question of pseudonymous authorship is raised because it involves concerns about deception and truthfulness. Proponents of pseudonymous authorship argue that these concerns are not relevant, as this practice was accepted in its historical context and did not carry the same moral implications. They claim that questioning it from a modern perspective imposes contemporary ethical standards on a different time period. However, the text questions whether this defense is valid.

The text discusses the ethical concerns around pseudonymous authorship, especially within the context of Paul’s letters. It suggests that pseudonymous writing, where a letter is falsely attributed to someone like Paul, raises questions about deception and truthfulness. This issue is particularly pertinent because Paul often took steps to authenticate his letters, such as including a “distinguishing mark” written in his own hand to verify their authenticity. These marks, mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 3:17, 1 Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, Colossians 4:18, and Philemon 19, were intended to prevent the early church members from being deceived by letters falsely claiming to be from him.

The text argues that Paul’s explicit concern for the authentication of his letters suggests that he set a precedent for the early church. This perspective implies that any letters falsely claiming to be from Paul would be easily recognized and rejected, countering any argument that pseudonymous letters were later accepted by the early church.

“It must be demonstrated not only that these letters are pseudonymous and not deceptive but also that the early church would accept letters known to be pseudonymous into the canon.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The detailed references to Paul’s circumstances, fellow workers, and concerns in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) challenge the view that they are pseudonymous and not written by Paul.
2. Some suggest that these letters might contain genuine fragments of Paul’s writing, incorporated by a later pseudonymous author. However, this theory has lost support over time.
3. The more common theory is that all three letters were entirely composed by a pseudonymous writer using Paul’s name, raising questions about why the author included such specific details about Paul.
4. Some scholars argue that these detailed sections reflect genuine historical traditions about Paul, while others believe they were entirely fictional, created to give the narrative a sense of authenticity.

Response:

1. The specificity of the self-testimony to Pauline authorship in the PE, including references to Paul’s circumstances and fellow workers, makes the pseudonymous authorship view problematic. “These details were included to ‘give verisimilitude’ to the pseudonymous composition,” suggesting an attempt to make the letters seem more authentic.
2. The ethical issue of pseudonymous authorship is debated because it involves concerns about deception. Some argue that pseudonymous writing was accepted in its historical context, but this defense is questioned since it imposes contemporary ethical standards on a different time period.
3. “Paul often took steps to authenticate his letters, such as including a ‘distinguishing mark’ written in his own hand to verify their authenticity.” This suggests Paul was concerned about the truthfulness of his correspondence, implying that any pseudonymous letters would likely be rejected by the early church.
4. The text argues that Paul’s explicit concern for the authentication of his letters set a precedent for the early church, challenging the idea that the church would accept pseudonymous letters as canonical. “It must be demonstrated not only that these letters are pseudonymous and not deceptive but also that the early church would accept letters known to be pseudonymous into the canon.” This underscores the improbability of the church accepting forged letters attributed to Paul.

Was Luke Involved?

The Lucan Proposal

“Another solution to the problem of the differences in vocabulary and style between the PE and the other Paulines is that a secretary or amanuensis wrote the letters under Paul’s authority but did so in such a way as to have an impact upon the language and style of the letters.165 A particular form of this solution proposed in recent years (albeit repeating an observation made long ago)166 is that this secretary was Luke. This link with Luke has been suggested both by those who think that the PE are Pauline and by those who think that they are not, both agreeing that the PE and Luke have certain things in common.”

C. F. D. Moule’s lecture, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” revived the idea that Luke may have influenced the Pastoral Epistles (PE). Strobel supported this theory by comparing the language and style of Luke-Acts with the PE. However, Brox criticized Strobel, arguing there is no evidence of Luke’s authorship or influence. Quinn proposed that the PE started as short letters from Paul, later expanded by Luke as an addition to the Gospel and Acts. Wilson revised the proposals of Moule and Strobel, integrating Brox’s critiques, and suggested that the PE were authored by the writer of Luke-Acts (who he argues is not the same Luke mentioned in the New Testament) and are post-Pauline. Wilson’s comprehensive work has been extensively reviewed, especially by Quinn, W. Larkin, and I. H. Marshall, prompting further analysis of his arguments in light of these critiques.

Wilson’s argument for the authorship of the PE consists of two main parts: linguistic similarities between Luke-Acts and the PE, and a shared theological outlook. Focusing on the linguistic evidence, Wilson cites Strobel’s findings of 37 words common to Luke-Acts and the PE but absent elsewhere in the New Testament (NT), noting that these words are used differently across the two bodies of literature. Despite the PE’s brevity, this is notable, especially since only 62 words are shared by Luke and Acts despite their common authorship. Additionally, 37 words are common to the PE and Luke-Acts but rare in the rest of the NT.

Wilson also identifies stylistic traits almost exclusive to Luke-Acts and the PE, including four that do not appear in the other ten Pauline letters, 10 verbs not found in those Paulines, and 10 expressions unique to Luke-Acts and the PE. The PE and Luke-Acts share 37 words exclusively, while the next closest parallels are 10 words shared with Hebrews and 7 with 2 Peter. When comparing exclusive terms between the PE and other groups, Luke-Acts and the PE share 34 words out of 554, while the PE and the other ten Paulines share 55 words out of 574. These findings suggest that the linguistic evidence supports Pauline authorship of the PE more strongly than Lucan authorship.

The Relationship between Paul and Luke

The comparison studies by Strobel, Wilson, and Marshall suggest two key insights, despite not supporting Lucan authorship. First, they highlight the significant similarities between the PE and the other Pauline letters. Although the focus has often been on the differences between the PE and other letters, it is essential to recognize that these differences occur between groups that are otherwise quite similar, as indicated by the statistics. The PE are Pauline in style, containing a considerable amount of personal information about Paul and sharing much vocabulary with other Pauline letters, including many exclusively shared words.

However, the differences between the PE and other letters must also be acknowledged. Comparisons with Luke-Acts provide potential insights into these differences. While the evidence does not support Lucan authorship, it shows that the PE are closer to Luke-Acts than to any other literature, with significant shared elements. The specific words, stylistic traits, and expressions in the PE not found in the other Pauline letters (considered inherently non-Pauline) are often shared exclusively with Luke or with 

“Luke and one or two other NT writers — some 68 such items by my count. Furthermore, my count of words occurring in the PE and in Luke-Acts but not in the other ten Paulines (based on Morgenthaler’s Statistik) turned up 75 such words (including proper nouns but not some of the unique combinations of words that Wilson’s list”

The similarities between the PE and Luke-Acts might result from the close relationship between Luke and Paul. The “we” sections in Acts suggest Luke was personally present with Paul on various occasions, including during the two-year Roman imprisonment. Paul mentions Luke in his Prison Epistles (Colossians 4:14; Philemon 24) and specifically states in 2 Timothy 4:11, “only Luke is with me.” This implies that Luke became a constant companion of Paul, influencing Paul’s vocabulary and style over time.

The PE reflect what might be expected in these circumstances: they are mainly Pauline but show significant overlap with Luke-Acts, possibly due to Luke’s influence on Paul’s linguistic style or Luke serving as a secretary for Paul. 

“In any case, the connections between Luke-Acts and the PE and between Luke and Paul are so striking and inherently interrelated that one must ask whether this may not be a significant factor in the solution to the linguistic phenomena of the PE.”

SUMMARY

Arguments/Objections:

1. The differences in vocabulary and style between the Pastoral Epistles (PE) and Paul’s other letters suggest that a secretary or amanuensis, like Luke, may have written the PE under Paul’s authority, influencing the language and style.
2. Some scholars propose that Luke, or the author of Luke-Acts, influenced or authored the PE, pointing to linguistic similarities between Luke-Acts and the PE.
3. Wilson and others argue that the PE share significant linguistic and stylistic traits with Luke-Acts that are not found in the other Pauline letters, suggesting a closer relationship between these writings than between the PE and other Pauline letters.

Respnse:

1. The hypothesis that a secretary or amanuensis such as Luke wrote the PE under Paul’s authority explains the differences in vocabulary and style. “This link with Luke has been suggested both by those who think that the PE are Pauline and by those who think that they are not, both agreeing that the PE and Luke have certain things in common.”
2. Although Wilson and Strobel found 37 words common to both Luke-Acts and the PE but absent elsewhere in the NT, the PE and the other ten Pauline letters share more words (55 out of 574) than the PE and Luke-Acts (34 out of 554). This suggests that the linguistic evidence supports Pauline authorship of the PE more strongly than Lucan authorship.
3. “The comparisons with Luke-Acts provide potential insights into these differences. While the evidence does not support Lucan authorship, it shows that the PE are closer to Luke-Acts than to any other literature, with significant shared elements.” The similarities between the PE and Luke-Acts could be due to the close relationship between Luke and Paul, as indicated by the “we” sections in Acts and Paul’s references to Luke as a constant companion.
4. The PE’s overlap with Luke-Acts might result from Luke’s influence on Paul’s linguistic style or from Luke serving as a secretary for Paul. “The connections between Luke-Acts and the PE and between Luke and Paul are so striking and inherently interrelated that one must ask whether this may not be a significant factor in the solution to the linguistic phenomena of the PE.” This suggests that the relationship between Luke and Paul could account for the stylistic similarities, without necessitating a different authorship for the PE.

CONCLUSION

The arguments against Pauline authorship of the PE, like the arguments for Lucan authorship, initially appear to be persuasive. But when examined more closely they fall far short of being conclusive. Examination of both sets of arguments brings out relationships between the PE and both bodies of work that have been overlooked or not adequately appreciated. Thus the apparent problem areas have in the long run made their own contributions and have thus strengthened rather than weakened the pervasive self-testimony of the letters to their Pauline authorship. Differences remain between the PE and the other Paulines, but as suggested above, the differences are interrelated and mutually explanatory parts of one overarching and comprehensive difference: The PE were written to different recipients—colleagues not churches. When the apostle writes to his colleagues, much of what he writes about is different. Furthermore, his method of communication, style, and vocabulary are also different because of the difference in recipients and content. Thus the differences themselves are not unexplainable, but rather prove to be appropriate authenticating marks of letters by Paul to two of his colleagues.

SOURCE REFERENCE

The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles (p. 21-52). Dr. George W. Knight. III