Probably a larger number hold that they are later compositions by a writer (or perhaps more than one writer) anxious to revivify the legacy of Paul for a later generation or, more loosely, to invoke the authority of Paul for what he thought needed to be said at that time. This means that the possible time – range within which the letters have been dated extends to nearly a century, from a setting in Paul ’ s Aegean mission period, on the one hand, to the mid – second century (if 1 Tim 6:20 is an attack on Marcion), on the other. However, a fairly fi rm terminus ante quem is set for 1 Timothy by an informal citation in Polycarp ’ s Epistle to the Philippians 4.1 (probably no later than 135 CE ), and Marcion is said to have excluded the Pastorals from his canon (rather than not knowing of their existence). Either way, the letters are part of Paul ’ s correspondence or form part of his legacy.

The individuality of the Pastoral epistles is apparent in matters of both language and content:

• (1) The language is undeniably different. The vocabulary shows a rather different choice of words from the main Pauline collection of seven authentic letters. The proportions of different types of speech differ (many more nouns and adjectives, partly due to the number of lists of virtues and vices, and a poorer set of conjunctions and other linking words).
• (2) More importantly, the pattern of argument is different. There is a pattern of backing up practice by doctrine ( “ Do Y because you believe X ” ) rather than of developing practice out of doctrine ( “ You believe X, so do Y ” ). This is seen especially in the appeal to the trustworthy sayings, using a unique formula not found in the main Pauline letters (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9, etc.). Opening salutations are formulated differently as well.
• (3) Further, the doctrine itself, while generally conformable to that of Paul, is expressed in new ways for which there is no apparent motivation if the Pastorals come directly from Paul. We have already noted the unusual Christological vocabulary and a more Hellenistic type of moral language. There is the lack or minimal use of familiar Pauline expressions (for example, God as father, “ in Christ/the Lord, ” fl esh), which may be an indicator of a more deep – seated difference in the underlying theology.
• (4) Some would go further and find contradictions and incompatibilities with Paul’s other writings, such as the silencing of women, the tendency toward hierarchicalism in congregational order, the shift toward faith as being concerned with right doctrine and teaching rather than personal commitment to God and Christ. And is the self – portrait of Paul his own or is it framed by an admirer?
• (5) A resulting question would be whether the material is more directly relevant to a later period and shaped by a different set of circumstances, though framed as if from the time of Paul as part of the persuasive rhetoric of the writer.