Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles by Robert John Edwards Philadelphia Biblical University

2 Abstract There are five main areas of contention with regards to Pauline authorship that historical criticism uses to refute the Pastoral Epistles as first century works: vocabulary and linguistic usage; content pertaining to false teachings; Church structure; the historical placement of the letters; and the significance of theological meanings. Yet none of these criticisms, in part or as a whole, unequivocally demand another author other than Paul. Many conservative scholars have various ways of defending the traditional stance that Paul remains the author of the Pastoral Epistles.

While Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (PE) was rarely contested for nearly two thousand years, the past century has sparked new criticisms regarding the true origins of the letters. The five main points of contention are vocabulary and linguistic usage; content pertaining to false teachings; Church structure; the historical placement of the letters; and the significance of theological meanings held within the PE. While arguments against Pauline authorship are intriguing, they are not sufficient to conclude that Paul did not indeed author the Pastoral Epistles. One argument against Pauline authorship is the uniqueness of vocabulary usage in the PE that is not found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus (hapax legomena), which totals 306 words out of 902. P.N. Harrison determined there were 175 hapax legomena that do not appear in any other N.T. writing outside the PE. (Harrison p.20) There are other Pauline words or phrases absent from the PE as well, such as Pauls repeated use of in Christ, the righteousness of God, and any mention of the cross. However, this method of determining authorship comes with one caveat: that the use of word counts in any given document must contain approximately 1,000 words. Metzger concludes, 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. (Knight p.39) Some scholars, including P.N. Harrison, have concluded that these changes to linguistic style point to the second century B.C.E., and thus, cannot be written by Paul. However, those who defend Pauline authorship believe there are perfectly good reasons why the language and vocabulary differ in the PE from Pauls other works.

4 It is possible to attribute the change in Pauline style in the Pastorals to three different causes. First, Pauls subject matter, age, and life experiences may have led him to use a different mood and manner of expression from that which he used in his other writings. Second, the needs of Pauls readerschurch organization and heretical worship practicesmay have prompted his omission of certain terms and theological ideas which he used in other epistles. And third, Third, Paul may have used an amanuensis or secretary in writing the Pastorals and could have given him the freedom to choose some of his own words. (NAC p.33) Another concern of scholars with regards to the PE is the way in which false teaching is handled in the PE. Opponents of Pauline authorship believe these letters were written to answer the second-century heresies of Gnosticism. Those who seek to link the heresy addressed in the Pastorals with Gnosticism find support for their views in the reference to a Gnostic-like denial of the resurrection, a teaching Paul opposed in 2 Tim 2:1718. The reference to Christ as the one mediator between God and men (1 Tim 2:5) could provide a Christian response to the systems of aeons in fully developed Gnosticism. (NBC p.412) But there is other evidence in Pauls other writings that Paul warns against knowledge where Gnosticism is not in view. (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:1, 2) J.N.D. Kelly suggests that these false teachings are something much more elementary to Gnostic teachings found in the second century, concluding, There is no needto look outside the first century, or indeed the span of Pauls life, for such an amalgam of Jewish and Gnostic traits in the Levant. (Knight p.28)

5 Some have suggested that Pauls approach in the PE to these false teachers differs from his other warnings concerning false teachers in his other works. In his other works, Paul uses strong language in rebuking false teachers who threatened the early church, as in Phil. 3:2 where Paul calls them dogsevil workers. In Colossians 2:8, Paul instructs the church to See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. However, in the PE, Paul simply denounces the false teachers and warns Timothy and Titus to avoid them. Yet, one can assume the familiarity Timothy and Titus had with Pauls warnings and instructions regarding the false teachers and their erroneous propaganda, thus, in personal letters, Paul may not have seen a need to re-instruct his students concerning this issue. In the case of Pauls discourse concerning ecclesiastical structure, Pauline authorship opponents insist that the offices identified in the letters (sans 2 Timothy) were not fully developed in during the first century, leading them to hold the position that the works of 1 Timothy and Titus are a second century product, well after the Apostolic Age. It is the misconception that the early church was mainly concerned with spiritual gifts and not ecclesiastical structure that has hindered liberal scholars from understanding that Paul was very much concerned with church leadership. One such example is that of E.Y. Hincks, who erroneously concludes, Historical criticism confirms the impression of difference in showing that the letters in question could not have been written by the Apostle during the period of work that produced the earlier ones. (Hincks p.98) In addition, Kmmel feels that the Pastorals come from a community which is establishing itself in the world as Paul never knew it. Hanson remarks that the attention

6 which the Pastorals devote to ordained offices in the churches in itself marks them as belonging to a later generation than Pauls. (NAC p.34) In defense of Pauls authorship of the PE, Darrell Pursiful states that the author doesnt give us job descriptions as much as moral qualifications for offices apparently already understood. The undisputed Pauline letters refer by title to the same offices found in the Pastorals, elders/overseers and deacons (Phil. 1:1; Rom 16:1) and explicitly recognize the role of authority figures in the church (1 Cor 16:15-17; Gal 6:6; 1 Thess 5:12). (Platypus, Web Article) With these examples of Pauls understanding of church structure, the argument for a second century author is greatly diminished. A. Duane Litfin concludes, Clearly the emergence of the offices of elder-bishop and deacon had already occurred within Pauls lifetime, no doubt at his own instigation. Nothing about those offices in the Pastoral Epistles requires a second-century date. (BKC p.728) One of the main arguments of Pauline authorship centers around how the supposed dates of the writings fit into Pauls lifetime. Scholars look to the Book of Acts to reference when Paul might have written the PE. 1 and 2 Timothy place Timothy in Ephesus and 1 Timothy has Paul going to Macedonia (1:3). In Acts Paul does travel to Macedonia from Ephesus (Acts 20:1), but Timothy has not been left behind in Ephesus but sent ahead to Macedonia (19:22). Timothy accompanies Paul on his way to Jerusalem (20:4). (cf. Knight p.15) So when could the PE have been written? Scholarship against Paul as author sees this as an impasse that solidifies the need for another author. However, many scholars believe that Paul may have been released from his first imprisonment in Rome, which would have taken place outside the scope of Lukes Acts, which enables the historical events of the PE to take place. In this view, eventually Paul would be

7 imprisoned a second and final time which led to his martyrdom. Those who oppose this view do so because there is no evidence for this outside the Scriptures. There is a third group, who simply dismiss the historical references made in the PE altogether. Those who do not find either of these reconstructions convincing simply treat all the historical references as fictional and make no further effort to relate them to the Acts story. (NBC p.413) Advocates of Pauline authorship see no problem with working historical events in the PE with Acts (either during or after) as reminding us all that the Book of Acts may not be a complete list of events and travels of Paul and his colleagues. Pursiful writes, Acts gives only a selective and highly stylized rendering of Pauls travels, and that the letters provide only fragmentary bits and pieces of data. Just as 2 Corinthians, for example, tells us about imprisonments we would not have otherwise known of, the Pastorals may well provide accurate information about missionary activity we would not have suspected. (Platypus, Web Article) In fact, what appears to be a slam dunk for proponents of historical criticism fails in completely dismissing the events found in the PE. Stanley Porter concludes, It seems to me that the letters themselves do not create serious difficulties, until Acts is introduced, although even then the difficulties do not seem to be beyond at least plausible conjecture. Porter p.108) This assessment removes any need for the third reaction that the historical events in PE should be dismissed as fictional. The last area of contention is with what many claim is a lack of theology found in the PE. Unlike the undisputed Pauline works, which make many deep theological proclamations, critical scholars believe the PE demonstrates a lack of theological knowledge found elsewhere. According to this critical view the Pastorals supposedly show a lesser mind at work. They say

8 the material is not anti-Pauline, or even non-Pauline, but merely un-Pauline, or perhaps subPauline. (BKC p.729) As mentioned previously, the writer does not use language or phrases typical of other Pauline works. However, the same push can be made with regards to other key phrases Paul uses in certain undisputed texts and not in others that are undisputed, such as the lack of son when referring to Christ which is not found in Philippians and Philemon, as well as the lack of the word (or its theological meaning) cross, which is not found in Romans, 2 Corinthians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians. But one needs only to look at Pauls audience and their communities as well as the subject matter in each to identify Pauls varying use of theological discourse. George W. Knight properly states, 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. (Knight p.35) In conclusion, this brief summary barely breaks the surface of the iceberg that is the debate concerning Pauline authorship of the PE. However, the key differences and arguments have been stated thoroughly enough to grasp a fair understanding of the issues regarding these books. While historical critics attack the authenticity of the author of the PE on these five categories, those that hold to Pauline authorship adequately defend such accusations with appropriate, plausible conclusions. Until such a time comes when scholars may acquire additional elements that may shed new light on the matter, it is safe to attest that the Paul of first century Palestine did indeed author the Pastorals.

9 References Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible Commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press. Harrison, P.N., (1921). The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. Milford, ENG: Oxford University Press. Hincks, E.Y., (1897). Journal of Biblical Literature: The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. (Vol. 16, No. 1-2) Society of Biblical Literature. Holy Bible: New American Standard. California: Foundation Press Publications, 1960 Knight, George W. (1992). The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. Lea, Thomas D. editor (1992). New American Commentary: 1, 2 Timothy, and Titus. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon, Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995): 105-123. Pursiful, Darrell. (2008). The Pastoral Epistles. Web Article. Retrieved on October 21, 2010 from: http://pursiful.com/2008/11/the-pastoral-epistles/ Walvoord, John F. & Zuck, Roy B., editors, (2004) Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communication Ministries