The authorship of the Pastoral epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) has been questioned since the early 1800s. The earliest known doubts were expressed by Johann Ernst Christian Schmidt in 1804, and later Friedrich Schleiermacher and J. G. Eichhorn argued against the authenticity of the letters on historical grounds. F. C. Baur claimed that the opponents mentioned in the letters were second-century Gnostics and therefore not contemporary with Paul. These arguments have led many to consider the letters to be pseudepigraphic.

The authorship of the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) has been questioned by scholars for over two hundred years. The consensus among critical scholars is that all three letters are post-Pauline, with some early Christians rejecting 1 and 2 Timothy due to their contents and others rejecting 2 Timothy because of its reference to Jannes and Jambres. The lack of these letters in early manuscripts and the rejection of them by some early Christians suggest that there may have been doubts about their authenticity even in the early centuries of Christianity.

The consensus among critical scholars is that the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) are not authentically Pauline, but were written by someone else, likely in the 2nd century. The letters differ significantly in style, vocabulary, and content from the undisputed Pauline letters, and there is evidence that some early Christians doubted their authenticity. Despite this, some scholars continue to argue that the letters should be seen as a unified corpus and read as a unit.

The Letter to the Ephesians is thought to be a pseudepigraphal work, likely written by a later author who was trying to correct the views of Colossians. The author of the Letter to the Ephesians may have been trying to bring Colossians back into line by including references to the Jewish Scriptures and historical connections between the body of Christ and the people of Israel. In contrast, the Colossians does not contain these references and does not appear to be closely tied to a “history of salvation.” The consensus among modern scholars is that the Pastorals were not written by Paul, but rather by different authors at different times, possibly as much as 60 years apart. However, some scholars argue that the three letters were written by the same author, but address different concerns and should not be read as a unified corpus.

When trying to establish common authorship, it is not the differences of two (or three) writings that matter, but the similarities. One should think of the analogous situation of the Synoptic Gospels. It is the similarities they share—verbatim agreements in telling the same stories in the same sequence—that show their literary connections. So too, with the authorship of the Pastorals. It is all too simple to point out difference after difference among them, but one could just as easily point out the differences between 1 Thessalonians and Galatians, or between Ignatius’s letters to the Smyrneans and the Romans. The question of relationship hinges on the similarities, which have to be explained. The evidence is too overwhelming that the author of 2 Timothy must have been the author of the other two.

1 Timothy and Titus

1. There has been less disagreement over the joint authorship of 1 Timothy and Titus than over 2 Timothy. There are clear and compelling reasons for seeing 1 Timothy and Titus as products of the same pen, many of which are reasons for seeing all three as jointly authored. One of them reads like an abridgment of the other, or the other reads like an expansion of the first. There are obvious parallels between them in instructions for the qualifications of leaders, guidance given to “older men” and “younger men”, and many clear and specific overlaps that are virtually inexplicable apart from a literary relationship of some kind. There are numerous connections between the two books, such as the phrase of 1 Timothy 1:1 being matched by the of Titus 1:3. It is virtually the same phrase, found in only these two places in the New Testament. This shows that the same writer produced both books, as shown by numerous words, phrases, and ideas found in these two books but nowhere else in the Pauline corpus.
2. The opponents of the author in both letters are teachers of the Law (1 Tim. 1:7; Tit. 1:10, 14; 3:9) who are interested in “genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9—the only two occurrences of the word in the New Testament), that involve (1 Tim. 6:4; Tit. 3:9) and (1 Tim. 6:4; Tit. 3:9; apart from 2 Tim. 2:23 the latter word never occurs in Paul). The contents, polemics, instructions, and exhortations of the letters are simply too similar to think they come from a different pen, unless one author is copying another for purposes of his own. Even if that were the case, it should be noted that the copier (which would it be?) would necessarily be a forger, claiming to be Paul. But there are grounds for thinking that in fact neither book was written by Paul, as we will see.

1 Timothy and 2 Timothy

The relationship between the books of 1 and 2 Timothy is a topic of debate among scholars, with some arguing that 2 Timothy is unlike the other two pastoral epistles and may not have been written by the same author. Critics have made a case for this view, but their arguments are not strong. To establish joint authorship, one must look at the similarities between the books, rather than the differences. Verbatim parallels between the two books suggest that they were either written by the same author or that one borrowed from the other. Greetings in 1 and 2 Timothy are virtually identical, which is unusual in the writings of Paul.

The books of 1 and 2 Timothy share a number of unusual words and phrases that are not commonly found in Paul’s other writings or the rest of the New Testament. These include “laying on hands,” “self-description,” “injunction,” and “pursued.” The presence of these verbatim parallels suggests that the books were either written by the same author or that one borrowed from the other. The fact that these words are not commonly found elsewhere in the New Testament makes it unlikely that one author simply borrowed from the other. Instead, the linguistic similarities indicate that the books were written by the same person. The different concerns and problems addressed in the books do not necessarily suggest different authorship.

2 Timothy and Titus

The books of Titus and 1 Timothy are jointly authored, as are 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy. This is similar to the Johannine epistles, where 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John are all written by the same author. In the case of the Pastorals, there are even more striking similarities among the three books, and between 2 Timothy and Titus. For example, the phrase “our Savior Jesus Christ” appears in all three books, but nowhere else in the Pauline corpus. The verb “to be an accuser” is also used only once by Paul, but appears twice in the Pastorals. These similarities indicate that all three books were written by the same author.

The Three Letters Together

The books of Titus, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy share a number of words and phrases that are not commonly found in Paul’s other writings or the rest of the New Testament. These include “myths,” “teaching,” “trustworthy,” “to be an accuser,” “elder,” “mythical,” and “self-controlled.” The presence of these verbatim parallels indicates that the books were either written by the same author or that one borrowed from the other. The fact that these words are not commonly found elsewhere in the New Testament makes it unlikely that one author simply borrowed from the other. Instead, the linguistic similarities indicate that the books were written by the same person. This is further supported by the evidence that suggests that the books were not written by Paul.

The books of Titus, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy are likely to have been written by the same author because they share a number of words and phrases that are not commonly found in Paul’s other writings or the rest of the New Testament. Some scholars have argued that the books were written by different authors, but their arguments are not strong. The presence of these verbatim parallels suggests that the books were written by the same person. Additionally, there are good reasons to believe that this person was not Paul. Many of these reasons have to do with the content of the letters, which sometimes contradicts Paul’s known views. The fact that the letters were likely written by the same author and were not written by Paul is supported by the majority of scholars who have studied the issue.

1 Timothy

There are several indications that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul. The author’s view of the Jewish Law, which he declares is good “if someone uses it lawfully,” is at odds with Paul’s view that the Law is good unconditionally, regardless of how a person uses it. Additionally, the author does not engage with opponents on the topic of the Law, as Paul does, but simply ignores it. The reference to false teachers being “handed over to Satan” also differs from the incident in 1 Corinthians, where the act was a community affair, not something the apostle himself did. The purpose of the act in 1 Timothy is also different, appearing to be for punishment rather than for the “destruction of the flesh.” These differences suggest that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.

The book of 1 Timothy has many similarities with the writings of the apostle Paul, but also contains many differences that suggest it was not written by him. The author of 1 Timothy has a different view of the Jewish Law, does not engage with opponents on the subject of the Law, and uses an oath in a way that is uncharacteristic of Paul. Additionally, the instructions given to women in the book are at odds with Paul’s teachings, and the author’s views on marriage and food are also different from those found in Paul’s writings. Overall, the evidence suggests that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.

The letter of 1 Timothy, one of the so-called Pastoral Epistles, is likely not written by the apostle Paul. The letter contains several views that stand in tension with the historical Paul, such as the author’s view of the Jewish Law, the treatment of false teachers, the instructions to women, and the views on marriage and food. In addition, there are numerous verbal overlaps between 1 Timothy and the other two Pastorals, indicating that they were likely written by the same author. Therefore, it is likely that 1 Timothy was written by someone living in a later context, after Paul’s demise.

2 Timothy

In the article “The Pastorals as Pseudepigrapha”, the author discusses the theory that the three books of Timothy were not actually written by Paul, but rather by someone else who forged them in his name. The author provides several reasons for this view, including the fact that the letters contain numerous comments and views that do not align with those of the historical Paul, and that the letters were likely written by the same person given the presence of numerous verbal overlaps. The author also notes that it is not uncommon for forgers to write multiple works in the same name, and that there is no reason to believe that the author of the Pastorals would not have done so.

The Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) are a group of letters attributed to the apostle Paul, but many scholars believe that they were not actually written by Paul, but rather by one of his followers in his name. The author of these letters seems to have a different view of the Jewish Law and the role of women in the church than Paul, and some of the details in the letters do not align with the chronology of Paul’s life as established by his other letters and the book of Acts.

Titus

The book of Titus, like the other two Pastoral epistles, contains numerous passages that reflect the views of the historical Paul. However, it also contains comments that are difficult to reconcile with the historical Paul, such as the instruction to appoint presbyteroi (elders) in every town on Crete, which assumes an incredibly successful mission on the island and a hierarchically organized church. The author also uses the word “Haustafel” (a household code) for a community that is settled in for the long haul, and orders false teachers to be silenced rather than arguing with them. Furthermore, the author states that those who keep purity laws are corrupt, unbelieving, detestable, and disobedient, and refuses to engage in “stupid controversies” and “quarrels over the Law.” This does not align with the historical Paul, who was a Pharisee and considered himself “blameless” with respect to the Law.

There is some reason to suspect, on the other hand, that the author was intimately familiar with another Pauline letter, but this one too a forgery. The reminiscence of the author’s former life in 3:3–8 sounds very much like an allusion to Ephesians 2:1–10, where “Paul” begins by outlining his former life as a pagan sinner (3:3; cf. Eph. 2:3), whom God has now “saved” (past tense! 3:5; cf. Eph. 2:5), not because of “good deeds” (no word of “works of the Law” here, 3:5; cf. Eph. 2:9), through Jesus Christ, by “grace” (3:7; cf. Eph. 2:5, 8), so as to be an heir of eternal life (3:7; cf. Eph. 2:7). The author indicates that this “word” that he is delivering is “faithful” (3:8). Does he mean that he has self-consciously derived his “word” from what he (wrongly) thinks is an actual description of the conversion of Paul, in the equally pseudonymous letter to the Ephesians?

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

1. Vocabulary: While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means “righteous” and here means “upright”; pistis, “faith,” has become “the body of Christian faith”; and so on. Literary style: Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians. The situation of the apostle implied in the letters: Paul’s situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul’s life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
2. The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholicism: The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

1. Kummel presents the arguments that demonstrate the pastoral epistles’ falsity in his Introduction to the New Testament, pages 371-84. Kummel adds a few additional considerations to the arguments made by Perrin and expands on them. Kummel writes (op. cit.) about the struggle against false teachers. cit., pp. 379-80):

. . . in addition to the predictions concerning the appearance of the false teachers ‘in the last days’ (I Tim 4:1 ff; II Tim 3:1 ff, 13; 4:3 f), there are references to the present activity of the false teachers and instructions about combating them (I Tim 1:3 ff, 19 f; 6:20 f; II Tim 2:16 ff; 3:8; Tit 1:10 ff; 3:9 ff), so that there is no perceptible distinction between the teaching of the predicted false teachers and the present ones. But since nowhere in the Pastorals is there to be found any consciousness of living ‘in the last days,’ in the prediction of the End-time which evidently describes present phenomena it is clear that we are dealing only with a traditional literary motif (vaticinium ex eventu) which is now being employed by ‘Paul.’ Still more striking, however, is the matter of how the false teachers are opposed. Completely otherwise than in Col, the viewpoints of the false teachers are not contradicted by being confronted with the preaching about Christ, but they are countered simply by reference to the traditional teaching, from which the false teachers have erred and which is to be held fast (I Tim 4:1; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2 Tit 3:10 f). The lack of any substantive debate cannot be explained on the ground that Paul did not regard the prattle of false teachers as being worth contradicting and assumed that Timothy and Titus themselves knew what should be said in refutation of the false teachers. In that case there would be no necessity to make those addressed aware of the dangers of the false teaching in detail. This lack is much more readily explained by the fact that Paul is not writing these letters.

1. In the pastorals, there is an emphasis on the preservation of tradition, and the community situation seems to be that of the sub-apostolic age. The pastorals evince a level of church organization that most likely would not have existed in the lifetime of Paul. The requirements particular to bishops and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 381-2):
2. The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders of office in the congregations – not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a community which, in contrast to Paul’s expectation of a near end of the age, is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through ordanted presbyters (πρεσβυτεροσ is not meant in Paul as an indication of an office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the community.
3. In addition, Kummel compiles additional evidence demonstrating that the utilized theological expressions are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp. 382-84). All of these arguments demonstrate that the pastoral epistles were written in the second century.

1. One of the three epistles that are collectively referred to as the pastorals is 2 Timothy. They were not included in Marcion’s ten epistles, which were compiled around 140 CE. There is no specific quotation of these epistles prior to Irenaeus, around 170 CE, in opposition to Wallace. In The New Testament, Norman Perrin summarizes four factors that have led critical scholarship to view the pastorals as unreliable: Pages of an Introduction 264-5):

1. Vocabulary: While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words in a non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means “righteous” and here means “upright”; pistis, “faith,” has become “the body of Christian faith”; and so on. Literary style: Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians. The situation of the apostle implied in the letters: Paul’s situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul’s life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
2. The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholicism: The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

1. Kummel presents the arguments that demonstrate the pastoral epistles’ falsity in his Introduction to the New Testament, pages 371-84. Kummel adds a few additional considerations to the arguments made by Perrin and expands on them. Kummel writes (op. cit.) about the struggle against false teachers. cit., pp. 379-80):
2. . . . in addition to the predictions concerning the appearance of the false teachers ‘in the last days’ (I Tim 4:1 ff; II Tim 3:1 ff, 13; 4:3 f), there are references to the present activity of the false teachers and instructions about combating them (I Tim 1:3 ff, 19 f; 6:20 f; II Tim 2:16 ff; 3:8; Tit 1:10 ff; 3:9 ff), so that there is no perceptible distinction between the teaching of the predicted false teachers and the present ones. But since nowhere in the Pastorals is there to be found any consciousness of living ‘in the last days,’ in the prediction of the End-time which evidently describes present phenomena it is clear that we are dealing only with a traditional literary motif (vaticinium ex eventu) which is now being employed by ‘Paul.’ Still more striking, however, is the matter of how the false teachers are opposed. Completely otherwise than in Col, the viewpoints of the false teachers are not contradicted by being confronted with the preaching about Christ, but they are countered simply by reference to the traditional teaching, from which the false teachers have erred and which is to be held fast (I Tim 4:1; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2 Tit 3:10 f). The lack of any substantive debate cannot be explained on the ground that Paul did not regard the prattle of false teachers as being worth contradicting and assumed that Timothy and Titus themselves knew what should be said in refutation of the false teachers. In that case there would be no necessity to make those addressed aware of the dangers of the false teaching in detail. This lack is much more readily explained by the fact that Paul is not writing these letters.
3. In the pastorals, there is an emphasis on the preservation of tradition, and the community situation seems to be that of the sub-apostolic age. The pastorals evince a level of church organization that most likely would not have existed in the lifetime of Paul. The requirements particular to bishops and deacons are spelled out clearly (I Tim 3:1-13). Kummel writes (op. cit., pp. 381-2):
4. The actual task of Timothy and Titus consists rather in preserving the correct teaching which they received from Paul and passing it on to their pupils (I Tim 1:11; 6:20; II Tim 1:14; 2:2). Though there is no chain of succession constructed from Paul via his apostolic disciples to the holders of office in the congregations – not even in II Tim 2:2, the chain of tradition is strongly stressed, whose beginning lies with the apostle (II Tim 2:2, 8). The presupposition of this central role of the tradition is a community which, in contrast to Paul’s expectation of a near end of the age, is already making provision for the time after the death of the bearers of tradition appointed by the apostolic disciples (II Tim 2:1 f). Although Paul certainly did not know of the task of preserving the tradition through ordanted presbyters (πρεσβυτεροσ is not meant in Paul as an indication of an office), the ecclesiastical office of the widows (I Tim 5:3 ff) whose essential task is continual prayer in connection with sexual abstinence is totally foreign to Paul. Though it is questionable whether the Pastorals presuppose a distinction between clergy and laity, still there is no longer any indication of active cooperation and responsibility on the part of the community.
5. And Kummel goes on to amass further evidence that the theological expressions used are incompatible with Pauline authorship (op. cit., pp. 382-84). All these arguments establish that the pastoral epistles are second century products.

1. Modern doubts about the authorship of the Pastorals go back to J.E.C. Schmidt in 1803 (1 Timothy) F. Schleiermacher in 1807 (1 Timothy), and J.G. Eichhorn in 1812 (all three Pastorals). That Paul was not the author has been the scholarly consensus since about 1880. Historical reasons to doubt their authenticity include the following:
2. 1. The oldest extant manuscript of Pauline epistles, P46, does not include the Pastorals (or have a long enough lacuna for them). 2. The earliest attestation of the Pauline epistles, the Marcionite canon of the early 2nd century, did not include the Pastorals; there are no signs Marcion even knew of them. 3. Some early Christians rejected the authenticity of 1 and 2 Timothy, according to Clement of Alexandria and Origen.(edited)
3. Common (non-Pauline) authorship of the Pastorals is suggested by their content:
4. 1. Shared greetings not used in other Pauline epistles. 2. Distinctive words and phrases found throughout the Pastorals but never in the genuine Pauline Epistles (Ehrman supplies copious examples). 3. Common opponents (teachers of the Law who are interested in genealogies) that differ from other Pauline Epistles.
5. Having demonstrated the close relationship between the Pastorals, Ehrman cites several independent studies by scholars arriving at the conclusion that their vocabulary and linguistic style are unlike the other Pauline epistles. Furthermore:
6. 1. The Pastorals often use key terms to mean something different than they do when Paul uses them. (E.g. “faith” being the Christian religion itself in 1 Timothy rather than a relational term as in the Pauline writings). 2. The vocabulary used in the Pastors resembles second-century Christian vocabulary and the situation of the church itself in the second century. (For example, the Pastorals assume a church hierarchy already in place that clearly does not exist in the time of the earlier Pauline epistles.) 3. The Pastorals elevate texts to a higher level of sacrality than the Pauline epistles.
7. “It is important to stress that all of these various arguments are cumulative and all point in the same direction.” (Ehrman, p. 205)
8. More on 1 Timothy:
9. 1. 1 Timothy’s theology on the law and teachers of the law is at odds with Paul’s. 2. The attitude toward women in 1 Timothy 2 is at odds with Paul’s. Paul’s churches had female deacons and apostles; for the author of 1 Timothy, women must be silent and not exercise authority over men. 3. Views of marriage (especially the requirement of marriage for bishops) in 1 Timothy are at odds with Paul. 4. Views of food abstinence in 1 Timothy are un-Jewish and at odds with Paul. 5. Charisma delivered by laying of hands instead of baptism.
10. More on 2 Timothy:
11. 1. The abundance of “verisimilitudes” in 2 Timothy is suspect, and commonplace in forgeries. In other words, the author is trying too hard and throwing in unnecessary biographical detail to convince his readership of his identity. 2. Like 1 Timothy, charisma is delivered by laying of hands. 3. Paul’s historical situation as portrayed in 2 Timothy (in prison near the end of his life, yet writing to Timothy as if he were a young companion of Paul’s) is difficult to reconcile with any Pauline chronology.
12. More on Titus: 1. Suggests a second-century setting, presupposing the Christianization of Crete and the appointing of bishops in its towns. 2. The view of the law in Titus is at odds with Romans and Galatians. 3. It appears to rely on the contents of Ephesians, also regarded as pseudonymous.

Margaret M. Mitchell, page 1725 of Oxford Annotated Bible: The conclusion that these three epistles were not written by Paul is based upon literary, historical, and theological criteria. First and Second Timothy and Titus share a common Greek vocabulary and style that diverges in many ways from the other Pauline epistles. Historically, the Pastoral Epistles appear to presume an institutionalized leadership in local communities with bishops and deacons, and internal dissent over issues of faith and practice, which better fits a period late in the first or early in the second century ce when Paul was no longer alive. It is possible to see how some passages may have been written to explain or definitively interpret passages in the authentic letters already in circulation (such as 1 Tim 2.9–19; cf. 1 Cor 14.33–36). Theologically these letters minimize or lack characteristic Pauline themes (such as justification by faith, and the church as the body of Christ) in favor of a new emphasis on adherence to tradition and regulation as signs of the Christian piety they seek to inculcate in their readers. Although Timothy and Titus had been Paul’s trusted co-workers for decades, the first letter to Timothy and the letter to Titus present the recipients as needing basic instructions for community leadership. They represent a bridge between the apostle and later generations. Second Timothy is less concerned with regulating the life of the Christian communities than Titus and 1 Timothy. It has been described as a “testament,” the last words of the apostle to a close associate. It looks forward to the difficulties facing Timothy and others after Paul’s death with foreboding, and bears some similarity to the Paul’s genuine letter to the Philippians in this regard. The prevailing view of scholars is that these letters were not written by Paul but are later compositions seeking to “fix” his legacy (in both senses of the term). Even if not composed by Paul, they have historically had a very influential role in Christian thought and practice, and the controversies they sought to “fix” —such as the roles of women in the church—remain alive to the present day.

Pamela Eisenbaum’s “Paul Was Not A Christian”:

1. Pastorals do not match up from what we know of Paul from other letters. Arguments are:
   • Existence of church offices (didn’t exist in Paul’s time)
   • Paul’s letters had no interest in establishing institutionalized authority

Burton L. Mack:

1. 
   The three letters were written at different times, undoubtedly during the first half of the second century. They were not included in Marcion’s list of Paul’s letters (ca. 140 C.E.), nor do they appear in the earliest manuscript collection of Paul’s letters (P46, ca. 200 C.E). Their attribution to Paul is clearly fictional, for their language, style, and thought are thoroughly un-Pauline, and the “personal” references to particular occasions in the lives of Timothy, Titus, and Paul do not fit with reconstructions of that history taken from the authentic letters of Paul. The mention of Crete in Titus (Titus 1:5, 12–13), of Ephesus in 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3), and clues from the later legends about Paul, make an Aegean provenance likely (MacDonald 1983).

Consensus of the Pauline Letters: