A Project Paper on

Authorship of Pastoral Epistles

Student ID: AB263820

Roll No.: 33009
Telegram Username: SSC33MTH33009
Paper Code: MNT001
Class: M.Th. First Year
Department: New Testament
 PLAGIARISM STATEMENT

I certify that this assignment is my own work, based on my personal research. I

have acknowledged all materials and sources used in this paper, written or
electronic materials. I have not previously submitted this paper for assessment in
any other unit either in part or whole.

Name Date
Alby Thomas Mathew 25th July 2021

Signature

1|Page
INTRODUCTION
Although St. Paul was not one of the original 12 Apostles of Jesus, he was one of the most prolific
contributors to the New Testament. Of the 27 books in the New Testament, 13 or 14 are traditionally attributed
to Paul, though only 7 of these Pauline epistles are accepted as being entirely authentic and dictated by St. Paul
himself. The authorship of the others is debated, and they are commonly thought to have come from
contemporary or later followers writing in Paul’s name. These issues are open to debate and we shall look into
some of nuances involved in the authorship of Pastoral Epistles through this seminar
Throughout the course of the last two millennia, the books of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus have
been a source of guidance and direction for leaders of the church and believers everywhere. These three books
of the canon of Scripture form a distinct unit known as the Pastoral Epistles. The letters make up such a “closely
knit group” that their authorship and authenticity can be examined together, and these issues have been the
subject of much debate during the last two hundred years. The traditional view is that Paul the apostle was the
author of the letters, but, beginning in the nineteenth century, many critical scholars began questioning this
accepted position. Difficulties with Pauline authorship arose when the Pastoral Epistles were compared to the
acknowledged letters of Paul including Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians,
and Philemon. From the first century until the nineteenth, no one ever doubted that they were written by Paul
but by the end of the twentieth century, New Testament scholarship was virtually unanimous in affirming that
the Pastoral Epistles was post-pauline. What necessitated such a shift in the 20th century? Does this so called
scholarly consensus on pastoral authorship stand the test of scrutiny? Let’s look in.

PASTORAL EPISTLES
The three letters attributed to Paul that comprise the so-called “Pastoral Epistles”, namely 1 and 2
Timothy and Titus, were never grouped together as such until the early 19th century.1 At this time, critical
scholarship concerning the Pastoral Epistles began to materialize, starting with Friedrich Schleiermacher’s
rejection of Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy in 1807.2 Since then, there has been an increasing sense of
skepticism concerning these letters; namely, that Paul may not have written them even though they claim to be
so in their respective greetings (1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Tit 1:1).
This skepticism is not without reason. In many ways, the Pastorals have their own unique vocabulary,
style, and content within the Pauline corpus, which some scholars believe can only be explained by an author
other than Paul. As scholarship has paid increased attention to the Pastorals, many other aspects such as genre,
dating, and presumed historical situation have come into the fold. While in many ways the Pastoral epistles

1
Patrick Rodgers, “The Pastoral Epistles as Deutero-Pauline,” Irish Theological Quarterly 45, no. 4 (1978):250.
2
Raymond F. Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Eugene:
Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1988), 89.
2|Page
have been marginalized in scholarship, the much warranted attention which has revitalized their study is still
unfortunately hampered by some blind assumptions and unwarranted classifications.

Issues Concerning Authorship

External Evidence
In tackling the question of authorship and the Pastoral Epistles, many scholars first look at what external
sources have to offer in hopes of establishing a baseline for dating these letters and any early attestations to their
author.3 Unlike Paul’s “undisputed” letters, which most scholars believe were “widely known” in Christian
circles starting “sometime in the 90s”,4 external evidence for knowledge of the Pastoral Epistles prior to the end
of the 2nd century is questionable in strength. However, there are some scholars who would push back on this
proposal and argue that the external evidence for the Pastorals and Pauline authorship is on par with any other
letter, with the exception of Romans and 1 Corinthians.5 This assessment is based on the interpretation of
textual allusions and similarities between the Pastorals and early Christian writings. Since there is no explicit
mention of the Pastoral Epistles or their author until the late second century, these claims are based primarily on
the identification by some modern scholars of these parallels in phrasing and terminology.
J.N.D. Kelly argues that the early 2nd century Church Fathers Ignatius (~110 CE) and Polycarp (~120
CE) also display knowledge of the Pastorals.6 Often cited in support of this claim is Polycarp’s statement in his
letter to the Philippians that “the love of money is the root of all evils” (Philippians 4:1) which echoes 1 Tim
6:7-10 and chapter three of Ignatius’s Epistle to Polycarp, which states “Let not those who seem worthy of
credit, but teach strange doctrines, fill you with apprehension” and echoes 1 Tim 1:3 and 6:3. 7 However, there is
some question regarding these early attestations because none of these authors explicitly says they are quoting
from the Pastorals or that Paul is their author.8 But those who argue in favor of their knowledge consider what
they hold to be the extensive nature of these textual similarities as sufficient evidence of an early attestation.
The first clear and explicit testimony to the Pastorals and their Pauline authorship is from Irenaeus in his book
entitled Adversus Haereses (~188 CE).9 There is also evidence from the Muratorian Canon, usually dated

3
Caroline Thayer Mead, The Pauline Epistles Classified According to the External Evidence (Cambridge: Methodist Review,
1893), 1-6.
4
E.P. Sanders, Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 149.
5
Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing, 1988),23.
6
J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (London: A & C Black, 1986), 3-4.
7
J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral…, 12-14.
8
Jack Barensten, Emerging Leadership in the Pauline Mission: A Social Identity Perspective on Local Leadership Development
in Corinth and Ephesus (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 190.
9
Mark Harding, All Things to all Cultures…, 328.
3|Page
around the late 2nd century, which includes the Pastorals and states Paul as their author.10 In consideration of
this evidence, some scholars conclude that these letters were in general circulation by the third decade of the
second century at the latest.
Perhaps most notably, the Pastorals are not included in Marcion’s canon, dated around 140 CE.11 Many
believe this was due to theological differences rather than Marcion’s lack of knowledge of the Pastorals. But,
the exact reasons are ultimately unknown and inconclusive.12 Furthermore, codex P46, usually dated around 200
CE, does not include the Pastorals, 2 Thessalonians, or Philemon. Stanley Porter argues that there is evidence
from research conducted on the structure and reconstructed length of Pauline manuscripts to suggest that P 46
may have included 2 Thessalonians and Philemon at one point in time, and “possibly” the Pastoral Epistles as
well.13 That being said, this argument is quite speculative and Porter backs his argument by positing that we
have “no manuscript evidence to prove that the letters of Paul ever existed in an edition containing only some of
the thirteen letters.”14 In contrast, other scholars such as Howard Marshall and Philip Towner point out that that
the seven leaves missing at the end of P46 may not have been enough to fit all of the letters in question.15 The
majority of scholarship stands with this position and alternative proposals such as Porters’ remain on the
outskirts of discussions about P46 and other ancient Pauline manuscripts. However just as with Marcion, the
exact reasoning for their exclusion in this case is unknown.
As this brief survey has shown, there is a wealth of evidence when it comes to evaluating external
attestation of the Pastorals, much of which is subject to interpretation or speculation. All of these factors have
left opinions on the matter split. Consequently, while external evidence is important to consider, it provides
plausible evidence for use by either side of the authorship debate.

Stylistic and Vocabulary Differences

P.N. Harrison conducted one of the first comprehensive studies concerning the vocabulary of the
Pastoral Epistles in his 1921 book The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. In his comparison of the Pastorals with
the rest of the Pauline corpus, Harrison concluded that there were a total of 906 words across the PE, 306 of
which are not found in any of Paul’s other letters.16 Specific to 2 Timothy, there are 60 words under this
category. Harrison also observed a far greater proportion of hapax legomena, words that are not found

10
Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing,
1990), 22.
11
Mark Harding, What Are They Saying About the Pastoral Epistles (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2001), 9.
12
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2016),
417.
13
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul…simp, 417.
14
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul…, 170,
15
I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, The Pastoral Epistles (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 6.
16
P.N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921), 26.
4|Page
elsewhere in the New Testament, per page in the Pastorals than any other New Testament text.17 His overall
conclusion was that the vocabulary of the Pastorals was closer to 2nd century writers than it was to Paul.18 This
distinct set of vocabulary and unique style led Harrison to definitively reject Pauline authorship. Harrison also
observed stylistic differences; mainly in the way the Pastorals are written. He argues that the lack of vigor in the
way ideas are expressed and the lack of Pauline particles and prepositions all point to an author other than
Paul.19
Consequently, the rejection of Pauline authorship based on vocabulary and stylistic differences has not
gone unchallenged. In critiquing Harrison’s findings, Ken Neumann, has pushed back against Harrison’s use of
hapax legomena while attributing the other peculiarities in vocabulary to circumstantial differences.20 Luke
Timothy Johnson follows suit by arguing that subject matter, audience, and physical circumstance must be
taken into account when evaluating the use of vocabulary and style.21
B.M. Metzger points out that all of these studies must acknowledge the principal issue in their desired
methodology; namely, the sheer brevity of the Pastorals.22 They are simply not long enough to provide any sort
of reliable or concrete data to work with.23 And while it is true that some of Paul’s undisputed epistles, most
notably Philemon, are “too short for the most efficient computer to yield a significant analysis of its style and
vocabulary”, almost all scholars agree that there is not sufficient doubt to question Philemon’s authenticity,
especially in regard to its vocabulary and style.24 Furthermore, there is no consensus on what constitutes a valid
sample size or which factors should even be used in stylistic evaluation. Michael Prior is quick to show how the
presentation of the results in a statistical manner “gives the appearance of exactness.” But upon closer
examination, one quickly discovers that these studies are rather “crude” in their methodology. So while there is
very little doubt that the vocabulary and style of the Pastorals are unique, the extent to which these factors
influence discussions surrounding authorship and dating should be tempered. In addition to the brevity of the
letters and questionable methodology, Donald Guthrie posits the lack of uniformity in the observed differences.
With all these factors considered, this evidence “cannot be held as conclusive” for or against Pauline

17
P.N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral…, 68.
18
I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 60 citing
Harrison, Problem, 79-84.
19
P.N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral…, 6836-37.
20
Kenneth Neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1988), 8-10.
21
Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1996), 18-
20.
22
B.M. Metzger, “A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” ExpTim
70 (1958): 91-101 (91-94).
23
William Richards, Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity: An Epistolary Analysis of the Pastorals (Oxford:
Peter Lang Inc., 2002), 24.
24
F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing,
1984), 191.
5|Page
authorship.25 However, this does not mean that this information is useless but rather that examination of
vocabulary and style should not be in and of itself the decisive factor in placing the plausibility of one position
on authorship over another.

Theology
Perhaps one of the most striking differences between the Pastorals and the other Pauline epistles is their
theology. None of the Pastorals use common Pauline titles such as ‘son’ (υἱός) for Christ or include major
Pauline themes such as the cross, giving thanks, boasting, or wisdom.26 Other major motifs found in Paul, such
as the idea of Christ as a pre-eminent figure, an indication that the parousia is imminent, and being righteoused
by faith, are also markedly absent.27 In place of this the ‘Pauline’ theology found here is, by and large, an
emphasis on civil virtues and correct teaching.28 However, some scholars argue that the theology in the
Pastorals is not as distinct as it is often made to be. Stanley Porter points out that the Pastorals do include other
typical Pauline theological themes, such as affirmation of God’s mercy realized in Christ and the dependence of
salvation on the grace of God.29
Furthermore, passages such as 1 Cor. 15:1-3, indicate the importance of doctrine and early tradition.
These were handed on and entrusted to others, just as those that came before him entrusted Paul with the
Gospel. Thus, the discussion in the Pastorals of correct teaching and who should be entrusted with it is not
entirely unique.30
In opposition, James Aageson argues that while these concepts are present to some degree in other
letters, they are abnormally present in the Pastorals.31 As Abraham Malherbe puts it, “The addresses of Paul the
writer exemplify the letters’ generational interest… the Pastorals know of generations before the young leaders
they address and anticipate future generations to come after them.”32 It is these young leaders and future
generations to which the “deposit” is going to be given and protected which make the Pastorals “unique”
amongst the New Testament and give scholars such as Aageson pause.33
With recognition of these differences and the validity within the proposed questions, defenders of
Pauline authorship offer a number of counter-points in response in addition to those mentioned above. When it

25
Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles…, 56.
26
A.T. Hanson, The New Century Bible Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1982), 4-6.
27
David G. Horrell, Introduction to the Study of Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 133-135.
28
David G. Horrell, Introduction to the…, 135.
29
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul…,427.
30
Mark Harding, What Are They Saying…, 34.
31
James Aageson, Windows on Early Christianity: Uncommon Stories, Striking Images, Critical Perspectives (Eugene: Wipf
and Stock Publishers, 2016), 114.
32
Abraham J. Malherbe, Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity (Leiden: Koninklijike Brill NV,
2014), 281.
33
Abraham J. Malherbe, Light from the Gentiles…, 280.
6|Page
comes to the “abnormal” emphasis on doctrine and correct teaching, the uniqueness of the situation Paul is
addressing and the people he is writing to can account for some of these discrepancies. 34 The fact that all of the
Pastorals are addressed to individuals attests to their situational uniqueness and should be evaluated with that in
mind.35 In the case of 2 Timothy, Luke Timothy Johnson contends that the emphasis on doctrine and teaching
could be a rhetorical strategy in this very personal letter meant to bolster Paul’s exhortation to Timothy. 36
In response to the matter of theology, a more apologetic tone is usually employed. Paul Zehr observes
that core theological aspects are absent from the undisputed epistles. For example, references to the cross
(σταυρός) do not appear in Romans, 2 Corinthians or 1 and 2 Thessalonians.37 Furthermore, as Lars Kierspel
contends, the undisputed epistles “never offer any systematic and complete theology of Paul” so “the prescience
or absence of certain [theological] themes in other letters does not argue against Pauline authorship.”38
Some scholars, such as Frank Matera, would push back against such an argument. It is not so much the
presence or absence of theological themes that are important but rather the different ways in which the Pastorals
use Pauline theology from the undisputed epistles. For example, in the Pastorals the Spirit “no longer plays the
same dynamic role that it does in Paul’s correspondence” and the church “is no longer viewed as the body of
Christ or the temple of God…”39 It is the unusual use of some typical Pauline theological themes and the
inclusion of and renewed interest in civic concerns and theological themes not found elsewhere in the Pauline
corpus that push Matera and like-minded scholars to favor theories of non-Pauline authorship.

Historical Situation
There are two issues at play when considering the historical situation of 2 Timothy and the Pastoral
Epistles.40 One is how the biographical information in the Pastorals fits into the framework of Acts and Paul’s
other letters. Presumably, if there were explicit contradictions between these texts, the details would certainly
warrant further examination and possible skepticism. Second is the historical situation that the author assumes
and portrays. If the author seems to be writing in a period indicative of the late first/early second century, then
this too would warrant further examination and be problematic for those who argue in favor of Pauline
authorship.41

34
Mark Harding, What Are They Saying…,19-24.
35
P.N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral…, 54.
36
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: Third Edition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 387.
37
Paul Zehr, Believers Church Bible Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Scottsdale: Herald Press, 2010), 18.
38
Lars Kierspel, Charts of the Life, Letters, and Theology of Paul (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2012), 136.
39
Frank J. Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1996), 229-47.
40
Graham Simpson, The Pastoral Epistles – 1-2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Contextual Commentary (Bengaluru:
Primalogue Publishing, 2012), 2-4.
41
Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy
and 1-3 John (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 65-68.
7|Page
 Despite its emphasis by many scholars, the attempt to situate the Pastorals into the frameworks of Acts
and other Pauline epistles is problematic in and of itself. In the words of Porter, “Neither Paul’s letters nor Acts
gives a complete chronology of Paul’s life and travels; hence, it is impossible to solve the chronological issues
in the Pastoral Epistles.”42 The biggest problem, however, is that this an argument based primarily on silence.
There is nothing in the Pastorals, specifically 2 Timothy, which contradicts Acts. Thus the argument is based on
information that simply is not there.43 Johnson concurs that to argue against the authenticity of the Pastorals
because of biographical and other historical information is untenable since we know that Acts is a selective
history of sorts and omits important events that we know from Paul’s own letters. 44 Similar to its questionable
status in scholarly reconstructions of Paul, Acts should be used cautiously in comparison with historical details
regarding the Pastorals.45
As we just saw there are four main categories which scholars use in arguing for or against Pauline
authorship of the Pastorals: External Attestation, Vocabulary/Style, Theology, and Historical Detail/Setting.
Each of these categories has their own issues and difficulties, allowing plausible points to be made by both sides
of the authorship debate. Next we will explore some of the proposed solutions given in this larger debate
surrounding authorship and provenance.

Fragment Hypothesis
The two earliest and chief proponents of the fragment hypothesis are P.N. Harrison and S.G. Duncan.
The fragment hypothesis contends that the author of the Pastorals was someone other than Paul but incorporated
genuine Pauline fragments into the letters.46 Harrison, who was the original proposer of the hypothesis, argued
this was an explanation of the personal aspects in the Pastorals, such as the long list of names and locations in 2
Timothy 4:9-15. These details, Harrison contends, cannot be mere fiction.47 However, as scholarship on the
matter has evolved, most scholars have come to discredit this theory both because of its lack of credible
evidence and its tendency to raise more questions than it answers.48
That being said, some recent scholarship such as James Miller’s 1997 book The Pastoral Letters as
Composite Documents has sought to defend and refine the fragment hypothesis. Miller likens the three Pastoral
Epistles to a kind of “Hellenistic moral handbook” that was composed by a number of authors belonging to a

42
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul…, 417.
43
William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles…, xlviii.
44
Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates…, 67-68.
45
Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates…, 68.
46
P.N. Harrison, “The Pastoral Epistles and Duncan’s Ephesian Theory,” New Testament Studies 2/ 4 (1956): 250-261 (250).
47
Mark Harding, What Are They Saying…,18.
48
Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress
Publishers, 1989), 425.
8|Page
Pauline “school”.49 These authors composed the Pastorals with the help of preformed material from Paul and
other early Christian tradition. Similar to Harrison, Miller’s proposal has been questioned based on a lack of
evidence. Specifically, as Harding summarizes, Miller presents nothing concrete to indicate that these kinds of
“schools” had existed within Christian circles during the first and second centuries.50
Furthermore, as Stanley Porter notes, the information contained in the identified fragments do not
provide a plausible framework or basis for a series of letters largely concerned with church organization and
teaching.51 This is the biggest issue for those that argue against the deceptive nature of pseudepigraphy within
Christian circles. While it can be argued that the more personal details were incorporated without the intention
to deceive, one must also offer a reason as to why they were included in the first place since they seem to offer
very little to the major concerns of church and household order that are addressed. In other words, Porter and
like-minded scholars do not see the rationale behind the author’s choice to use the information contained in the
identified fragments for his construction of three separate letters devoted to issues which have little to no
relevance to this said information.
These complications are responsible for the lack of popularity the fragment hypothesis garners in current
scholarship. Indeed, there is even a lack of consensus as to what the genuine fragments are. 52 Consequently,
current scholarship has marginalized the fragment hypothesis and offers limited recognition.53

Secretary Hypothesis
In explaining the unique style of the Pastorals, some argue it is the result of a large degree of secretarial
influence not present in other Pauline letters.54 We know Paul made use of secretaries in his letters (Tertius in
Romans 16 as one example) and in some instances would explicitly say he was the one writing at certain points
in the letter, such as in the sixth chapter of Galatians.55 These remain not only as plain proofs, but also an
implied pointer for Paul’s employment of an amanuensis in the composition of his letters. Also, the appearance
of a postscript is regarded as an implied pointer for occupying an amanuensis. What is less certain is the amount
of influence that these secretaries had on both the content and style of the letters that they were involved in
composing.56

49
James Miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 113.
50
Mark Harding, What Are They Saying…,18.
51
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul…, 420.
52
Craig Smith, 2 Timothy (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2016), 2.
53
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul…, 421-22.
54
J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral…, 25-27.
55
J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral…, 25.
56
Arthur Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon (Downers Groove: InterVarsity Press,
1995), 76.
9|Page
 There are various theories as to who could have been secretary in the case of 2 Timothy and/or the
Pastoral Epistles as a whole. Some scholars, such as George Knight, believe that it was Luke. 57 Knight argues
he is the only person present with Paul (see 2 Tim 4:11) and that there is similarity between the language and
vocabulary of the Pastorals and Luke-Acts. From his calculations, there are 75 words that occur in the Pastorals
and in Luke-Acts but not in the rest of the Pauline corpus.58 Furthermore, Knight argues that the words, stylistic
traits, and specific expressions in the Pastorals that are not found in the rest of the Pauline corpus are “often
those shared exclusively with Luke or shared with Luke and one or two other NT writers; some 68 such items
by my count.”59
Though it is virtually impossible for us to know the details as to who could of served as a secretary for 2
Timothy and/or the Pastorals, the comparative studies done in search for answers show “how similar the
Pastoral Epistles and the other Paulines really are.”60 Therefore secretary hypothesis is often used in explaining
the peculiar dynamic between the Pastorals, the Pauline corpus, and other New Testament texts.61
Furthermore, the difficulties in identifying the secretary have not prevented scholars from further exploring the
hypothesis as a whole. In broad terms, scholars operate on the premise that the amount of influence that Paul
exerted in the composition of a letter is inversely correlated with the amount of stylistic freedom a scribe would
have had. Some scholars argue that the conditions under which 2 Timothy was written may give some important
insight. 2 Timothy indicates that Paul is in jail (1:8; 2:9) and well along in years (4:6-8)..62 However,
specifically in the case of 2 Timothy, the argument for the use or nonuse of a secretary “should not be built from
a proposed epistolary situation but from the letters themselves.”63 In other words, it should not be assumed that
Paul was or was not able to compose a letter for situational reasons or otherwise because 2 Timothy provides no
explicit evidence to that point.
In his commentary on the Pastorals, A.T. Hanson concludes that, “there are grave difficulties facing the
secretary hypothesis.”64 This is chiefly because the Pastorals do not name any co-senders or definitively indicate
the use or absence of a scribe. This renders it virtually impossible to know with any degree of certainty how to
evaluate the influence of Paul or another third party on the structure and/or contents of the letter. 65 This does not
automatically rule out the possibility of a secretary in the Pastorals, but it does negate any significant degree of
certainty in determining the use and degree of influence of a secretary or lack thereof. 66 In addition to the more

57
George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 48-49.
58
George W. Knight III, The Pastoral…, 50.
59
George W. Knight III, The Pastoral…, 50.
60
George W. Knight III, The Pastoral…, 50.
61
Mark Harding, What Are They Saying…, 21-24.
62
A.T. Hanson, The New Century Bible… 5-7.
63
E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, Vol. 42. (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991), 193.
64
A.T. Hanson, The New Century Bible…, 10.
65
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul…, 423.
66
E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, 189.
10 | P a g e
specified proposals of Knight, Moule and Hanson mentioned above, there are numerous other scholars who
place a significant degree of plausibility in the secretary hypothesis as a whole.
Indeed, within the undisputed letters of Paul there are a wide variety of styles and tones. To this point,
Stanley Porter argues that two of Paul’s most esteemed letters, Romans and Galatians, are drastically different
in their respective styles.67 How much of this variance can be attributed to the use of secretaries or co-
authorship? How influential is the situation and community being addressed in these matters? It is this
ambiguity, Benjamin Edsall cautions, which must be taken into account when considering the secretary
hypothesis.68

Pseudepigraphal
In 1807, Friedrich Schleiermacher became one of the first scholars to critically challenge Pauline
authorship of the Pastorals, specifically First Timothy.69 Following suit, J.G. Eichhorn challenged the
authorship of Second Timothy and Titus in 1812. Interestingly, Schleiermacher primarily based his argument on
linguistic and stylistic differences while Eichhorn based his objections primarily on historical differences.
Nonetheless, since the 19th century a majority of scholarship has tended to view the Pastorals as a distinct group
of pseudonymous works.
A central issue to evaluating pseudonymity and its plausibility in the authorship discussion is how the
Pastoral Epistles made their way into the New Testament canon together if Paul did not compose them. 70 To
this point, P.N. Harrison argues that early Christians were not sophisticated enough in linguistics to recognize
the key differences that would indicate their pseudonymous nature. 71 Others, such as Kurt Aland, contend that
the early Church was not against pseudonymous practices. Thus they would not have excluded the Pastorals on
suspicions of false attribution, if they indeed had any.72
In search for evidence, many have researched pseudonymous practices in the ancient world and early
Christianity. From this research, there is evidence suggesting the early Church’s overall negative attitude toward
such practices.73 Pseudonymous works such as Paul’s third letter to the Corinthians and the Acts of Paul and
Thecla were rejected because of their false appeal to authority. 74 Indeed, a clergy member who confessed to
writing pseudonymously in Paul’s name was disciplined and removed from his position. George Knight

67
Stanley Porter and Paul Yoon (eds.), Paul and Gnosis (Boston: Brill, 2016), 20.
68
Benjamin Edsall, Paul’s Witness to Formative Early Christian Instruction (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 38-43.
69
Bart Ehrman, Forgery and Counter-forgery…, 192.
70
Mark Harding, What Are They Saying…,25.
71
P.N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral…, 58.
72
George W. Knight III, The Pastoral…, 46
73
Vincent Pizzuto, A Cosmic Leap of Faith: An Authorial, Structural and Theological Investigation of the Cosmic Christology
in Col 1:15-20 (Dudley: Peeters, 2006), 76-79.
74
Mark Harding, What Are They Saying…,24-27.
11 | P a g e
considers statements from Paul about writing in his own hand (e.g. Gal 6:11; 1 Cor 16:21; Phlm 19) as ways “to
authenticate his letters for their recipients.”75 The author of 2 Thessalonians even warns of “a letter as if from
us” (2:2), further suggesting the negative connotations associated with the practice of pseudonymity. In
consideration of the evidence, some scholars echo Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin’s sentiment that, “it seems
unlikely that the church would have knowingly accepted a pseudonymous writing” into the canon. 76
In his recent book, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters, Stanley Porter lays out the main
difficulties of the pseudonymous position from a conservative point of view. Chief among these is the difficulty
of speculation. Porter sees merit in arguments both for and against Pauline authorship, but argues that the
pseudonymous side has more issues to answer for than it actually solves.77 One of these issues is the personal
detail in the Pastorals, especially in the case of 2 Timothy. Generally speaking, these details can be seen as a
deceptive device on the part of a pseudonymous author or as genuine details that reflect a genuine set of
circumstances.78 The pseudonymous side must reconcile both the moral difficulties of such a practice and the
reasons that would drive someone to fabricate or incorporate such things in the first place.79
Another issue is the poor attempt at Pauline imitation. If someone were trying to imitate the most typical
form of a Pauline letter, it is worth noting that the Pastorals are addressed to individuals rather than churches.
Along these lines, some scholars question why the form and style of Paul’s other epistles were not followed
more closely. If someone went through the effort of weaving elaborate historical and biographical details into
the Pastorals, it is even more peculiar that they fell short of exhibiting a Pauline character in the most crucial
aspects of the letters.80
From a less apologetically based framework, Michael Prior shows how the Pastorals, if pseudographic,
do not resemble other known early Christian pseudographic letters. Prior offers the only three texts of this sort
that “offer the remotest points of contact with the Pastorals”, namely the Letter to the Laodiceans, 3
Corinthians, and the Letter to the Apostles.81 All of these examples have features that distinguish them from the
Pastorals. In consideration of this evidence, Prior concludes there is “little support to be found in Christian
sources that pseudepigraphical letters were common, and the examples we have are not at all like the
Pastorals.”82
From a different perspective, Raymond Collins thinks three epistles were needed based on the existence of
different kinds of church communities, each having unique issues to be addressed. Specifically, Titus is

75
George W. Knight III, The Pastoral…, 47.
76
Thomas Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1992), 39.
77
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul…, 430.
78
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul…, 430.
79
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul…, 430.
80
P.N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral…, 57-59.
81
Michael Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 21.
82
Michael Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer..., 21.
12 | P a g e
concerned with Jewish-Christian congregations and 1 Timothy is concerned with Gentile-Christian
congregations.83 From the perspective of pseudonymity, if the author were using these letters to address
different kinds of congregations as Collins suggests, then some of these oddities are not all that peculiar. The
unique situations being addressed would naturally require some imagination on the part of the author in order to
adapt the Pauline narrative to post-Pauline circumstances.84
However, this does not adequately explain the author’s extensive use of personal remarks and details. If
the author had, as P.N. Harrison proposes, authentic Pauline materials,85 then this becomes even more
problematic. Timothy Swinson sees only one possible conclusion if Harrison’s proposal is accepted, namely the
Pastorals are “thoroughly un-Pauline pseudonymous letter[s] sprinkled with genuine Pauline personal
remarks”.86 But for the majority of scholars who do not accept Harrison’s proposal, the question of motive and
acceptance in the early Church must still be accounted for. Regardless, the early Church had to deal with
competing versions of Christianity and to some scholars the Pastorals represent an attempt by one of these
versions to assert its claim to embody the valid legacy of apostolic teaching and faith. 87

Pseudepigraphy and Dating

How does the theory of pseudepigraphy address the question of dating? This question is more pertinent to the
pseudepigraphy proposal since the other authorship solutions, with the possible exception of the fragment
hypothesis, would warrant a date towards the end of Paul’s life (the exact dating of which is beyond the scope
of the present topic). Those who argue the Pastorals are a reflection of 2nd century Gnosticism date them later
than those who see them as a reflection of Church problems in the post-apostolic era of the late 1st century.
There is also the issue of external attestation. Because there is no explicit evidence to support knowledge
of the Pastorals or their author until the late 2nd century by Irenaeus in his book Adversus Haereses, those who
attempt to date these letters are forced to consider the merit of arguments for earlier allusions. 88 However, even
if one accepts those arguments as convincing, early evidence of attestation to their author is still absent.
Malcolm Gill seeks to reconcile the pseudonymous position with evidence of an earlier external
attestation. If the Pastorals were composed very shortly after Paul’s death, people writing in the late 1st and
early 2nd centuries could certainly have known them.89 Building on this hypothesis, Ralph Martin proposes that

83
Raymond F. Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2002), 11.
84
Mark Harding, What Are They Saying…,25.
85
P.N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral…, 5-12.
86
L. Timothy Swinson, What is Scripture?: Paul’s Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers,
2014), 29.
87
M. Eugene Boring, An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2012), 372-73.
88
Harding, All Things to all Cultures, 328.
89
Malcolm Gill, Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1-7 (New York: International Academic Publishers,
2008), 75.
13 | P a g e
a close companion and/or scribe, such as Tertius or Luke, were ultimately responsible for the compilation and
distribution of the Pastorals.90 This scenario would explain how some early Christians could have known the
Pastorals by the time Clement, Polycarp, and other early 2nd century authors were writing.
In summary, there are three major proposed solutions to the question of authorship and the Pastoral
Epistles for those that do not accept Pauline authorship: Fragment Hypothesis, Secretary Hypothesis, and
Pseudepigraphy. Generally speaking, the majority of scholarship holds to the pseudepigraphy theory while the
fragment hypothesis garners the least scholarly support. Each of these proposals answer pertinent questions
while also giving rise to others, continuing the debate as to their respective merits. But now that some of the
proposed solutions to the authorship and prominence of the Pastorals have been addressed in detail, let us now
turn towards.
Luke Timothy Johnson observes that prior to the nineteenth century; the Pastoral Epistles “had been
construed as Pauline and, even more important, as Scripture.”91 Since then, the tables have so turned that “the
term ‘debate’ is surely too strong for the present situation, which is closer to a fixed academic consensus. Little
real discussion of the issue of authenticity still occurs.”92 The evidence here examined, however, does not
appear to warrant such an unquestioned consensus. On the one hand, evidence offered against the authenticity
of the Pastoral Epistles is overstated and is plausibly explained by defenders of Pauline authorship.

Evaluation
Having investigated the arguments for and against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, several
conclusions can be made. First, theories of pseudonymity create more problems than they solve and are not
viable solutions for the problem of authorship. A pseudonymous writing is inherently deceptive and cannot be
considered authoritative. Second, in regard to the historical evidence, the information within the epistles does
not have to be forced into the timeline of the book of Acts. Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment
and then a second arrest is entirely plausible. Furthermore, the numerous internal references to various historical
circumstances only strengthen the case for authenticity while the external witness of the church fathers is
overwhelmingly in favor of Pauline authorship. Third, the conclusion that Paul wrote the letters is not
undermined by their theological content. The ecclesiology found in the letters does not conflict with church
structure evident in Acts and the other epistles of the New Testament. Also, the heresy addressed in the letters is
Jewish in nature and contemporaneous to the time of Paul. Finally, the differing vocabulary and literary style of
the Pastoral Epistles and the undisputed Pauline corpus can be accounted for by the various circumstances and

90
Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing,
1978), 306-308.
91
Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates…, 42.
92
Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates…, 55.
14 | P a g e
purposes surrounding the Pastorals’ composition. The use of hapax legomena is dictated by the content of the
letters, and statistical studies have demonstrated that the percentage of hapax legomena in the Pastoral Epistles
is comparable to that of other Pauline writings. So I think we can conclude with some amount of certainty that
Paul was involved in the authorship of these letters.

Conclusion
Paul is the most prolific New Testament writer that contributed 13 books to the collection of 27 books in
the New Testament. He played a key role in the formation of early Christian faith and the church. We looked at
the authorship of Pastoral Epistles as the arena of fierce scholarly discussions, debates and deliberations. The
authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles has become the subject of much debate in the last two centuries, and the
writer explores the major positions on authorship. Along with the traditional view that the Pastorals were
written by Paul the apostle, contemporary theories on pseudonymity and the implications of such a view on
canonicity were considered. The historical evidence, theological content, and literary style and diction of the
epistles were also examined in defense of Pauline authorship. I hope this paper was informative, analytic while
retaining the critical flavor of scholarship.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aageson, James W. Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church (Library of Pauline Studies). Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007.
Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 1984.
Collins, Raymond F. Letters That Paul Did Not Write. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1988.
Collins, Raymond F. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2002.
Fee, Gordon. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. Vol. 13. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Books, 1989.
Gill, Malcolm. Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1-7. New York: International Academic
Publishers, 2008.
Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles: an Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans, 1990.
Hanson, Anthony T. New Century Bible Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles. New Century Bible Commentary.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 1982.
Harding, Mark. What Are They Saying about the Pastoral Epistles? Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2001.

15 | P a g e
Harrison, P. N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. London, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1921.
Horrell, David. An Introduction to the Study of Paul. T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies. Bloomsbury
T&T Clark, 2006.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: Third Edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. New York: Bloomsbury
Academic, 1996.
Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. London: A & C Black, 1963.
Knight, George W. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 1992.
Lea, Thomas, and Hayne P. Griffin. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy
Scripture. Vol. 34. New American Commentary. B&H Publishing Group, 1992.
Malherbe, Abraham J. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care. Eugene: Wipf
& Stock Publishers, 1987.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Pastoral Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. New York, New York:
T&T Clark, 2004.
Mounce, William. World Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles. Vol. 46. World Biblical Commentary.
Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000.
Patzia, Arthur. The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon. Downers Groove:
InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Pizzuto, Vincent. A Cosmic Leap of Faith: An Authorial, Structural, and Theological Investigation of the
Cosmic Christology in Col 1:15-20. Dudley, MA: Peters, 2006.
Porter, Stanley E. "Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon." Bulletin for Biblical
Research 5 (1995): 105-23.
Porter, Stanley E. The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans, 2016.
Prior, Michael. Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1989.
Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Vol. 42. J.C.B. Mohr, 1991.
Richards, William. Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity. Vol. 44. Studies in Biblical Literature.
Peter Lang, International Academic Publishers, 2002.
Roberts, Graham. Paul and Timothy: Developing a Leader. Melbourne College of Divinity, 2008.
Rodgers, Patrick. "The Pastoral Epistles as Deutero -Pauline." Irish Theological Quarterly 45, no. 4 (December
1978): 248-60.

16 | P a g e
 Sanders, E.P. Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2015.
Simpson, Graham. The Pastoral Epistles – 1-2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Contextual Commentary.
Bengaluru: Primalogue Publishing, 2012.
Smith, Craig A. 2 Timothy. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2016.
Swinson, L. Timothy. What Is Scripture?: Paul's Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy. Eugene, Oregon:
Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2014.
Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus,
1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John. Vol. 1. Downers Groove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006.
Zehr, Paul. Believers Church Bible Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. Believers Church Bible Commentary.
Herald Press, 2009.
Varghese, B. Pauline Theology. Adoor: El-Shalom, 2008

17 | P a g e

Copy protected with Online-PDF-No-Copy.com