WHY 1 TIMOTHY WAS WRITTEN NO LATER THAN 55 AD & WHY THAT MATTERS

Luke Was Almost Certainly the Amanuensis (Secretary) for the Pastoral Letters

While listening to a lecture by Ben Witherington, I noted that about the 16 minute mark, he makes the observation that a close study makes it nearly certain that Luke was the secretary behind the pastoral epistles. He notes that there are about 50 words that are used only in the pastoral letters and Luke-Acts and nowhere else in the New Testament. And that there are 7 or 8 distinct phrases that are shared only by the pastoral letters and Luke-Acts. He also notes that in 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul says: "Only Luke is with me." So the obvious conclusion is that Luke must be the secretary for 2 Timothy and also the other pastorals (as Paul always uses a secretary). The great New Testament scholar C. F. D. Moule put it this way: “Luke wrote all three Pastoral Epistles. But he wrote them during Paul’s lifetime, at Paul’s behest, and in part (but only in part), at Paul’s dictation.” [p. 434 of Moule's essay “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” Bulletin of John Rylands Library 47 (1965)].

Resources for Luke's relationship to the pastoral letters:
*"Luke and the Pastoral Epistles" by Sean at the Initial Explorations blog
*"Luke and the Pastoral Epistles": Excursus 2 of The Birth of the New Testament by C.F.D. Moule
*For info on how Paul used a secretary for all of his letters, see my article: "Who Wrote the Pastoral Epistles?"


So How Can We Know That 1 Timothy Was Written No Later Than 55 AD?

With that in mind, let's consider 1 Timothy: Based on the vocabulary of 1 Timothy, it seems that Luke was Paul's scribe, which would make the "we" passages of Acts the most likely time of writing (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–8; 27:1–28:16). That makes three periods most likely for Luke to have been involved in the writing of 1 Timothy. (Note: The "we" passages in the book of Acts are passages where Luke writes in the first person plural, saying "we" did this or that.)

Which of the Three Points in Paul's Ministry When Luke Is With Him Fits 1 Timothy?
So let's take a look at the two earlier options, Acts 16:10-17 (c.49-52AD) or Acts 20:5-15 (c.52-55AD):

What about the first option, Acts 16:10-17 (c.49-52AD)?:

As 1 Timothy 1:3 reveals, Paul is probably writing from Macedonia (or at least he has been in Macedonia recently). In Acts 16:12, Luke is with Paul at Phillipi ("the leading city of that region of Macedonia"). Maps of Paul's 2nd missionary journey do not include Ephesus because the Holy Spirit kept them from entering Asia (Acts 16:6). But perhaps after they went to Troas, Paul sent Timothy on down to Ephesus in order to keep with their original intentions: “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing” (Acts 15:36).

Perhaps Paul caught wind of the trouble there: "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith" (1 Timothy 1:3-4). And perhaps his response was to send Timothy at once since the Holy Spirit was leading them into Macedonia (Acts 16:9-10). This would make good sense of 1 Timothy 1:3, which is more literally: "Just as I urged you to remain in Ephesus--as I was departing for Macedonia--in order to instruct certain men not to teach heresy."

This seems like a possible option but highly unlikely, because (a) Timothy appears to be with Paul during Acts 16:10-17 and leaves for Macedonia after this period (Acts 17:14-15); (b) he is probably too new to Paul's ministry to be suddenly sent off by himself (joining Paul only in 16:1); (c) he is with Silas when he does leave Paul and appears to be with Silas (Paul's seasoned ministry partner) the whole time (though it is not certain, but see Acts 17:14-15; 18:5), which coincides with "(b)" and also would mean that any letters would have been written to both Silas and Timothy (or just to Silas).

The second option, Acts 20:5-15 (c.52-55AD), seems much more likely:

(a) Timothy is with Paul when Paul decides to go back through Macedonia himself (Acts 20:3-4). Again remember: 1 Timothy 1:3 reveals that Paul is probably writing from Macedonia (or at least he has been in Macedonia recently) (b) Paul makes a decision to avoid going back to Ephesus because of time constraints (Acts 20:16). (c) The elders of Ephesus have been appointed by this point in time, as Paul sends for them to meet him (perhaps as newly established elders; see Acts 20:17). (d) This is a period of time when Timothy is being sent off on his own to help with established churches (e.g., 1 Corinthians 16:10-11, which we will see has yet further implications here).

What about the usually accepted third option?:

Acts 27:1-28:16 has long been the time period during which 1 Timothy has been placed--the early 60s. But this does not make good sense. Here are some serious problems with that view:

(1) Timothy begins his ministry with Paul in Acts 16:1 on Paul's Second Missionary Journey (c.49 AD). So if 1 Timothy was written in the 60s, why would Paul tell him: "Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young,...." (4:12)? Would Timothy still be thought of as young 12 to 15 years later? By the early 60s he would surely be at least somewhere close to 30 years old (which is how old Jesus was when he began his ministry, see Luke 3:23).

On the contrary, such a statement clearly fits the context of Timothy's early years as Paul's ministry partner. As John A.T. Robinson notes about 1 Corinthians (written c.54 AD): "Earlier that same year he had felt it necessary to say to the Corinthians: 'If Timothy comes, see that you put him at his ease; for it is the Lord's work that he is engaged upon, as I am myself; so no one must slight him. Send him happily on his way to join me, since I am waiting for him with our friends' (1 Cor. 16.10f). Now he writes to his protege in very similar terms: 'Let no one slight you because you are young, but make yourself an example to believers in speech and behaviour, in love, fidelity, and purity. Until I arrive...make these matters your business and  your absorbing interest, so that our progress may be plain to all' (1 Tim. 4.11-15). It is not difficult to believe that these words were written six months apart." (emphases mine; p.83, J.A.T. Robinson. Redating the New Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1976, 2000) [Note: The word "slight" in these passages is a translation of two different Greek words that both have very similar meaning.]

(2) Secondly, why would anyone be looking down on Timothy in the early 60s? By then, he would be a very well established and well known part of Paul's team. This would be true not only because he would have been part of that team for over a decade. Even more than that he is mentioned in the letter to the Hebrews, to Philemon and 13 times in Paul's letters to the churches (that is in all but the letters to the Galatians and Ephesians). And we know that at least some of these letters were circulated among the churches at Paul's request (and probably all of Paul's letters to the churches). Colossians 4:16 is explicit about that. Galatians is not written to one church but to the churches of Galatia (1:2). And Ephesians is considered by many scholars to have been intended to be a circular letter. And as Paul's letters were considered to be Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), it is more than likely that they were copied and circulated. And this would surely be true by the early 60s (which is very likely when 2 Peter was written), as Peter speaks of "all his [Paul's] letters" as if his readers would understand.

(3) Furthermore, he would be personally well known to the church at Ephesus, as he was with Paul on Paul's second missionary journey when they first went to Ephesus and spent more than two years there (see Acts 19:1-10).

(4) More than that, why would Paul be laying down the ground rules for selecting elders so late in the game--particularly at Ephesus? Elders had been selected at Ephesus in the early 50s, as can be seen by the fact that Paul meets with them in Acts 20:16-38.  

(5) After more than a decade of ministry with Paul, Timothy would certainly be well acquainted with how elders were to be selected and would hardly need for Paul to write a letter to him to explain it.

(6) Those who hold to this view have to imagine that Paul was released from prison and then went on yet another missionary journey for which we have no record. It does seem quite possible that Paul did make yet another journey; but the point is that it is completely hypothetical and we have nothing at all to indicate that it would have included Timothy at Ephesus or Paul in Macedonia.

SO WHY DOES ALL OF THIS MATTER?

The reason this is important is because Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18 and calls it "Scripture," which means two things: (1) it was already written down (as γραφή the Greek word for "Scripture" literally means "written") and (2) it was already considered to be an authoritative part of the Biblical Canon (as γραφή is always used as a technical term for the canon of Scripture). 

And so....

(1) This establishes a date for the composition of Luke no later than 55 AD, putting it much closer to the recorded events and available eyewitnesses (cf. Luke 1:1-4).
(2) Since it is nearly universally agreed that the Gospel of Mark was one of the sources that Luke mentions in his prologue (1:1-4), this pushes the date of Mark to some time before 54 AD. And if Matthew is one of the other sources Luke mentions when he says: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us...." (1:1), then the same applies to Matthew.
(3) It clearly demonstrates that New Testament books were already beginning to be recognized as "Scripture" and therefore as part of the canon no later than 55 AD (contrary to the prevailing idea that they did not have the status of Scripture until much later). Or in the case of the Gospel of Luke, it immediately had the status of Scripture (which I will show in more detail in an upcoming article on the canon was in fact the case).

Additionally, the beautiful way that all of these facts from 1 Timothy, Acts and Paul's letters all fit-together-like-a-hand-in-a-glove join the myriad of facts that:

(4) Establish the authenticity of 1 Timothy as one of Paul's letters.
(5) Establish the historicity of Acts.

As John A.T. Robinson concludes after carefully comparing and merging the historical data from Acts and the Pauline letters in order to arrive at accurate dates for their composition: "The working assumption we made to trust Acts until proved otherwise has been very substantially vindicated. There is practically nothing in Luke's account that clashes with the Pauline evidence, and in the latter half of Acts the correspondences are remarkably close. Even in the speeches attributed to Paul, and especially those at which Luke can be presumed to have been present (Acts 20 and 22-25), there are parallels to suggest that they are far from purely free compositions. This conclusion must also be relevant as we turn now to consider how close in date Acts stands to the evets which it records."
p.85, J.A.T. Robinson. Redating the New Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1976, 2000

Additionally, (6) this fits neatly with other evidence that I have been collecting over the last several years related to Paul's use of the Gospel of Luke in his letters.

Click here for a PDF version of this article.

WHO WROTE THE PASTORAL EPISTLES?

I have a lot more to write about the authenticity and place of the pastoral epistles. In fact, a book length treatment is in the works, but there is something that I wrote several years ago (with a few minor upgrades along the way):

Back in the early 1990s while pastoring in the United Methodist Church, I attended one of their liberal seminaries. It was there that I first encountered the idea that some of the books of the New Testament were not written by the authors that bear their name. At the time, I thought that this idea would never be more than an academic concern--an annoying issue among Biblical scholars but of little concern to most people. I was gravely mistaken. New Testament scholar, skeptic and best-selling author Bart Ehrman has totally changed that with his book Forged: in the Name of God— Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.

In his book, Ehrman alleges that there are several forgeries in the New Testament. While much of what will be discussed in this article will be applicable to the arguments for other alleged forgeries in the New Testament, this article will focus on the pastoral letters (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus).


1. THE BASIC ARGUMENT
What is the basis of the idea that the pastoral letters were written by someone other than Paul? Are there textual variants giving other names? Are there manuscripts lacking Paul's name? Is there a statement against their authenticity by an early church father? Does someone in the early church even question their authenticity or hint that Paul may not have been the author? No. Nothing of the sort. On the contrary, these letters were used approvingly and recognized as part of the canon at a very early date. More than that, they are always included among Paul's letters in all canonical lists and manuscript collections; and they were never among the disputed letters in the canonical discussions of the early church.

Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians (4:1) says: "But the love of money is the beginning of all troubles. Knowing therefore that we brought nothing into the world neither can we carry anything out, let us arm ourselves with the armor of righteousness, and let us teach ourselves first to walk in the commandment of the Lord"--clear allusions to 1 Tim 6. See also 5:2 which quotes 2 Timothy. Polycarp not only quotes from both 1 and 2 Timothy, but he indicates that he knows they are from Paul. Polycarp is an important witness to Pauline authorship because he was a disciple of the apostle John and also the most important church leader of the early 2nd Century (following the death of John, the last living apostle.
[See the excellent online article by Polycarp scholar Kenneth Berding of Biola: "Polycarp of Smyrna Tells Us Who He Thinks Wrote the Pastoral Letters."]

The letters to Timothy in particular are cited approvingly by Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Canon, Origen, Eusebius, etc. (and also quoted disapprovingly by the heretic Marcion). And Titus is quoted by Iraneus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Canon, etc. (and quoted disapprovingly by Marcion).
[See a nice summary of this evidence in the quotes from E.K. Simpson and Alfred Plummer at the bottom of this blog page.]

So why is there any question that Paul wrote them? The primary reason given by the Bible's critics is that the vocabulary and style of the pastorals seems to be different from that used in the other ten letters that bear Paul's name.

Carson and Moo summarize the argument as follows:

A strong argument is produced from the vocabulary differences between the three Pastoral epistles and the other ten epistles usually attributed to Paul. P. N. Harrison, building on the work of previous scholars, compiled some impressive statistics. He pointed out that the three Pastorals make use of 902 words, of which 54 are proper names. Of the remaining 848 words, 306 (more than a third of the total) do not occur in the other ten Pauline letters. Of these 306, at least 175 occur nowhere else in the New Testament. The argument is then developed in two ways. First, it is pointed out that this leaves 542 words shared by the Pauline letters and the Pastorals, of which no more than 50 are characteristic Pauline words in the sense that they are not used by other writers in the New Testament. Of the 492 words that are found in three bodies— the Pastorals, the rest of Paul, and the rest of the New Testament— there are, of course, the basic words without which it would be impossible to write at all, and words that every Christian writer would necessarily use (e.g., “brother,” “love,” “faith”). Again, some words have different meanings from book to book. Paul, for example, uses (antechomai) with the sense “to support,” “to aid” (1 Thess. 5: 14); the Pastorals, with the meaning “to hold fast” (Titus 1: 9); (koinos) means “Levitically unclean” in Paul (Rom. 14: 14) and “common” (as in “the common faith”) in the Pastorals (Titus 1: 4). Second, it is argued that many of the words in question are found in the apostolic fathers and the apologists of the early second century. Of the 306 words in the Pastorals that are not in the Pauline Epistles, 211 are found in these second-century writings. This kind of reasoning leads many to the conclusion that the author of the Pastorals was not Paul but probably a writer living at the end of the first century or toward the beginning of the second century. It is held to be unreasonable to think that in his old age Paul would suddenly produce a wealth of new words— moreover, words that are found in a later period. Third, scholars point out that of the 214 Greek particles found in the ten Pauline letters, 112 do not occur in the Pastoral Epistles. From this many infer that there is a comparative poverty of style in the latter: the connective tissue of the Pastoral Epistles is apparently very different from that of the Pauline ten. (Kindle Locations 14222-14242).

At first glance, this may seem like a very reasonable--perhaps even overwhelming--argument against the authenticity of the pastoral letters. When examined closely, however, this argument crumbles and is found to be illegitimate. In fact, the more closely I examine this argument, the more astounded I am that this argument has gained such widespread acceptance among Biblical scholars--even among many evangelicals.


2. BASIC PROBLEMS WITH THIS ARGUMENT:
Carson and Moo show some of the basic flaws with this statistical analysis:

The arguments sound impressive, but they are not as convincing as they seem to be at first sight. Those who put them forward do not always notice, for example, that most of the words shared by the Pastorals and the second-century writers are also found in other writings prior to A.D. 50. It cannot be argued that Paul would not have known them, nor can it be argued that Paul’s total vocabulary is the number of words in the ten letters (2,177 words). It is not necessary to argue that Paul produced hundreds of new words in his old age, for if he could use 2,177 words, there is no reason for supposing that he could not use another 306 words, most of which are known to have been current in his day. That some of the words are used with different meanings signifies no more than that the contexts are different. Paul also uses words with different meanings in different contexts in the ten letters. It is misleading simply to say that the Pastorals have 306 words that do not occur in the ten Paulines. On Harrison’s own figures, of the 306 there are 127 that occur in 1 Timothy alone, 81 in 2 Timothy alone, and 45 in Titus alone. This means that the vast majority are found in only one of the Pastorals and that the three differ from one another as much as (or more than) they differ from Paul. Are we to say that there were three pseudonymous writers? The statistics constitute no impressive argument for a single author. Or to put the argument in a different way, if the figures show that the three Pastorals were written by one author, they also show that that author may well have been Paul. (Kindle Locations 14243-14264).

They go on to delve further into the problems with the argument based on these statistics, but I will not reproduce the whole of it here. The central problem can be summed up with a question: Are we really to believe that the other ten letters contain the whole range of vocabulary and expression for one of the most educated, literate, verbal and well-travelled persons of the First Century? The answer is obviously: No. Paul's excellent education, wide exposure to literature, and constant speaking and interacting with people from numerous different cultures would have left him with an immense vocabulary. This objection alone is enough to put this argument to rest. But there are several other even more serious problems with this argument.


3. OTHER SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS ARGUMENT:
In this section, I want to look at 7 major factors that would have affected vocabulary and language use in the pastoral letters. Any one of these could easily account for differences between the pastorals and the rest of the Pauline corpus; but when all are considered, there should be no surprise at all that we do indeed find differences.

A. THE USE OF AN AMANUENSIS:
Paul's use of an amanuensis (or secretary) in the writing of his letters would definitely have had an impact on the language and style used. In fact, I think that this is probably one of the two most important factors of all in understanding the language used within Paul's letters. And the following references clearly indicate that Paul always made use of an amanuensis:

*Rom. 16:22: "I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord."
*1 Cor. 16:21: "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand."
*Gal. 6:11: "See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!"
*Col. 4:18: " I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand."
*2 Th. 3:17: "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write."

These verses make it clear that Paul used an amanuensis to write down the body of the letter and then to write the greeting at the end of the letter himself. Most likely some kind of health problem made it necessary for him to rely on a secretary (most scholars think he probably had some problem with his eyes: see Galatians 4:13-15).


Luke Was Almost Certainly the Amanuensis for the Pastoral Letters

Recently while listening to a lecture by Ben Witherington (about the 16 minute mark) he made the observation that a close study makes it nearly certain that Luke was the secretary behind the pastoral epistles. He notes that there are about 50 words that are used only in the pastoral letters and Luke-Acts and nowhere else in the New Testament. And that there are 7 or 8 distinct phrases that are shared only by the pastoral letters and Luke-Acts. He also notes that in 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul says: "Only Luke is with me." So the obvious conclusion is that Luke must be the secretary that Paul always necessitates. The great New Testament scholar C. F. D. Moule put it this way: “Luke wrote all three Pastoral Epistles. But he wrote them during Paul’s lifetime, at Paul’s behest, and in part (but only in part), at Paul’s dictation.” [p. 434 of Moule's essay “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” Bulletin of John Rylands Library 47 (1965)].

Resources for Luke's relationship to the pastoral letters:
*"Luke and the Pastoral Epistles" by Sean at the Initial Explorations blog
*"Luke and the Pastoral Epistles": Excursus 2 of The Birth of the New Testament by C.F.D. Moule

B. CO-AUTHORS OF THE "PAULINE" LETTERS:
An equally important issue that I have never heard or seen mentioned in the many conversations that I have seen about this over the years is the simple fact that the introductions to the "Pauline" letters often clearly indicate that Paul is not the only author. And this cannot simply be attributed to the idea that those mentioned with Paul in the introductions are merely others who are with Paul or part of his team--as Paul routinely reserves the closing of his letter to mention those who are with him.

*Romans 1:1: Paul
*1 Corinthians 1:1: Paul & Sosthenes (16:19-20: others with Paul are mentioned)
*2 Corinthians 1:1: Paul & Timothy (13:13: others with Paul are mentioned)
*Galatians 1:1-2: Paul & all the brothers with him
*Ephesians 1:1: Paul
*Philippians 1:1: Paul & Timothy (4:21-22: others with Paul are mentioned)
*Colossians 1:1: Paul & Timothy (4:10-14: others with Paul are mentioned)
*1 Thessalonians 1:1: Paul, Silas & Timothy
*2 Thessalonians 1:1: Paul, Silas & Timothy
*1 Timothy 1:1: Paul
*2 Timothy 1:1: Paul
*Titus 1:1: Paul
*Philemon: Paul & Timothy

In summary, 8 of the 13 letters state explicitly that--though Paul is the primary author--others are involved. Only Romans, Ephesians and the pastorals do not indicate plural authorship. Or to put it another way, when the pastorals are being compared to the rest of Paul's letters, we are not comparing apples to apples: The pastoral letters indicate that Paul is the sole author, but 8 of the 10 other letters explicitly state plural authorship.

But clearly the most important finding that comes from this is that Timothy is explicitly stated as a co-author of at least 6 of the epistles. But he obviously would not have been a co-author of the two pastorals written to him.

C. THE IMPACT OF REGIONAL/ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN LANGUAGE USAGE:
If you have ever moved to or stayed in another region or culture for an extended period of time you will notice that there are many differences in the use of language. This would almost certainly be even more true in the First Century. (Modern national and international media causes there to be a greater evenness in language use but differences persist nonetheless.). Now consider that Paul is constantly on the move over the entire length of the massive Roman empire spanning radically different cultures. They all use Greek, but one can easily imagine that there were some interesting differences in language use from region to region.

To give a modern day example: Imagine an American travelling to England and spending a year there, perhaps attending a college there. Afterwards he travels back to the U.S. and resumes his previous life and continues his friendships in the U.K via email. It would be quite natural for this American to fill his emails with British phrases he learned while living in the U.K. But he would not likely use those same distinctively British phrases when sending an email to his American friends. There would undoubtedly be both similarities between those emails and significant differences.

It should also be noted that while the average person will find himself being unintentionally influenced by these regional differences, Paul's explicit statement of his mode of operation should convince us that he would intentionally speak the language of the people he was addressing:

"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

Furthermore, all of Paul's general letters are written to Gentiles; but Timothy was raised by a Jewish mother and grandmother (though his father was Greek; cf. Acts 16:1). So in terms of native language use, Timothy probably had much in common with Paul (being a Jew who was heavily influenced by the world of Greco-Roman culture) and Paul probably spoke to him more in the dialect he was used to speaking with his own family.

D. SUBJECT MATTER:
Way back in seminary, I did my own computer analysis comparing a disputed passage with a passage that everyone agrees was written by Paul. It was quite easy to show that an undisputed passage in 1 Corinthians had as many hapax legomena (words used only once by Paul) as the disputed passage in 2 Cor. 6, which some liberal scholars charge is an interpolation. My observation at the time was that subject matter can make a great deal of difference in the language used.

E. LITERARY GENRE:
Literary forms in the ancient world (and now) come with certain expectations of structure, type of vocabulary used and range of expression. I actually did a paper on the authorship of 2 Timothy back in seminary. My central thesis back then was that language differences were related to the purpose and subject matter. The pastorals are intended primarily for the purpose of mentoring versus addressing specific needs of local churches. My New Testament professor at the time (though a liberal who was mentored by a student of Bultmann) noted that this was a sound approach (much to my surprise) and mentioned parallels in the Greco-Roman literature.

Carson and Moo note: "If we extend discussion of style to matters of literary genre, there is a little more to be said. Johnson and others have argued that 1 Timothy and Titus fit comfortably into the genre of the mandate letter, and 2 Timothy into the genre of the testament. Both fit Paul’s situation admirably and were common enough to have been known by him, but they would have been somewhat alien to someone writing his name several decades later. Thus, careful reflection on the literary genre supports apostolic authorship." (Kindle Locations 14314-14317).

Furthermore, the critics are comparing ten letters that were meant to be circulated for public reading with three personal letters that are written to men whom Paul affectionately refers to in these letters as "my son" or "my true son in the faith" or "my dear son" (1 Timothy 1:2, 18; 2 Timothy 1:2; 2:1; Titus 1:4)--men whom Paul often mentions with great affection in other letters and who had been serving at Paul's side for at least a decade.

F. THE IMPACT OF TIME:
I no longer think that the usually accepted dates are correct. [See my most recent article: "Why 1 Timothy Was Written No Later Than 55 AD and Why That Matters." But if we place the pastoral letters in the usually accepted time frame of 63-68 AD, then they are written about a decade after most of the other letters.

So if you do accept the usual dates, consider the following: Time changes all of us. Can you remember what you were doing ten or fifteen years ago? Think about how you have changed since that time. If I ever find those seminary papers I've been mentioning, maybe I'll compare them to this article. I can only imagine the differences after all of the life experiences and changes I have been through since I graduated from seminary in 1995.

It would be interesting to compare something that Ehrman wrote while at Moody to his latest works. Even among his more recent works, it has been noted that there is a big difference between his popular works and his scholarly works. I am certain the differences would be even greater if we could obtain a few of his recent personal letters and compare them to papers or sermons he wrote at Moody.

If the usual dating of the pastorals is accepted, then most of Paul's letters were probably written about a decade before the pastoral letters: The pastoral letters are generally thought to have been written some time between 63 and 68 A.D. And most of Paul's other letters are thought to have been written in the early 50s, one or two others as late as the mid 50s, and four in the early 60s (probably two to five years before the pastorals).

G. PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS:
Physical and psychological factors should also be taken into consideration. Stress, mood and one's state of health can certainly affect one's use of language. Also, if one does accept the usually accepted dates for the pastoral letters, then Paul is getting old, he has endured a long list of difficulties over the previous 15 to 20 years, he is enduring the hazardous conditions of a Roman prison (at least in 2 Timothy; cf. 1:8; 2:9), and he is now facing his death.

CONCLUSION:
The conclusion seems simple. The pastoral letters state that they are written by Paul, the early church confirms this, and we have no sound reason to believe otherwise. The differences in language are hardly an argument for an author other than Paul. There are a large number of significant factors that quite easily account for the differences between these three short letters and the rest of the Pauline Corpus. (In fact, when all the evidence is weighed carefully, I think that it would be much more suspicious if all of Paul's letters were very much alike.)

The reality is that forgeries were as scandalous during the time that the early church was forming as they are now. If they were forgeries, they would not have been accepted as Scripture. As it is, they were widely used and attested to by leaders of the early church.

Dr. Tim McGrew has it right when he says: "Against evidence of this sort [speaking of the testimonies of early church leaders], literary speculations are about as weighty as dandelion fluff. They have very little force. But they are very useful for seeding people's minds with needless doubts." (from the online interview with Brian Auten noted below)


***********
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
*Thanks to Erik Manning for initial help with early church references to the pastorals.
*Thanks to Dr. Tim McGrew for getting me started on this and for help with editing.

SCROLL DOWN BELOW VIDEO 

FOR "RESOURCES FOR FURTHER STUDY"

"How to Be a Biblical Scholar" (2 minutes)

by Lutheran Satire

RESOURCES FOR FURTHER STUDY
VIDEO
*Dialogue about Bart Ehrman's book "Forged" between  Ehrman and Darrel Bock on Unbelieveable?

AUDIO
*Dr. Thomas Schreiner has a 42-minute lecture on the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.
*Brian Auten interviews Tim McGrew: They begin discussing Ehrman's book Forged at about 12:15 and quickly move to discussion of the authenticity of the pastorals.
*Andrew Pitts is interviewed by Nick Peters on the Deeper Waters Podcast. The first 18 minutes are especially helpful for studying this issue related to the pastoral letters of Paul. This two hour podcast then weaves in the issue of the anonymity of the Gospels and textual criticism, and then ends on the authorship of Peter's Letters.
*Justin Langford is interviewed by Nick Peters on the Deeper Waters Podcast.

ARTICLES
*Berding, Kenneth. "Polycarp of Smyrna Tells Us Who He Thinks Wrote 1 & 2 Timothy"
*"The Development of the Idea of Canonical Pseudopigraphy in New Testament Criticism" and "Dilemmas in New Testament Criticism": excellent articles that  Donald Guthrie produced on the issue of pseudonymity in the New Testament.
*Darrell Bock responds to Bart Ehrman.
*Witherington's series of reviews of Bart Ehrman's book Forged.
*Mike Licona's review of Bart Ehrman's book Forged. (You have to click the link, then it downloads as a pdf.)
*Tektonics online article.
*Online table showing the use of the New Testament by early church fathers and heretics.
*"Pastoral Letters" (p.658-666, esp. 659-661: Section 1: "Canonicity and Authorship") by E.E. Ellis from Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Hawthorne, Martin and Reid
*"The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: An Important Hypothesis Reconsidered" by Jermo van Nes
*Zahn, Theodor. "The Genuineness of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus" (pdf file) excerpted from Introduction to the New Testament (1917, Revised 2nd Edition: "Three Volumes in One"), Volume 2, p.85-133. Zahn was one of the great New Testament scholars of the early 20th Century.
*Chilton, Bruce. "Did Paul Write All Thirteen Letters Attributed to Him?"
*Richards, E. Randolph. "Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?: The Author in Greco-Roman Letter Writing." (Chapter 8, p. 113-136 in Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics, edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig). An excellent article on the authenticity of the New Testament letters, especially the pastorals and the letters of Peter. 
*Wilder, Terry. "Does the Bible Contain Forgeries?" Chapter 7 (Kindle Location 3636) of In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, edited by Steven Cowan and Terry Wilder. I highly recommend this whole book.

*Moule, C.F.D. "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47 (1965): 430-52. (Also published as 24-page pamphlet that is now very hard to find.)

*Marshall, I. Howard. "Recent Study of the Pastoral Epistles," Themelios 23:1. This is an excellent bibliography with discussion by one of the great New Testament scholars of the past 50 years and author of the most recent International Critical Commentary (ICC) on the Pastoral Epistles. Marshall not only provides an extensive bibliography but also interacts significantly with the basic arguments of individual works related to Pauline authorship. Unfortunately, in his ICC commaentary, although Marshall rejects the idea that the pastoral epistles are deceptively pseudonymous, he does not believe Paul wrote them and introduces the rather strange idea of “allonymity."


BOOKS
*Carson, D. A.; Moo, Douglas J.  An Introduction to the New Testament. (2009) Zondervan. My first go-to reference for these kinds of questions is Carson and Moo's Introduction to the New Testament. I've been using it for about 20 years now and I have never been disappointed. These guys are solid in theology and scholarship. They, of course, skillfully defend the Pauline authorship of the pastoral letters.
*Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament (1917, Revised 2nd Edition: "Three Volumes in One"). Zahn was one of the great New Testament scholars of the early 20th Century. FREE!
*Wilder, Terry. Pseudonymity, The New Testament and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception. (Note: As the one used copy is an astronomical price, you may want to borrow this one from a library.)
*Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition. The book which has had the most success at pushing the erroneous idea that the pastoral letters (and others) are forgeries.
*Harrison, P.N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford University Press, 1921). Probably the most important work in the history of casting doubt on the authenticity of the pastoral letters. See especially pp.20ff, 70. This work is now in the public domain and can be downloaded for free at the title link above.
*Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament : Its Background and Message, 2nd ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 466.
*Gundry, Robert. A Survey of the New Testament, 4th Edition. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003)

*Simpson, E.K. The Authenticity and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (1939, 24 pages)
*Wilson, S.G. Luke and the pastoral epistles (London: SPCK, 1979)

ADDITIONAL NOTES:
A nice summary of the external evidence for the authenticity of the pastoral epistles is given by E.K. Simpson in The Pastoral Epistles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, p.3:

(the last sentence in the quote referring to the Epistle to the Hebrews, see p.4)

~~~*~~~

And also by the eminent New Testament scholar Alfred Plummer writes in The Pastoral Epistles, p.5-6:

The evidence, therefore, justifies us in asserting that, with some very slight exception in the second century, these three Epistles were, until· quite recent times, universally accepted as written by St. Paul. 1 This large fact is greatly emphasized by two considerations. (I) The repudiation of them by Marcion and others directed attention to them. They were evidently not accepted by an oversight, because no one thought anything about them. (2) The evidence respecting the general acceptance of them as St. Paul's is full and positive, and reaches back to the earliest times. It does not consist merely or mainly in the · absence of evidence to the contrary. Tertullian * wonders what can have induced Marcion; while accepting the Epistle to Philemon, to reject those to Timothy and Titus : and of course those who repudiated them would have pointed out weak places in their claim to be canonical, if such had existed. And even if we do not insist upon the passages in which these Epistles are almost certainly quoted by Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 112), Polycarp of Smyrna (c. A. D. 112 ), and Theophilus of Antioch (c. A. D. 180), we have direct evidence of a very convincing kind. They are found in the Peshitto, or early Syriac Version, which was made in the second century. They are contained in the Muratorian canon, the date of which may still be placed as not later than A.D. 170. Irenreus, the disciple of Polycarp, states that "Paul mentions Linus in the Epistle to Timothy," and he quotes Titus iii. 10 with the introduction "as Paul also says." Eusebius renders it probable that both Justin Martyr and Hegesippus quoted from I Timothy; and he himself places all three Epistles among the universally accepted books and not among the disputable writings: i.e., he places them with the Gospels, Acts, I Peter, 1 John, and the other Epistles of St. Paul, and not with James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. In this arrangement he is preceded by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, both of whom quote frequently from all three Epistles, sometimes as the words of Scripture, sometimes as of "the Apostle," sometimes as of Paul, sometimes as of the Spirit. Occasionally it is expressly stated that the words quoted are addressed to Timothy or to Titus.

"St. Paul (First State)" (1514) by Albrecht Durer

Image source: WikiArt (public domain)