Did Paul Write the Pastoral Epistles?
I’m working through the Pastoral Epistles – I and II Timothy and Titus – for a class I’m taking, and in the process have had to wrestle again with the question of Pauline authorship.
Though the Church has traditionally affirmed that Paul wrote these letters, beginning in the nineteenth century with F.C. Baur many scholars began to question that. Today, a rejection of Pauline authorship is the majority opinion in New Testament scholarship, and a common stance even in Evangelical circles.
[I won’t bore you by laying out the detailed arguments here, but for a good overview of the issues surrounding Pauline authorship and pseudonymity I would recommend Philip Towner’s The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT)
Now, to be honest, I don’t have a very strong opinion in either direction. There seem to be good arguments on both sides (see the resources above), and my personal understanding of canon and inspiration is broad enough to include pseudepigraphal writings if that is how the Spirit chose to work.
But I wonder what the deeper implications are to the discussion.
- If Paul did not write those Epistles, does it change how we read them?
- Does it affect the authority of the letters, or does their place in the canon ensure that?
- Is the critical approach to the text perhaps just a holdover from post-Enlightenment modernism with all its theological and philosophical baggage?
- What is at stake in our answer?
____________________________
Brian LePort wrote an excellent response to these questions at Near Emmaus – check it out!
i don’t believe that paul authored the pastorals–and that changes how i read paul. the pastorals are cannonical and hold an authoritative place within the whole of scripture–but it’s that *whole* story part that too many miss.
Just an fyi Mason–for some reason your comments appear way down the page with lots of blank space so a reader has to scroll a good bit. I imagine some people might miss them. Any way to format the page so they display right below the post? –A fellow GR resident who enjoys your blog.
I’ve noticed that as well, but haven’t found a way to change it. I’m still somewhat new to WordPress though, so if you (or anyone else) know a way to fix it let me know.
Mason: Personally, I am a bit agnostic as to whether Paul wrote the pastoral epistles. I think there is some solid arguments against his authorship (like the difference in his writing, word choice, etc), but I’d caution that sometimes Pauline authorship is criticized because we can’t imagine Paul saying what he said in those epistles. Often our presupposed Paul seems too tidy for such a dogmatic, highly “ecclesiastic” set of letters. While I am not saying that Paul wrote these letters, it would not surprise me to see a man who dealt with churches like Corinth come to the type of views we see in his later letters. Paul’s earlier, more democratic views based on a high Pneumatology could have been abused more than he would have wanted. Toward the end of his life it wouldn’t be beyond belief that he feared the church could self-destruct without strong post-apostolic personalities. Especially, since these letters seem to show a man who is alone and somewhat defeated (see 2 Timothy 1.8, 15-18). If the letters are pseudonymous it surprising that someone writing in the name of Paul would present Paul as so rejected and betrayed. It lacks the hagiographical elements I’d expect.
I find the letters authoritative either way. They are canonical. That being said, I don’t mind admitting a canon-within-a-canon. Even if these are authentic letters I think they take a seat behind the main Pauline corpus, but they do inform it or balance it. For instance, if their authority is simply because they are canonical then I think they still provide balance for some groups who may like 1 Corinthians a bit much or Romans. Pentecostal/Charismatic types can benefit from the pastoral epistles. Likewise, if they are Pauline, I think they function the same way. So practically, I don’t know that much is at stake in my view. As canonical letters they function in the church the same way, either way. What is really impacted is our understanding of the historical Paul.
Thanks Brian! I agree, too often the background to this debate seems to be a discomfort with some of what the author of the Epistles says about the church, women, etc. and it’s easier to brush them aside than to wrestle with those texts. Not that this is always the case, by any means, but it is something I’ve found particularly in popular level rejections of Pauline authorship that lack the nuance of say Marshall or Dunn.
Your suggestion about Paul potentially changing his view about church structure after dealing with Corinth and other dysfunctional churches is intriguing. Raises a whole other set of questions mind you, but would make good sense of the shift if the letters are Pauline.
It does open the door for an evolving Paul!
Pingback: The function of the Pastoral Epistles. | Near Emmaus
Mason–Mainly answering your first question. When I was doing a semester long study in 2 Timothy, this issue certainly came up. One of the critical changes I see when shifting the authorship is a context shift. I think most of the pseudonymous scenarios put the writing of the letter around 100 AD. By doing so, the context of suffering explicitly discussed in 2 Timothy changes: If not Paul and his explicit sufferings during his lifetime, then how do we understand the sufferings of the author who comes from the Pauline school? Also, as William Mounce notes, the circumstances discussed in the letter then become “a code for later events in the church.” This puts interpretation into a slightly more hypothetical mode rather than a historical mode, because we’d have to reconstruct an alternate series of events that the Paulist writer is talking about.
For example, what would the Paulist writer be alluding to in 2 Tim 1:8 when he talks about his imprisonment for the Lord? I’m not saying that a psuedonymous view necessarily undermines the validity of the Pastorals as authoritative (I need to think more about this)–in fact, I found much to commend to the Towner/Marshall nuanced approach to authorship–but I’m just pointing out that it shifts the circumstantial context and certain things need to be reconstructed. I found Mounce’s WBC commentary and Knight’s NIGTC commentary helpful on the “genuine Pauline” side, and Towner and Marshall’s respective works helpful on the nuanced side.
Pingback: Does it Matter if Paul Didn’t Write the Pastoral Epistles? | Blogging Theologically | Jesus, Books, Culture, & Theology
Pingback: Flotsam and jetsam (11/10) « scientia et sapientia
Pingback: Elsewhere (11.12.2011) | Near Emmaus
Pingback: Did Paul Write the Pastoral Epistles? « Cognitive Discopants