Critics began to question Paul's authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) early in the nineteenth century with the rise of German literary criticism. Because 1 Timothy 2:8-15 places explicit restrictions on a woman's role in ministry, the controversy continues today especially by those who disagree with this perceived inequality. These critics prefer to believe that 1 and 2 Timothy were not authored by the Apostle Paul, were pious forgeries, and therefore, should not be part of the Bible. Is this true?

How tradition began

With little written record, oral tradition established that Paul authored 1 and 2 Timothy, and this was well known and universally recognized by the Church (Eusebius). Early theologians and writers who lived during and were contemporary with the apostles or contemporary with Timothy (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp) were familiar with the letters and accepted 1 and 2 Timothy as genuine letters from the apostle Paul. As further evidence that their authorship was never in doubt, the Pastoral Epistles were found in the early Latin and Syriac versions of the New Testament.

Clement, the Bishop of Rome (100 A.D.), wrote a letter to the church of Corinth, which was preserved and can be seen today.

Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch (67-110 A.D.), was the pupil and friend of the Apostle John.

Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna (69-156 A.D.), like Ignatius, was the pupil and friend of the Apostle John.

Of the Church fathers, three were great scholars who wrote and cited the New Testament extensively.

Iranaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (130-200 A.D.), was a pupil of Polycarp and Papias. Of his works in possession, he made 1200 references to the New Testament, including the earliest quotations of 1 and 2 Timothy around 170 A.D. in his apologetic against Gnosticism.

Tertullian (born about 150 A.D.) was the first Christian writer to write in Latin and coin the phrase "New Testament." Trained as a lawyer, he was considered an "Apologetic Father" for his vigorous defense of Christian doctrine against Greek philosophy and Hellenistic culture. Of his known works, he made 2,500 references to the New Testament.

In one of his works, Tertullian acknowledges that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul to Timothy and Titus and expresses surprise that the heretic Marcion did not believed that the Pastoral Epistles should be part of the canon. Marcion's version of the canon, which he assembled around 140-150 A.D., only had Luke (which he heavily edited), and only ten of thirteen of Paul's epistles; the heretic omitted all of the Old Testament and 16 books (or 60%) of the New Testament.

Clement, the Bishop of Alexandria (born about 165 A.D.) is considered, after Justin and Irenaeus, to be the founder of Christian literature. Alexandria was renown in the ancient world for its scholars, university, and library. Clement succeeded his teacher Pantaenus to be the head of the famous Catechetical School of Alexandria, which would produce other great Christian writers such as Origen.

Clement of Alexandria, notable for his expansive knowledge of classical and biblical literature, cited more pagan and Christian authors than the work of any other ancient author. Of the New Testament, he cites all of the books except Philemon, James, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John.

In light of how tradition was established, the claim of pious forgeries of 1 and 2 Timothy would imply that the early church fathers were either at best duped or at worst conspirators of the forgeries, and that the heretic Marcion was correct. What is the basis for the claim of pious forgeries?

The critical arguments can be categorized into 4 main areas:

1. Chronology – does the event of 1 Timothy correspond with the chronology of Paul's travels in the book of Acts?

2. Literary Style – does the literary style (vocabulary, logic, structure, etc) match with Paul's style of writing?

3. Ecclesiology – does the church structure found in the letter reflect the early first century Christian church?

4. Theology – does the letter address a form of Gnosticism found only in the second century? Does the soteriology correspond to Pauline thought and concept?

As a side note, what if the Pastoral Epistles were forgeries? Pious Forgeries – Was it possible for a forgery to be accepted in the Canon?

The Problem of Chronology

Critics charge that the book of Acts does not mention the situation where Paul goes to Macedonia and leaves Timothy at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3). With the belief that the chronological references of 1 Timothy does not correspond with the book of Acts, critics have assumed that 1 & 2 Timothy were written by a later author.

However critics have misunderstood the reason for Paul's first imprisonment and assumed that he was executed. This would have ended any chance of Paul going east; thus, he could not possibly write 1 Timothy. Biblical and extra-biblical evidence clearly suggest otherwise. 1 Timothy does not fit within the chronology of Acts, because it took place after the end of Acts.

At the conclusion of his third missionary journey, Paul had organized a relief fund among the Gentile churches to help the poorer members of the Jerusalem church. He was returning to Jerusalem with representatives of the Gentile churches carrying their respective donations (Acts 20:17-36, Rom 15:25-32). Shortly after his arrival in Jerusalem, Paul was attacked by a Jewish mob and rescued by Roman soldiers (Acts 21:26 - 22:1-30 - 23:10). He was imprisoned at the Roman governor's headquarters in Caesarea for the next 2 years (Acts 23:11 - 24:27).

In response to God's prompting of "so you must witness at Rome also" (Acts 23:11), Paul exercises his privilege as a Roman citizen and appealed to Caesar, which transferred his case to Rome. Paul was sent to Rome in 59 A.D. where he spent 2 years under house arrest waiting for his case to be heard before the supreme tribunal (Acts 25:1 - 26:1-32 - 27:1-44 - 28:31).

When Luke finished writing the book of Acts, he does not reveal what happened to Paul's case, and there is little information about the rest of Paul's career. But there is implicit evidence that Paul was released.

1. Paul was innocent by all Roman officials up to this point.

Paul was arrested to save him from a Jewish mob not from any legal offense.

The Jews did not bring any charges or testify against Paul during his 2-year imprisonment in Caesarea.

At this time, Christianity was considered a part of Judaism and was not considered an illegal or forbidden religion and therefore not an offense punishable by death.

Agrippa and Festus believed that Paul did nothing wrong and would have been freed had he not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:30-32).

While in captivity, Paul expresses confidence in his release (Phil 1:25, 2:24, Philem 22).

2. Ancient tradition says that Paul did go to Spain as he intended (Rom 15:24).

Clement of Rome wrote that "Paul...preached in the East and the West, and won noble renown for his faith. He taught righteousness to the whole world and went to the western limit. He bore witness to the rulers, and then passed out of the world..." (1 Clement 5:6-7)

During the first and second century, a reference to the "western limit" always meant Spain.

In other extra-biblical sources, such as the Muratorian Fragment and Acts of Peter, there are indications that Paul was released from prison.

It is believed that, upon his release, Paul resumed his missionary journeys for at least 3 more years before being arrested, tried, condemned, and executed around 67 A.D. during the persecution of Christians under the Roman emperor Nero. Marking Paul's burial near the Basilica in Rome, a stone inscription says "To Paul, Apostle and Martyr."

This means that there was enough time for Paul to go on a fourth missionary journey and pen his Pastoral Epistles.

The critics' contention of a problem of chronology is further eroded when evaluating the epistle 2 Corinthians, which is undisputedly a letter from Paul. In 2 Corinthians 11:23-27, Paul mentions his experience of frequent imprisonments, 5 whippings, 3 beatings with a rod, 1 stoning, and 3 shipwrecks; all of which was not mentioned once in the book of Acts.

The Problem of Literary Style

Critics have contended that the Pastoral Epistles were not authored by Paul, because the letters lacked the typical vocabulary, grammatical phrases, and literary style of Paul's other epistles. For example:

1 Timothy has 356 of 529 words, or 67%, that do not appear in ten of Paul's letters, including 96 hapax legomena (words that appear only once in the New Testament).

Typical Pauline words used in ten of Paul's letters are not found in 1 or 2 Timothy.

1 and 2 Timothy also use different words than Paul's other letters to say the same thing.

1 and 2 Timothy have grammatical forms, such as how definite articles, prepositions, and conjunctions are used, that are unique to the Pastoral Epistles and lack grammatical forms typical of Paul's other ten epistles.

The Pastoral Epistles lack the distinctive writing style of Paul. Many aspects of his literary style, such as his use of prepositions and pronouns are absent; consequently, the tone and character of the Pastoral Epistles are different from Paul's other ten epistles.

However this evidence is hardly conclusive against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. It is less conclusive than the explicit evidence within the Pastoral Epistles themselves, which indicate Paul as the author (1 Tim 1:1, 2 Tim 1:1, Titus 1:1).

Evidence of non-Pauline vocabulary and frequent hapax legomena used to deny Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles does not hold up under closer examination.

The biggest problem for critics is Paul's use of amanuenses (secretaries) to write his letters (i.e. Rom 16:22). Because it is unknown how the epistles were originally produced, the contribution of the amanuenses to the original text is unknown. This makes it impossible to establish what is typical Pauline vocabulary, grammatical structure, and literary style.

During the first century, Greek secretaries functioned in a variety of ways as directed by the author. Some secretaries took dictation from authors while others wrote their own words to convey the thought of the author. In the case of the Pastoral Epistles, it has been postulated that Luke was Paul's amanuenses based two observations: 1) 2 Timothy 4:11 states that "Only Luke is with me…" and 2) there are many similarities in vocabulary with Acts.

In considering the literary evidence against Pauline authorship, most words missing in the Pastoral Epistles are also absent in epistles that have been unquestionably established as Paul's. There is no even distribution of vocabulary throughout all of Paul's epistles. Yet critics never mention the inconsistent use of this type of evidence to condemn the Pastoral Epistles or disqualify those epistles unquestionably Paul's.

The hapax legomena are not evenly distributed and occur in groups; most of the occurrences are found where Paul is discussing a new subject. Almost half of the hapax legomena can be found in the Septuagint, which Paul studied extensively. Roughly one quarter of the hapax legomena have been identified as part of the Greek language of the time. A little over one quarter of the hapax legomena may possibly be new Greek words to describe the new subjects associated with the new religion of Christianity.

When one studies Paul's letters in light of his missionary journeys and experiences, it is very difficult to see how an even distribution of vocabulary can be expected as he discusses a variety of subjects, to Christians of a variety of ethnicities and regions, and with the variety of situations that he writes from.

In contrast to his passionate letters for Christ intended for large audiences, the Pastoral Epistles were written to two very dear individuals. Their quiet meditative tone reflects Paul's love and concern for them and perhaps in context of his age and mortality.

Article Continues: The Problem of Ecclesiology

1 | 2 / NEXT >