The three Pastoral Epistles, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus, purport to have been written by the apostle Paul before his death in the 60s of the first century. However, the majority of academics now believe that the Pastorals are either entirely pseudonymous, written entirely by someone other than Paul in the late first century or the first half of the second century, or at best, they are largely pseudonymous, but incorporate some authentic fragments of Paul’s writings. Doubts have also been expressed about the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians, which have been labelled Deutero-Pauline. There are also works attributed to Paul, such as 3 Corinthians, the letters between Paul and Seneca and the Apocalypse of Paul, which are clearly forgeries. The case against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is based on problems with their chronology and background, and the differences, including vocabulary, style and theology, between the Pastorals and the undisputed Pauline Epistles.
When it comes to manuscript evidence for the Pastorals, Robert Wall claims there is a “lack of clear textual witness to them prior to the third century”(1) and David Meade writes, “As for external testimony, the evidence is inconclusive, though the Pastorals do not appear in the earliest Pauline canon.”(2)
Meade is presumably referring to the P46 manuscript which has been dated to around 200. It contains parts of Romans and 1 Thessalonians and all of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, but none of the Pastorals. However, since P46 contains Ephesians and Colossians, whose Pauline authorship has also been questioned, if the absence of the Pastorals from P46 is evidence that they are not authentic, then the inclusion of Ephesians and Colossians must be evidence that they are authentic.
Furthermore, Wall’s statement ignores the P32 manuscript which consists of Titus 1:11-15 and 2:3-8 and has also been dated to the late second century.
Regardless of the relative scarcity of manuscript evidence, we know that the Pastorals were known to second century Christians because they were alluded to or quoted in the epistles of Clement (circa. 95), Ignatius (circa. 115) and Polycarp (110-120) (3), that is, before some, who believe they were pseudonymous, say they written.
Some early Christians were clearly aware of the Pastoral Epistles and believed they had been written by the apostle Paul. The Muratorian Fragment said that the Pastorals were written by Paul (4). As we shall see, one reason why modern scholars doubt their authenticity is the differences in style and vocabulary between the Pastorals and the undisputed Pauline epistles. P.N. Harrison argues that the early Christians were not sophisticated enough to recognize these differences and realise the Pastorals were pseudonymous (5). In fact, some early Christians were able to recognize differences in style between works attributed to the same author and concluded that they must have had different authors.
Origen (circa. 200) wrote in Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews that the differences in style between Hebrews and the Pauline epistles meant that Paul could not have written it(6), but in his Commentary on John, Origen attributed 2 Timothy to Paul (7). Origen did not think the differences in style between 2 Timothy and the undisputed Paulines were significant enough to suggest that Paul had not written them.
Likewise, Dionysus, Bishop of Alexandria, (circa. 250) wrote in a pamphlet on Revelation that there were significant differences in style and vocabulary between Revelation and John and 1 John which showed they could not have been written by the same person (8).
Some early Christians were not as backward as some modern writers suggest. They could distinguish between Hebrews and the Paulines, Revelation and John, and rejected pseudonymous works like 3 Corinthians and the Gospel of Peter, but it does not appear to have occurred to them that there was anything suspicious about the Pastorals.
Hebrews and Revelation never claimed to have been written by Paul and the apostle John respectively. A work could apparently still be accepted as authentic and canonical if the exact identity of the author was in doubt, but not if the author claimed to be someone he was not.
P.N. Harrison also argues that whether or not the Pastorals were written by who they purport was not a deciding factor in their canonicity, but their orthodox theology;
“It was not by such canons that the early Church determined the apostolic authority of any work, but by its practical value for edification, and its faithfulness to the apostolic teaching as then held and understood.” (9)
This is not the case. The second century forgery 3 Corinthians, which was attributed to Paul, was orthodox in theology and anti-Gnostic. The early Christians could have used it and appealed to it in their struggle with Gnosticism. Instead, they rejected it because it was a forgery. It was not enough that its theology was orthodox. It also had to be authentic.
Although some early Christians wrote pseudepigrapha, as evident by the way such works were rejected when they were exposed, it is clear that the early church, as a whole, like the wider Greco-Roman world, did not approve of the practice. Some, such as A. Julicher, G. Bornkamm and A.T. Lincoln, have argued that the ancient world had no concepts of copyright or literary property, so there was not thought to be anything wrong with writing a letter or other work in someone else’s name (10). In fact, literary forgery was widely condemned. Terry Wilder writes, “Like the modern day, many writers in the Greco-Roman antiquity did not approve of plagiarizing, tampering with the written work of others, or composing pseudonymous documents which purported to be the property of other people.”(11)
Since a personal letter or epistle was thought to be an intimate form of communication, even revealing the author’s true self, purporting to represent someone else through a forged letter was regarded as especially heinous and violating(12).
The only significant exceptions were certain philosophical schools, the Pythagoreans, Cynics and neo-Platonists, who would produce epistles imitating their masters (13). Although Udo Schelle writes that the “author of the Pastorals was an unknown member of the Pauline school” (14), which sounds like a Christian equivalent of these philosophical schools, there is no evidence any “Pauline school” existed (15). The Pastorals are more than just an exercise in reproducing the ideas of their master, but contain personal details, including Paul referring to himself as the chief of sinners and his feelings before his impending death (16).
In spite of the widespread disapproval of pseudonymous letters in the ancient world, those, who believe the Pastorals are pseudonymous, ignore the hypocrisy of an author, who placed so much emphasis on the moral character of church leaders, engaging in such an immoral practice, and tend to deny the real author had any deceitful or immoral motives in writing letters supposedly from Paul. For example, on the same page that Bart Ehrman writes that “forgery was almost universally condemned by ancient writers”, he also writes that the “real” authors of the Deutero-Paulines and Pastorals “may well have been upright individuals who had good reasons for doing what they did, or at least thought they did.” (17)
P.N. Harrison claims that the “real” author of the Pastorals “was not conscious of misrepresenting the Apostle in any way; he was not consciously deceiving anybody; it is not, indeed, necessary to suppose that he did deceive anybody.” He claims that only after the Pastorals had been copied and passed down, that later readers believed they had been written by Paul (18).
This is little more than wishful thinking. From the first half of the second century Christians believed the Pastorals had been written by Paul and there is no evidence that they originally understood they were pseudonymous and when they supposedly forgot. In the case of the Epistles of Plato, which are believed to have really been written 400 years after his death, a second century neo-Platonist, who was familiar with Plato’s existing works and the philosophy school’s practice of pseudonymity, would have most likely recognized these new letters for what they were. The Pastoral Epistles were different in that if they are pseudonymous, they were written relatively recently after Paul’s death and it would have been possible to pass them off as authentic letters of Paul. The “real” author claimed to be Paul, included personal details of Paul’s life as though they were his own and he imitated Paul’s style and ideas. He was trying to deceive his readers into believing the author was Paul in order to promote his agenda about church government, orthodoxy and heresy, and the role of women, and he succeeded (19).
When we compare the Pastorals with “other” pseudonymous letters, we can see differences which raise questions as to whether the Pastorals really are examples of the genre. There is virtually no Jewish precedent for pseudonymous letters. There was Jewish pseudonymous literature but they were usually apocalyptic or wisdom literature, attributed to famous figures of the past, such as Enoch or Solomon, rather than letters written by near-contemporaries. Apart from the pseudonymous letters contained within other works, such as those in 1 and 2 Maccabees, only two pseudonymous letters have survived, the Letter of Aristeas and the Epistle of Jeremiah (20).
Richard Bauckham writes, “The typical pseudepigraphal letter is a letter from a famous ancient figure of the past to one of his contemporaries.” (21) The pseudonymous Epistles of Socrates and Epistles of Plato were written in the first century A.D., over 400 years after their deaths (22). In contrast, if the Pastorals were pseudonymous, they could have been written as early as 30 or 40 years after Paul’s death, when it is doubtful whether Paul would have constituted a “famous ancient figure of the past.”
Terry Wilder has compared several Greco-Roman pseudonymous letters, the Epistles of Anacharsis, the Epistles of Crates, the Epistles of Dionysus, the Epistles of Heraclites, the Epistles of Socrates and the Socratics, the Epistles of Plato, the Epistles of Apollonius of Tyana and the Pythagorean Letters, with the disputed epistles of Paul. He found that apart from the Epistles of Heraclitus, the Epistles of Socrates and the Socratics and the Epistles of Plato, the pseudonymous epistles tended to be shorter than the Pastorals and Deutero-Paulines. Likewise, the pseudonymous 3 Corinthians is shorter than the other Pauline epistles, apart from Philemon. Presumably, the longer a pseudonymous letter is, the more likely it is to give away clues that it is not authentic. Apart from some of the Epistles of Plato, the Greco-Roman pseudonymous letters did not contain both similar openings, naming the sender and recipient, and closing greetings and remarks as Paul’s epistles, including the Pastorals. There are some similarities. Both the Pastorals and Greco-Roman pseudonymous epistles tend to be paraenetic, exhorting the reader to do or not do something, and contain supposed personal details of the author (23). These similarities are not necessarily evidence that the Pastorals are pseudonymous, since undisputed letters of Paul also contain exhortations and personal details.
If a forgery is to succeed, it must be as close as possible in style and genre to an authentic work. If someone wanted to forge a work of Shakespeare, they would write a play or sonnet, not a hymn or novel. Bart Ehrman writes about forgery in the ancient world, “Forgers, therefore, typically tried to imitate the style of the author they were claiming to be.” (24) However, much of the case against the authenticity of the Pastorals is based on the differences between them and the undisputed Paulines. Even at a superficial level, the Pastorals are addressed to individuals, while, apart from Philemon, the undisputed Paulines are addressed to churches. The Pastorals, 1Timothy and Titus in particular, have been compared to mandate letters, which were advice by a high-ranking official to a subordinate taking up a new position and which were also expected to be made public (25). They are arguably not even the same genre as the undisputed Pauline epistles addressed to whole churches. If someone were going to forge an epistle by Paul, surely they would write one which resembled his other epistles, addressed to a church, rather than an individual, and still be able to get their point across. The authors of 3 Corinthians and the Epistles to the Alexandrians and Laodiceans did.
Richard Bauckham also points out that in an authentic letter the writer does not need to explain the background situation to the reader because they already know it. However, in a pseudonymous letter the writer must describe the situation for the real readers in the present so they can recognize the similarities with their own situation (26). Letters with superfluous background details should be suspicious. Bauckham writes that the “Pastorals seem to show some interest in historical scene-setting” in their description of the false teachers, but no New Testament writings, including the Pastorals, contain the “historical scene-setting which clearly goes beyond what could be expected in an authentic letter” (27). However, since, as we shall see, there is no agreement about whether the author was describing first century Juadizers or second century Gnostics, the situation has clearly not been described as it would have in a pseudonymous letter.
A pseudonymous letter, which was supposedly written by someone in the past, cannot directly address its real readers and their circumstances in the present. That would expose it as a forgery. If the circumstances between the purported and real context are unchanged, then a pseudonymous letter can be applicable to both situations. However, one of the main arguments against the authenticity of the Pastorals is that the circumstances have changed between Paul’s life and the situation described in the Pastorals (28). If a pseudonymous author wants his letter to be applicable or relevant to the preset, he has to find a way to bridge the gap.
One way is to have the purported author ask that his teachings be passed on to subsequent generations, so that they will eventually reach their real audience. In the Pastorals “Paul” does ask “Timothy” to pass his teachings on to future generations. However, this is circumstantial evidence since teachings are also passed on in real life. In 1 Corinthians , Paul tells how the knowledge of Jesus’ resurrection was passed on to him and he passed it on to others (29). Bauckham agrees that this parallel only raises the possibility that the Pastorals are pseudonymous (30).
Another way for the pseudonymous author to make his message relevant to the present was to frame it in the form of a testament, where the supposed author, aware of his coming death, addresses a specific situation after his death. 2 Timothy does resemble a testamentary letter, in that Paul seems aware of his impending death (31), but Paul also asks that his cloak be sent to him (32), which suggests he did not believe is death was imminent. 2 Timothy is also not typical in that it is not addressing future generations, but Paul’s contemporary Timothy, implying that Timothy was still alive when it was written (33).
The first group of arguments against the authenticity of the Pastorals involves problems with their chronology. Critics argue that they do not fit into the chronology of Paul’s life in Acts and the undisputed Paulines. According to 1 Timothy (34), Timothy was in Ephesus while Paul has gone to Macedonia, but according to Acts (35), Paul stayed in Ephesus while Timothy went to Macedonia. According to Titus (36), Paul left Titus in Crete, but Acts only records brief stop in Crete on the way to Paul’s trial in Rome and there is no mention of any missionary work there (37).
Acts is not necessarily a complete account of everything Paul did and everywhere he went during his missionary career. Luke was clearly capable of omitting events without his readers realising. In his Gospel, there is the “Great Omission” in which the events of Matthew 14:22-16:12 and Mark 6:45-8:26 take place between Luke 9:17 and 9:18. Someone reading Luke’s account of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension might conclude that the two events took place on the same day, however according to Acts, Luke believed there were 40 days between the two events (38). In 2 Corinthians Paul writes that he had been shipwrecked three times (39), however only one shipwreck was recorded in Acts and it takes places after 2 Corinthians was written (40). There are problems trying to reconcile Paul’s account of his journeys to Jerusalem in Galatians with those in Acts (41). No one is suggesting that these chronological problems cast doubt on the authenticity of Galatians and 2 Corinthians. They only prove that Acts is not a complete account of Paul’s life so its value in determining whether the events described in the Pastorals happened is limited.
Some, such as Bo Reicke, have tried to place the Pastorals within Paul’s ministry recorded in Acts. Acts does say that Paul sent Timothy to Macedonia while he stayed in Ephesus, but it later says that Paul travelled to Macedonia, Greece and Syria where he was apparently joined by Timothy (42). Reicke argues that Timothy could have returned to Ephesus. later, Paul left for Macedonia, leaving Paul behind who later rejoined him. During this time, around 56, Paul could have written 1 Timothy to Timothy while he was in Ephesus (43).
If Titus 1:5 means that Paul and Titus supposedly went to Crete and Paul left him there, but Paul, in fact, did not go to Crete, one wonders why the pseudonymous author would have said that they did. It would make it obvious that Titus was not genuine. Others argue that it means that Paul sent Titus to Crete. Reicke suggests that Paul wrote Titus while returning to Jerusalem during his third missionary journey in 58 (44). He also argues that Paul wrote 2 Timothy while in prison in Caesarea in 60 (45).
Thus, according to Reicke, 1 and 2 Thessalonians were written in 52, Galatians in 55, 1 Corinthians in 56, 1 Timothy in 56, 2 Corinthians in 57, Romans in 58, Titus in 58, Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians in 59, 2 Timothy in 60 and Philippians in 61-62 (46). However, explaining the problems of chronology does not explain the problems of vocabulary and style between the Pastorals and the undisputed Paulines. If 1 Timothy was written between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians and Titus between Romans and Philemon, why are their vocabulary and style so different?
The most common answer to the chronological problems is that the Pastorals do not fit into the chronology of Acts because they were written after the conclusion of Acts where Paul was still awaiting trial. The Muratorian Fragment records that Paul left Rome after the end of Acts and travelled to Spain (47). In his Ecclesiastical History Eusebius wrote that Paul was acquitted, “the apostle again set out on the ministry of preaching. He returned to Rome where he was imprisoned again and wrote 2 Timothy before his martyrdom.” (48) Thus, Paul’s ministry in Crete and journey to Macedonia, while Timothy stayed in Ephesus, could have hypothetically taken place during this period between his two imprisonments. As we shall see, if the Pastorals were written when Paul was older, it may also explain some of the style and vocabulary differences.
Another chronological problem is that, according to David Meade, “the development of church organization in the Pastorals is too complex to have occurred during the life of Paul” (49). Bart Ehrman writes “Paul’s churches were “charismatic” communities, that is, congregations of people who believed they had been endowed with God’s Spirit and so had been given “gifts” (Greek charisma) to enable them to minister … There was nobody ultimately in charge, except the apostle.” (50) In contrast, the Pastorals supposedly describe a hierarchical system with bishops, elders and deacons, rather than people empowered with spiritual gifts, which is a description of church government in the second century.
The Pastorals are supposed to be a “means of showing how the leaders of the readers have their authorisation and theology handed down to them from Paul” (51). However, the Apostolic Fathers, who would have been contemporaneous with the supposed pseudonymous author, wrote in their own names, without pretending to be an apostle, and they believed their authority had come down to them from the apostles. If the pseudonymous author really believed that the authority of contemporary church leaders had come down from Paul, he would not need to pretend to be Paul in order to assert it. He could simply argue that his authority had come down from Paul.
There is still evidence of spiritual gifts in the Pastorals. They mention the prophecies which were made concerning Timothy (52) and how Timothy has the gift within him through the laying on of hands (53).
Furthermore, the Pauline churches were not Christian anarchists with no leaders. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians that the spiritual gifts included “forms of leadership” (54). He told the Thessalonians “to respect those who labor among you and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you.” (55). Paul even referred to the bishops and deacons in the opening of Philippians (56). According to Acts, elders were part of the early church during Paul’s lifetime. On his first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in each church.” (57) In Jerusalem, the church was led by the apostles and the elders (58). Later, Paul addressed the elders of the church in Ephesus whom he says the Holy Spirit has made overseers (epistopous) which is translated in the Pastorals as “bishop” (59). In 1 Peter, the elders “act as overseers” (episkopontes) (60). Elders are also mentioned in James and Hebrews (61). There is evidence of overseers and elders in the first century churches, but Paul does not emphasize them in his non-Pastoral epistles.
Ehrman claims that the problems, resulting from a lack of leadership, as evident in Corinthians, led Paul to decide to develop a system of leadership towards the end of his ministry, which is what is mentioned in Philippians. However, he argues that the church government of the Pastorals is still too advanced for Paul’s lifetime and belongs to the second century (62). A system of monarchical bishops, who presided over districts, had come to exist in the second century, however we should not read a second century meaning of episkopos as monarchical bishop into the Pastorals and conclude that it refers to the second century.
Furthermore, the Pastorals do not appear to be describing an advanced or formalised system of church government. When 1Timothy mentions bishops and elders, the author does not define their roles or responsibilities. He only describes the moral qualifications for the positions and they are basically identical (63). In Titus, the author appears to use the terms bishop and elders interchangeably, like in Acts and 1 Peter, and again only describes their moral qualifications, not their actual roles (64). The leadership roles in the Pastorals are undefined and apparently still in the early stages of their development. There is nothing to suggest that the episkopes of the Pastorals is any different from the episkopes of Acts, other than the assumptions which modern academics read into the word.
Another chronological argument against the Pastorals is that they appear to have been written in response to the Gnosticism of the second century. Stephen Wilson writes that the author of the Pastorals “seems to be opposing Jewish-Christian gnostics who argued that their speculative mythologies and ascetic demands were based on the Old Testament” (65), including the Nicolaitans (66).
According to Revelation, which is traditionally believed to have been written in the 90s, the Nicolaitans were active in Ephesus at that time (67). If 1 Timothy was really written to the church in Ephesus during that period (68), then the heresy, which it was intended to address, was presumably the Nicolaitans. However, from the little we know about the Nicolaitans, they do not resemble the ascetics in 1 Timothy (69). According to Irenaeus in Against Heresies, the Nicolaitans “lead lives of unrestrained indulgence” and “it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery and to eat things sacrificed to idols.” (70) Another heresy in Ephesus during this period was that of Cerinthus who taught that Jesus was not born of a virgin and that Christ descended on him at his baptism (71). Dionysus of Alexandria wrote about Cerinthus, “the things he lusted after himself, being the slave of his body and sensual through and through, filled the heaven of his dreams – unlimited indulgence in gluttony and lechery at banquets, drinking-bouts, and wedding-feasts, or (to call these by what he thought more respectable names) festivals, sacrifices and the immolation of victims.” (72)
1 Timothy was addressing heresies, which were from the ones known to exist in Ephesus in the 90s, which suggests that it was not written at that time. In fact, the Pastorals do not address one Jewish-Christian Gnostic ascetic challenge to orthodoxy, but several challenges or threats which have caused people to fall away or deviate from the true faith. In 1 Timothy some “have deviated” from the faith because of myths and genealogies (73); those, like Hymenaeus and Alexander have rejected conscience and “suffered shipwreck from the faith” (74). Some have “fallen into condemnation of the devil” because of pride (75). There were the ascetics (76) and young widows who are “gossips and busybodies” and “have already turned away to follow Satan.” (77) The love of money has caused some to wander “away from the faith”(78), and “what is falsely called knowledge” has caused some to “miss the mark as regards the faith.” (79)
In 2 Timothy “all in Asia have turned away from” Paul (80), which more likely means they do not want to be associated with him in prison, rather than they have all become heretics. There are “Hymenaeus and Philetus who have swerved from the truth by claiming that the resurrection has already taken place.” (81) There are “silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires.” (82) Others “turn away from listening to the truth” because of false teachers whose teaching is not explained (83).
In Titus, the threat is characterised by “those of the circumcision” (84), “Jewish myths” (85) and “stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions and quarrels about the law” (86).
Some of these problems and heresies were not exclusively second century, but can be found during Paul’s lifetime. The Pastorals mention “teachers of the law” (87), “abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving” (88), “those of the circumcision” (89), Jewish myths and commandments (90), “controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law.” (91) These are characteristics of the Juadizers who demanded that Gentile Christians must be circumcised and follow the Jewish Law (92).
In 2 Timothy Hymenaeus and Philetus are said to have been “claiming that the resurrection has already taken place.” (93) Since Hymenaeus and Philetus were mentioned by name, they and their beliefs could not be dated to the 90s or early second century, at least 30 years after Paul’s death. It would be obvious to the readers that Paul would not have written the letter. They were more likely to have been contemporaries of Paul. Their belief is reminiscent of the problem mentioned in 2 Thessalonians where the Thessalonians had been told that the day of the Lord had already come (94). Earlier, the Thessalonians had been told that the resurrection would occur on the day of the Lord (95). Someone, who told the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord had already taken place, would possibly be implying that the resurrection had also already taken place.
1 Timothy concludes with a warning, “Avoid the profane chatter and profound contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (gnosis) by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith.” (96) This may sound like a warning against the Gnosticism (gnosis) of the second century. However, unlike the way second century writers like Irenaeus went into great detail describing and discrediting Gnosticism, gnosis is not explained in the Pastorals. There is no mention in the Pastorals of distinctive Gnostic terms like aeons and demiurge which we would expect if they were written in response to Gnosticism (97). Again, we should not automatically read a second century of the word into the Pastorals. In 1 Timothy gnosis has caused some to stray or miss the mark concerning the faith. This is reminiscent of 1 Corinthians where the knowledge (gnosis) that food offered to idols cannot hurt them has caused other weaker Christians to be “destroyed” and “stumble” (98).
The Pastorals were supposedly written in the 90s or early second century when the church was increasingly being persecuted by the Roman authorities. However, the Pastorals’ attitude to Rome has not changed since the undisputed Paulines. In Romans Christians are told to obey the authorities who are God’s servants (99). In 1 Timothy and Titus they are also told to obey and pray for the authorities (100). In contrast, in Revelation, which was written in the mid-90s during a period of persecution, Rome is the Beast and Mystery Babylon “drunk with the blood of the saints.” (101) The more positive attitude of the Pastorals towards Roman political authority is reflective of Paul’s lifetime, rather than the time they would have been written if they were pseudonymous.
The other group of arguments against the Pastorals has to do with questions of vocabulary and style. P. N. Harrison has shown that the vocabulary of the three Pastorals consists of 848 words, excluding proper names. 306 of these words are not in the other Pauline epistles (102). The Pastorals contain 175 “hapaxes’, unique words which appear in the Pastorals, but in no other New Testament book. The undisputed Paulines also have their own unique words. However, Romans and 1 Corinthians have 4 and 4.1 hapaxes per page respectively but 1 Timothy has 15.2 per page, 2 Timothy has 12.9 and Titus has 16.1 (103). Harrison also points out that 93 of the 175 hapaxes also occur in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists of the second century, suggesting that the language of the Pastorals is second century, rather than first century and could not have been written by Paul (104). There are also 112 particles, prepositions and pronouns which can be found in the undisputed Pauline epistles, but not in the Pastorals (105). Harrison also argues that the style of the undisputed Paulines and the Pastorals is different. According to Harrison, the undisputed Paulines are “nothing if not vivid, intense, dynamic, and yes, often even volcanic and explosive, always impatient of any curb or restraint from man-made rules.” (Did Harrison ever write blurbs for historical romance novels?) On the other hand, the Pastorals are “sober, didactic, static, conscientious, domesticated” and lack “the Pauline impetus, the drive and surge of mighty thoughts never spoken before, struggling now for expression, and chafing against the limitations of human speech” and lack “the Pauline grip and intellectual mastery, strong, clear, logical, sweeping and comprehensible – seeing the end of an argument from the beginning, and binding the whole tumultuous mass into a throbbing vital unity.” (106)
Statistical analysis of a writer’s vocabulary might appear impressive, but it can be wrong. There have been some doubts about whether C.S. Lewis wrote the fantasy novel, The Dark Tower. In 1994 a statistical study of its vocabulary, compared with Lewis’ other fantasy novels, Out of the Silent Planet and That Hideous Strength, concluded that at least parts of The Dark Tower could not have been written by Lewis. However, Alistair Fowler, one of Lewis’ students, has said that in the 1950s Lewis showed him the manuscript of The Dark
Tower, including the passages which statistics had proved Lewis did not write (107).
In an article, “Did Paul Write Galatians?”, Harold Hoehner has shown that out of the 519 different words in Galatians, 30 are hapaxes, which occur nowhere else in the New Testament, and another 55 words do not appear in Paul’s other epistles (108). There are also 472 words in Paul’s other epistles which do not appear in Galatians and the style of Galatians is different (109). Hoehner does not believe that Paul did not write Galatians. He is showing that arguments about statistics, vocabulary and style might appear convincing but they are not necessarily true.
Bruce Metzger has argued that at least 10,000 words of an author’s writing are needed in order to produce an accurate statistical analysis of their vocabulary. Since the Pastorals comprise 3484 words, it is doubtful whether any reliable statistical analysis of their vocabulary is even possible (110).
Simply showing that some words are used in the Pastorals and not in the undisputed Paulines does not prove that the Pastorals were not written by Paul. While Romans has 4 hapaxes per page and Titus has 16.1 per page, Cicero’s oratory works had 4 hapaxes per page and his philosophical works had 25 per page (111). This does not mean that some of Cicero’s works are pseudonymous, only that a writer’s vocabulary, hapaxes depend on their subject matter and genre. Paul did not write identical letters to every church. The subjects, which he covered, varied according to what he wanted to say to a particular church or individual in their circumstances. Different subjects would result in unique words, hapaxes, relating to those subjects. There are apparently more hapaxes in the parts of the Pastorals which include ethical material or new subject matter (112). There are ten hapaxes in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 which deals with the moral qualifications of overseers, which is not covered in the undisputed Paulines. After all, if we found a treatise supposedly written by Paul on tent-making, we would not deny its authenticity because it contains hapaxes, relating to tent-making, which are not found in the undisputed Paulines.
Any statistical analysis needs a proper control sample for comparison. Using another example from C.S. Lewis’ works, no one would compare the vocabulary of The
Witch and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian with Studies in Medieval and Renaissance
Literature and English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama and conclude that the different vocabulary, style and emphasis prove they were written by different authors. The works to be compared must be of the same genre and even that did not work in the case of The Dark Tower. Unless a statistical analysis of different writings can find a way to take into account different genres, subjects, themes, goals in writing and the relationship between the writer and reader, and still be able to determine whether or not they come from the same author, its conclusions are of little value.
As already mentioned, the Pastorals have been compared to mandate letters. The ideal control sample would have been some authentic Pauline “mandate letters” or letters written to Timothy or another close associate dealing with church organization and contemporary heresies. Then, we could compare what vocabulary and style Paul would have really used in those circumstances with what is in the Pastorals.
The mandate letter genre of the Pastorals would explain the differences in style with the undisputed Paulines, in which Paul is more vivid, intense, dynamic, logical, sweeping, comprehensive, “binding the whole tumultuous mass into a throbbing vital unity” (113) because he is more openly rhetorical, trying to persuade and win over his readers. However, in the Pastorals, Paul is “preaching to the choir” (114). Timothy and Titus were Paul’s co-workers and peers. He did not need them to persuade them. They already agreed. Paul was more concerned with reinforcing what they already knew and agreed upon.
If the Pastorals were written later in Paul’s life after the conclusion of Acts, this might further explain the different style of the Pastorals. Donald Guthrie suggests that in the Pastorals Paul was now less creative and more reminiscent and concerned about doctrine and anxious about Timothy’s capability because he is getting older, arguing that “the psychology of the writer of Pastorals is the psychology of an old man.” (115) If Paul was older and more conscious that he was not always going to be around to lead and instruct his churches, he would be more likely to be concerned with future generations of church leadership and correct doctrine to ensure that his churches would continue after his death.
2 Timothy is traditionally believed to have been written by Paul in Rome before his death (116). If 1 Timothy and Titus were also written towards the end of Paul’s life and he had been in regions where Latin was more likely to have been spoken than Greek and he had been speaking Latin himself, this could explain the 160 Latinisms in the Pastorals, Greek translations of Latin words and phrases (117).
Furthermore, Harrison’s argument that the hapaxes of the Pastorals suggest that their language belongs to the second century, rather than the first century is misleading. 93 hapaxes from the Pastorals do appear in the second century writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists, but the other 82 Pastoral hapaxes do not. On the other hand, there are 137 hapaxes from the undisputed Paulines which do not appear in the Pastorals, but do appear in second century Christian writings (118). The 93 Pastoral hapaxes in second century Christians writings clearly prove nothing. Furthermore, 60 of these 93 hapaxes are mentioned only once in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists (119) and 82 Pastoral hapaxes do not appear in any Christians writing before 170 (120). Their rarity in the New Testament does not suggest they were really second century words. Their infrequent use by the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists shows that these words were rare in both the first and second century.
All, but 28, of the Pastoral hapaxes have been found in surviving writings from before 50 (121). 80 of them can also be found in the Septuagint (122). Harrison argues that it cannot “be conceded as self-evident that Paul must have been familiar with every Greek word in the LXX and Apocrypha.” (123) Paul presumably did not know every word in the Septuagint, but his quotes from it in his letters show he was familiar with it. Moreover, it can be conceded that the 80 hapaxes in the Septuagint were part of the vocabulary of the first century.
A writer’s use of particles, prepositions and pronouns has more to do with his underlying style and might be less likely to change according to the subject matter, so the absence of these 112 “Pauline” particles, prepositions and pronouns in the Pastorals is at first glance more convincing. However, many of these words have to do with the rhetorical and persuasive style of the undisputed Paulines which is absent in the Pastorals (124). Again, Paul’s goals in writing and the genre influenced his vocabulary. Moreover, there are another 84 particles, pronouns and prepositions which can be found in both the undisputed Paulines and the Pastorals (125).
On the other hand, Harrison writes that in the Pastorals there is “an extraordinary number of phases, consisting sometimes of half a dozen or more words together, which coincide more or less closely, many of them exactly, with Paul’s own most characteristic expressions in the ten epistles.” (126) He does not regard these as evidence of Pauline authenticity. He argues that Paul could not have remembered these phrases from memory from what he had written earlier, so a later author must have copied them from Paul’s epistles and incorporated them into the Pastorals (127). He apparently assumes that Paul did not keep copies of his letters or used the same phrases in his unrecorded sermons. Picking out words and phrases from Paul’s writings, which would fit into what the supposed pseudonymous author wanted to say, would not have been easy. When the vocabulary and style is different from the undisputed Paulines, Harrison argues it proves the Pastorals were not written by Paul, but when they are Pauline in style, the Pastorals are still not authentic. It is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Another style and vocabulary related argument is that, in Udo Schnelle’s words, “The Pastorals manifest considerable differences from the theology of the undisputed Pauline letters.” (128) On the next page, Schelle suggested that the Pastorals were written by an “unknown member of the Pauline school.” (129) As already mentioned, there is no evidence there ever was such a Pauline school, but if there were, it was presumably not a very good one, since their students could apparently not reproduce Paul’s theology accurately.
The Pastorals omit some core concepts of Pauline theology which can be found in his undisputed letters. A.T. Hanson points out there is no mention of Jesus as the Son or the cross in the Pastorals. However, the Son is not mentioned in Philippians and Philemon and only once in 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians. The cross is also not mentioned in Romans, 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon (130).
Another theological difference is that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned as often in the Pastorals (131). B.S. Easton argues that this shows that the Holy Spirit “meant little to” their author (132). The Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Pastorals (133). Critics do not tell us how many times the Holy Spirit needs to be mentioned before its usage can be considered Pauline. Gnosis
is mentioned only once in the Pastorals (134), yet those, who believe the Pastorals are pseudonymous, believe gnosis was important to the author who wrote the Pastorals largely in response to it. Arguments based on the absence of a particular word are basically the logical fallacy of the argument from silence. We should not assume that because a word is not mentioned in a particular writing, it is not important to the author. There is no mention of “God” in the Book of Esther. That does not mean the author did not believe in God or God was not an important concept to him.
Faith (pistos) in the Pastorals is said to refer to orthodox teaching, rather than the Pauline sense of saving faith in Christ (135). However, these two definitions of faith are not necessarily contradictory. Many Christians today hold both definitions of faith. For example, Christians of the Reformed faith believe in justification by faith. Pistos
is still used in the “Pauline” sense in the Pastorals (136). When Paul writes in Galatians how he was “now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy” (137), his usage of faith sounds similar to that in the Pastorals.
Those, who believe the Pastorals are pseudonymous, tend to focus on the differences in theology between them and the undisputed Paulines, but they still have more in common theologically than differences. Howard Marshall, who does not believe Paul wrote the Pastorals, still acknowledges that they “share the same coherent core of theology as the Pauline letters.” (138). For example, in the Pastorals Jesus is a descendant of David who came to sinners, including Gentiles, through his grace and mercy, not their works, died, rose again, ascended and will return (139). R. Bultman described the theology of the Pastorals as “a legitimate extension of Paul’s thinking” (140). They do not contradict the theology of the undisputed Paulines. They are built on it. Since the Pastorals are traditionally believed to have been written later in Paul’s life, rather than a later author building on Paul’s theology, it is plausible that Paul was still the author and he “extended” and modified his ideas over time, such as his definition of faith. A less plausible alternative is that Paul, one of the great intellectuals of the ancient world, never modified or developed his ideas.
Harrison does not believe the Pastorals were entirely pseudonymous, but were based on authentic fragments of Paul’s writing. Some of the personal details in the Pastorals seem too real to have been made up by someone else. He even reconstructs what he believes to have been Paul’s original farewell letter (141). If there were an authentic farewell letter, it shows that farewell and testamentary letters do not have to be pseudonymous.
There are problems with the fragment hypothesis. Although Harrison argued that the Pastorals were not written by Paul because of the differences in language and style, the language and style of the supposed genuine fragments is the same as the rest of the Pastorals (142). According to J.N.D. Kelly, “it is impossible to find an exact parallel in ancient literature” of building a pseudonymous work around authentic fragments (143). The supposed pseudonymous author went to a lot of effort to make his works appear authentic, such as including personal details. However, incorporating authentic fragments in a pseudonymous work was more likely to have exposed it as a forgery. We know the Protocols
of the Learned Elders of Zion is a forgery because although it is supposed to be the minutes of a meeting of Jews in the 1890s, parts of it were copied from a book published in 1864. Likewise, any Christians, who had read Paul’s fragments in their original form, would have recognized that the Pastorals had been built around them so they could not be authentic. This is how plagiarism is recognized. Someone remembers reading a passage somewhere else.
The fragment hypothesis is an acknowledgement that at least some of the content of the Pastorals is authentic and Pauline. Ben Witherington has observed that “the majority of Pauline scholars who have not done a detailed study of these documents or written a scholarly commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in the last fifty years think that they are post-Pauline, while the majority of scholars who have written such commentaries are either open to the possibility or are convinced that these letters do indeed go back to Paul in some form or fashion.” (144) In other words, the more they know about the Pastorals, the more likely they are to conclude that Paul was, at least partly, involved in their composition.
Defenders of Pauline authorship of the Pastorals suggest that the differences in vocabulary and style can be further explained by the use of a secretary or co-author in the writing process. Paul apparently dictated his letters to a secretary (145). Sometimes, after the secretary had written the letter, Paul would sign it in his own handwriting (146). A secretary would sometimes write exactly what was dictated to them, but they could also be more flexible and take a greater role in the composition. Two letters of Apollinarius were written in different handwriting, suggesting he used two secretaries, and the style and spelling of the two letters was also different. Likewise, the letters of Cicero vary in style and vocabulary, suggesting Cicero’s style sometimes changed, depending on his secretary
Seven of the ten non-Pastoral Pauline epistles contain another name, along with Paul’s, in the opening greeting. 1 and 2 Thessalonians contain two. They were presumably co-authors or at least contributed to the writing of the epistles in some way (148). Unless someone wants to argue that the co-authors of Colossians and 2 Thessalonians were responsible for their being classified as Deutero-Pauline, the contribution of the secretaries and co-authors in the undisputed Paulines was not significant enough to influence the vocabulary and style, and raise doubts about their Pauline authorship. If the Pastorals were written by Paul and a co-author, then the influence of the co-author was apparently greater than in the undisputed Paulines.
A likely candidate for the co-authorship of the Pastorals was Luke (149). Since Luke was the only one with Paul when he wrote 2 Timothy, it sounds like he was the only one who could have been its co-author. The similar vocabulary and style of the three Pastorals suggests that he must have also co-authored 1 Timothy and Titus. In the undisputed Paulines with a co-author, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon, Paul’s personality was more likely to dominate so the co-author’s contribution was less obvious when it came to style and vocabulary. Luke was an author in his own right. His contribution was likely to be greater than that of Timothy in 2 Corinthians or Philippians, resulting in the distinctive style of the Pastorals which Ben Witherington says “reflect a combination of Pauline and Lukan style” (150).
Stephen Wilson has shown that there are 37 words which can be found in the Pastorals and Luke-Acts, but nowhere else in the New Testament, and another 27 words which are common to the Pastorals and Luke-Acts, but occur rarely in the rest of the New Testament (151). Wilson suggests that this means that Luke wrote the Pastorals, incorporating some authentic Pauline fragments and notes (152). However, if the same person wrote both Acts and the Pastorals, the supposed difficulties reconciling them should presumably not exist. It also raises the question why Luke would choose Titus as the supposed recipient when he did not consider him significant enough to mention in Acts. Luke incorporated letters in his narrative in Acts (153). Rather than writing pseudonymous letters in Paul’s name, it seems more plausible that if Luke had anything more he wanted to say about Paul, he would have written a third volume describing Pauls’ further missionary journeys after his first acquittal and his martyrdom and he could have incorporated any Pauline fragments or notes into his narrative.
When 1 Timothy says, “Scripture says …’The labourer is worthy of his wages’ “, it is quoting Jesus in Luke (154). It would appear that 1Timothy was quoting Luke, so Luke must have been written first. If Luke was written in the 80s or 90s and Paul was martyred in the 60s, then he could not have written 1 Timothy. John A. T. Robinson does not appear to have taken this into account when he argued that Luke was written in the 60s and 1 Timothy was written in 55 (155).
On the other hand, internal evidence suggests that Luke and Acts were written before Paul’s death. If an account of someone’s life ends while he was still alive, it was written while he was still alive, not 30 years after his death. Since Acts ends with Paul preaching the gospel in Rome (156), and does not describe his martyrdom a few years later, it suggests that Acts was written in the early 60s before Paul’s death and its predecessor Luke must have been written earlier. It is possible that Paul could have quoted Luke’s Gospel when he wrote 1 Timothy. Alternatively, the passage, which 1 Timothy quotes, appears only in Luke so it would be an L passage, material which only Luke used. If Luke was the co-author of 1 Timothy the quote may not be from his Gospel, but from his L material which he used in both 1 Timothy and Luke.
In concluding, there is no denying that the Pastorals are different from the undisputed Paulines, however the arguments against Pauline authorship are not convincing enough to conclude that they were entirely pseudonymous and were not written by Paul at all. Pseudepigrapha was condemned and rejected by the early Christians, yet the Pastorals were always accepted as authentic by the early Christians. There is no evidence that they once knew they were pseudonymous. There are differences between them and ancient pseudonymous letters. The chronological arguments against the Pastoral are weak. It is not possible to construct a thorough account of Paul’s career from Acts and conclude that the Pastorals do not fit. The background of the Pastorals still matches Paul’s lifetime. The vocabulary of the Pastorals is not exclusively second century. Arguments based on style and vocabulary do not take not account the different genre, subject matter and audience of the Pastorals from Paul’s letters to churches. Nevertheless, most defenders of Pauline authorship are still reluctant to attribute the Pastorals solely to Paul. They argue that the differences in style and vocabulary can be further attributed to a secretary or co-author who played a more significant role in their composition than in the undisputed Paulines. Instead of being pseudonymous, it is more plausible that Paul was at least the co-author of the Pastorals.
(1) Wall, R.S., “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to S.E. Porter”, Bulletin for Biblical Research, No. 5 (1995), p 126
(2) Meade, D.G., Pseudonymity and Canon (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), p 118
(3) Capes, D.B., et al, Rediscovering Paul (Illinois: IVP, 2007), p 287
(4) Stevenson, J., A New Eusebius, Second Edition (London: SPCK, 1987), p 124
(5) Harrison, P.N., The Problem of the Pastorals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921), p 58
(6) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25
(7) Origen, Commentary on John, 1:4
(8) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 7:25
(9) The Problem of the Pastorals, op cit., p 58-59
(10) Wilder, T.L., Pseudonymity, the New Testament and Deception (Maryland: University of America Press, 2004), p 35-36
(11) Ibid., p 49
(12) Witherington, B., Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume I (Illinois: IVP, 2006), p 68
(13) Pseudonymity, the New Testament and Deception, op cit., p 76-77, Metzger, B.M., “Literary and Canonical Pseudepigrapha”, Journal
of Biblical Literature, Vol. 91, No. 1 (March 1972), p 7
(14) Schelle, U., The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (London: SCM Press, 1988), p 332
(15) Pseudonymity, the New Testament and Deception, op cit., p 248-249, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, op cit., p 30
(16) 1 Timothy 1:15, 2 Timothy 4:6-8
(17) Ehrman, B., The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p 383
(18) The Problem of the Pastorals, op cit., p 12
(19) Pseudonymity, the New Testament and Deception, op cit., p 225-227, 245, 255-258
(20) Ibid., p 77
(21) Bauckham, R., “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters”, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 107, No. 3 (1988), p 475
(22) Pseudonymity, the New Testament and Deception, op cit., p 94, 100
(24) The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, op cit., p 382
(25) Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, op cit., p 90, Blomberg, C.L., From Pentecost to Patmos (Nottingham: Apollos, 2006), p 351
(26) “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters”, op cit., p 490
(28) Ibid, p 492
(29) 1 Corinthians 15:3
(30) “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters”, op cit., p 488-489
(31) 2 Timothy 4:6-8
(32) 2 Timothy 4:13
(33) “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters”, op cit., p 489, 493, 494
(34) 1Timothy 1:3
(35) Acts 19:22
(36) Titus 1:5
(37) Acts 27:12
(38) Acts 1:3
(39) 2 Corinthians 11:25
(40) Acts 27
(41) Galatians 1-2, Acts 15
(42) Acts 19:22, 20:1-4
(43) Reicke, B., Re-examining Paul’s Letters (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001), p 51
(44) Ibid., p 68-69
(45) Ibid., p 87
(46) Ibid., p 141
(47) A New Eusebius, op cit., p 123
(48) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:22
(49) Pseudonymity and Canon, op cit., p 119
(50) The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, op cit., p 398
(51) Marshall, I.H., A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh; T. and T Clark, 1999), p 75
(52) 1 Timothy 1:18
(53) 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6
(54) 1 Corinthians 12:28
(55) 1 Thessalonians 5:12
(56) Philippians 1;1
(57) Acts 14:23
(58) Acts 15:6, 22
(59) Acts 20:17, 28
(60) 1 Peter 5:2
(61) James 5:14. Hebrews 11:2
(62) The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, op cit., p 399
(63) 1 Timothy 3:1-3
(64) Titus 1:5-9,
(65) Wilson, S.G., Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979), p 106
(66) Ibid., p 121
(67) Revelation 2:6
(68) The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, op cit., p 333, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, op cit., p 85
(69) 1Timothy 4:1-5
(70) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:26:3
(71) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:26:1
(72) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:78
(73) 1 Timothy 1:3-8
(74) 1 Timothy 1:19
(75) 1 Timothy 3:6
(76) 1 Timothy 4:1-5
(77) 1 Timothy 5 :13-14
(78) 1 Timothy 6:10
(79) 1 Timothy 6:20
(80) 2 Timothy 1:15
(81) 2 Timothy 2:17-18
(82) 2 Timothy 3:6
(83) 2 Timothy 4:4
(84) Titus 1:10
(85) Titus 1:14
(86) Titus 3:9
(87) 1 Timothy 1:7
(88) 1 Timothy 4:3
(89) Titus 1:10
(90) Titus 1:14
(91) Titus 3:9
(92) Acts 15:1-15
(93) 2 Timothy 2:18
(94) 2 Thessalonians 2:2
(95) 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11
(96) 1 Timothy 6:20-21
(97) Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, op cit., p 345
(98) 1 Corinthians 8:11, 13
(99) Romans 13:1-7
(100) 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Titus 3:1
(101) Revelation 17:6
(102) The Problem of the Pastorals, op cit., p 20
(104) Ibid., p 68
(105) Ibid., p 34-35
(106) Ibid., p 42
(107) Poe, H.L., “Shedding Light on The Dark Tower”, Christianity Today, (February 2007) http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/28.44.html
(108) Hoehner, H.H., “Did Paul Write Galatians?” in Son, S. (editor) History and Exegesis, New Testament Essays in Honor or Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday (New York: T. and T. Clark, 2006), p 155
(109) Ibid., p 162-163
(110) Knight, G.W., The Pastoral Epistles (Michigan: William Eerdmans, 1992), p 39
(111) Guthrie, D., The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul (London: Tyndale Press, 1956), p 213
(112) Ibid., p 219, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, op cit., p 55
(113) The Problem of the Pastorals, op cit., p 42
(114) 57, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, op cit., p 70
(115) The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of P aul, op cit., p 15-16
(116) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:22
(117) Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, op cit., p 57,Kelly, J.N.D., A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1963), p 25
(118) The Pastoral Epistles, An Introduction and Commentary, op cit., p 218-219
(119) Ibid., p 215
(120) The Problem of the Pastorals, op cit., p 8
(121) Ibid., p 216
(122) Ibid., p 216-217
(123) Ibid., p 66
(124) Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, op cit., p 57-60
(125) The Pastoral Epistles, An Introduction and Commentary, op cit., p 225
(126) The Problem of the Pastorals, op cit., p 87
(127) Ibid., p 89
(128) The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, op cit., p 330-331
(130) The Pastoral Epistles, op cit., p 32-34
(131) The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, op cit., p 346
(132) The Pastoral Epistles, op cit., p 34
(133) Titus 3:5-6
(134) 1 Timothy 6:20
(135) The Pastoral Epistles, op cit., p 32, The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, op cit., p 490
(136) 1 Timothy 1:14, 4:10
(137) Galatians 1:23
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, op cit, p 102
(139) 1 Timothy 1:15, 2:6, 2:8, 2 Timothy 1:9-10, 2:8, Titus 2:11-13, 3:7
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, op cit, p 106
(141) The Problem of the Pastorals, op cit., p 126-127
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, op cit, p 65
(143) Kelly, J.N.D., A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1963), p 29
(144) Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, op cit., p 50-51
(145) Romans 16:22
(146) 1 Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, Philemon 19
(147) Rediscovering Paul, op cit., p 71-72
(148) Paul and First Century Letter Writing, op cit., p 32-36
(149) The Pastoral Epistles, op cit., p 50-52
(150) Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, op cit., p 60
(151) Luke and the Pastoral Epistles, op cit., p 5-11
(152) Ibid., p 3-4, 136-143
(153) Acts 15:23-29, 23:25-30
(154) Robinson, J.A.T., Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976), p 84, 116
(155) Acts 28:30-31
Blomberg, C.L., From Pentecost to Patmos (Nottingham: Apollos, 2006)
Capes, D.B., et al, Rediscovering Paul (Illinois: IVP, 2007)
Crossan, J.D., and Reed, J.L., In Search of Paul (New York; Harper Collins, 2004)
Ehrman, B., The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)
Guthrie, D., The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul (London: Tyndale Press, 1956)
Guthrie, D., The Pastoral Epistles, An Introduction and Commentary (London: Tyndale Press, 1957)
Harrison, P.N., The Problem of the Pastorals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921)
Kelly, J.N.D., A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1963)
Knight, G.W., The Pastoral Epistles (Michigan: William Eerdmans, 1992)
Marshall, I.H., A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh; T. and T Clark, 1999)
Meade, D.G., Pseudonymity and Canon (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1987)
Reicke, B., Re-examining Paul’s Letters (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001)
Richards, E.R., Paul and First-Century Letter Writing (Illinois: IVP, 2004)
Robinson, J.A.T., Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976)
Schelle, U., The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (London: SCM Press, 1988)
Stevenson, J., A New Eusebius, Second Edition (London: SPCK, 1987)
Wilder, T.L., Pseudonymity, the New Testament and Deception (Maryland: University of America Press, 2004)
Wilson, S.G., Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979)
Witherington, B., Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume I (Illinois: IVP, 2006)
Bauckham, R., “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters”, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 107, No. 3 (1988), pp 469-494
Hoehner, H.H., “Did Paul Write Galatians?” in Son, S. (editor) History and Exegesis, New Testament Essays in Honor or Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday (New York: T. and T. Clark, 2006)
Metzger, B.M., “Literary and Canonical Pseudepigrapha”, Journal
of Biblical Literature, Vol. 91, No. 1 (March 1972), pp 3-24
Poe, H.L., “Shedding Light on The Dark Tower”, Christianity Today, (February 2007) http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/28.44.html
Wall, R.S., “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to S.E. Porter”, Bulletin for Biblical Research, No. 5 (1995), pp 125-128
Wilder, T.L., “A Brief Defense of the Pastoral Epistles’ Authenticity”, Midwestern
Journal of Theology, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Fall 2003), pp 38-42