WHO WROTE THE PASTORAL EPISTLES?

This may seem like a heretical question even to ask. But if you have been raised in an evangelical church, you should be aware that most mainstream church scholarship since the nineteenth century rejects Paul as the author of I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus. Below I have started with Ronald Ward's categorization of the different reasons given for this attitude as well as rebuttals given by Ward and others who defend a Pauline authorship. Any standard commentary on these books or a good Bible introduction will review much of what is summarized below.

Non-Acceptance by the Early Church

This is a very weak argument based entirely on the fact that these three books do not appear in Marcion's Canon or the Chester Beatty Papyrus (early 3^rd cent.) found in Egypt.

In rebuttal, it should be noted that Marcion's list of acceptable books was quite select and excluded the whole Old Testament as well as any NT writings that seemed to be favorable toward the Law (see I Timothy 1:8; 6:20; II Timothy 3:16). As to the Chester Beatty Papyrus (early 3^rd cent), it was missing pages at the end, and so we really do not know whether or not the Pastorals were originally included. And the absence of the Pastorals there is compensated for by the evidence that these books were already well known to Clement of Alexandria, Egypt before that date.

Ward's contention that “the position of the epistles was established by A.D. 150” is firmly based on (1) the fact that early church fathers from A.D. 96-120 appear to cite from them, (2) II Peter 3:15 may refer to I Timothy 1:15-16, and (3) they appear in early canonical lists compiled before A.D. 120 by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, and are found in the very early Muratorian Canon as well.

One re-rebuttal often given by liberal scholars to explain how a writing under an obvious pseudonym could have been easily accepted as part of the canon is that such a practice was not viewed by the people of that time as a falsehood at all, but merely an acceptable literary device. This explanation flies in the face of the many early pseudonymous writings which were roundly rejected by the early churches as being fabrications strictly on the issue of authorship.

As a possible middle ground, Towner reviews I.H. Marshall's coining of the term “allonymity” whereby a student or follower of Paul edited the notes of the deceased apostle and carried “the master's teaching forward for future generations in a manner that is faithful to earlier apostolic intentions, even if the key of the theological score has been transposed.” Towner judges such an approach as “a not implausible solution to the authorship problem. It improves significantly on pseudonymity, but the jury continues to deliberate.”

Historical Argument

Since the Pastoral Epistles contain details concerning Paul's life, it should be possible to fit in the time of their writing with biographical information found in Acts and Paul's genuine writings. However, no one has come up with a time table which accommodates the chronology acceptably.

Ward's reply is quite a simple one: The events alluded to in the Pastorals all took place after the end of the book of Acts and the earlier writings of Paul.

Donald Guthrie mentions two additional hypotheses to explain the data: (1) The historical references in the Pastorals are strictly fictional and added by the unknown author in order to enhance the believability of the epistle, or (2) There are, in fact, fragments of genuine Pauline writings scattered throughout the Pastorals and assembled by the real author together with his own composition.

Guthrie and others discount possibility #1 due to the obvious “ring of truth” which the references have. As to #2, even Hanson and others who deny Pauline authorship to these books have to admit that the unknown author obviously had access to genuine historical information concerning Paul's later life and was well acquainted with Paul's earlier letters and incorporated these into the Pastorals. However, several evangelical scholars have expressed great doubts as to how the “Fragment Theory” would have played itself out in reality. Guthrie reviews the problems with these two theories in more detail in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.

Ecclesiastical Argument

This is one of the primary arguments against a Pauline authorship. It is highly doubted that the seemingly organizationally-complex church situation described in the Pastorals fits in with the more primitive church setting while Paul was still alive. It must have arisen in later centuries.

However, when one looks at the actual references to church polity in the Pastorals, it appears that (1) it is not nearly as hierarchical as portrayed by critics and (2) it is a logical extension of church growth that was taking place even during Paul's life.

Doctrinal Argument

The argument here is one based strictly on absence, always the weakest form of argument. Thus, it is said that unlike Paul's authentic letters, these three epistles are missing many of the key elements of Paul's typical theology.

Of course, it is easy to punch holes in this argument as well since the Pastorals are, unlike Paul's other letters to fledgling churches, addressed directly to church leaders who were already well aware of Paul's theology and did not need to be reminded of it. Instead, Timothy and Titus were in need of more practical advice on how to lead a congregation and get it established so that it would flourish even in their absence.

Linguistic Argument

This is another line of reasoning that appears to be overwhelming. Some 175 words have been located in the letters to Timothy and Titus that occur nowhere else in Paul's writings. That would seem to be powerful evidence for a different authorship.

One need only point out the following factors to effectively puncture that argument as well:

The different subject matter in the Pastorals dictates different vocabulary.

Most of these unique Greek words were already in common usage by A.D. 50, many in the Greek Septuagint. Therefore they do not indicate a later date of composition.

By the time of writing, Paul had been living in the West for some time and would have picked up many of the linguistic characteristics that were in current vogue.

Paul's known reliance on an amanuensis or secretary to do the actual writing of his letters could have had a pronounced effect on the actual way of wording Paul's ideas in his letters, even though Paul would have approved of the final product before sending it off to the recipient.

Conclusion

Taking all of the above into consideration, an evangelical Christian should feel under no compulsion to accept the more liberal scholars' opinion regarding the authorship of the letters to Timothy and Titus since the evidence they advance is by no means irrefutable.