The Pastoral Epistles

INTRODUCTION

THE NAME PASTORAL EPISTLES

The three letters 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus stand in very close relationship to one another. In contrast to the other Pauline letters,¹ which, except for Philemon, were written to churches, these three letters were written to fellow workers of the apostle Paul to give instruction concerning their pastoral duties. The similar content of the three letters also binds them together as a special group among the Pauline letters. Kümmel has put it tersely and well: They presuppose the same false teachers, the same organization, and entirely similar conditions in the community. They move within the same relative theological concepts and have the same peculiarities of language and style.²

That they make up a special group and as such contain instructions for the conduct of the pastoral office has led to the collective designation of these three letters as the Pastoral Epistles (and thus the abbreviation PE used for them in this commentary), Pastoral Letters, or simply the Pastorals. As early as the Muratorian canon these Epistles were highly regarded for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. But as far as we can ascertain, it was not until the eighteenth century that the designation Pastoral Epistles was applied to them. The earliest known use of the term was by Berdot, writing in 1703 and referring to Titus.³ It was applied to all three letters in a work by Anton published posthumously in 1753-55.⁴ The name has since then become a permanent fixture and serves today not only as an appropriate but also as a convenient way to refer to the three letters as a collective whole.

1. When referring to the other Pauline letters I shall be referring to the other letters of the known Pauline corpus, ten in number, found in the NT and bearing the name of Paul as their author. See n. 55 below.

2. Kümmel, Introduction, 367.

3. Berdot, Exercitatio, 3f.

4. Anton, Abhandlung.

SELF-TESTIMONY REGARDING AUTHORSHIP, RECIPIENTS, SETTING, AND PURPOSES

Since the three letters comprise a closely knit group, they may, in large part, be considered together with respect to questions regarding their authorship and related matters. Of course, the distinguishing qualities of each letter in regard to recipient and historical situation will have their own independent place in the composite picture. Before we turn to the modern critical evaluation of the question of authorship, it is only appropriate that a full account be taken of the self-testimony that the letters themselves afford.

AUTHORSHIP

The letters all claim to be by Paul the apostle of Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1), and this assertion is made in salutations similar to those in the other Pauline letters (see the commentary at 1 Tim. 1:1ff.). The description in 1 Tim. 1:12-14 of the author’s former life as that of a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor and of the change he experienced is in full accord with what we know of Paul from Acts and Paul’s other letters (see the commentary at 1 Tim. 1:12-14 for comparison with the accounts in Acts of Paul’s conversion). The recipients of the letters, Timothy and Titus, are addressed as spiritual sons and are instructed as those who work under the authority of the apostle; this description fits with what we know about them and their relationship to Paul from the other letters and from Acts (see the section below on Recipients and the commentary at 1 Tim. 1:2 and Tit. 1:4 for details and documentation). Paul’s constantly recurring directions to Timothy and Titus are a pervasive note in these letters (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3, 18; 3:14; 4:6-16; 5:21-25; 6:11-14, 20; Tit. 1:5; 2:1, 6-8, 15; 3:12; 2 Tim. 1:3-8, 13-14; 2:1-3, 7, 14-16, 22-26; 3:1, 10-17; 4:1-5, 8, 11, 13, 15, 21-22).

The letters refer to specific events and places and are written in relation to these events. 1 Timothy says that Timothy was instructed to remain in Ephesus to withstand false teaching and implies that it was written as a further reminder from Paul to carry out that instruction (1:3). Among the false teachers Hymenaeus and Alexander are singled out by name as specific examples (1:20). The letter is also written to give instructions in case Paul is delayed in his hoped-for visit (3:14, 15; cf. 4:13).

The letter to Titus relates that Titus was left on Crete to see that elders were chosen and installed in every city (1:5) and quotes the infamous statement about Cretans made by one whom they esteemed as a prophet (1:12). The letter asks Titus to join the author in Nicopolis when Titus has been replaced by either Artemas or Tychicus (3:12). It mentions two well-known fellow workers of Paul (Tychicus and Apollos) and with them two workers not mentioned elsewhere in the NT (Artemas and Zenas the lawyer, 3:12, 13).

There are references to the life and present situation of Paul and to Timothy’s situation in almost every paragraph of 2 Timothy (see the extended list of verses above). Paul refers to himself as one who has suffered for the gospel and is now imprisoned for it (1:12) and as one through whom God has graciously communicated his gospel in the midst of all this difficulty (2:9). Paul appeals to his own example to show Timothy the necessity of suffering for the gospel and also to provide encouragement to Timothy: Just as God has enabled Paul so will he also enable Timothy (1:8, 12; 2:1, 3, 9). Paul recalls the faith of Timothy’s mother and grandmother, both of whom he refers to by name (1:5), the training in the scriptures that Timothy has received (3:14, 15), and his awareness of the persecutions in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, out of which Paul had been delivered by the faithful and powerful Lord (3:11). As in the first letter, Paul mentions by name two false teachers (2:17) as well as two among all those from Asia who turned away from him (1:15). He praises at length the kindness of Onesiphorus toward him in Rome and Ephesus (1:16-18).

Paul spends nearly the whole last chapter of 2 Timothy speaking about his current condition and making various requests of Timothy, both general and specific, in view of this situation. Paul’s vigorous charge to Timothy to fulfill his ministry (4:1-5) is made in the light of Paul’s expected death (4:6-8). Twice he asks Timothy to come to him soon (vv. 9, 21), especially in view of the departure of all the other fellow workers except Luke (vv. 9-12, 20-21). He gives the names of the workers and the places to which they departed (vv. 10, 12, 20), mentioning that one had deserted him and one had been left sick at Miletus. He asks that Timothy bring along the cloak and books that he left in Troas (v. 13) and particularly that Timothy bring with him Mark, who is useful to me for service (v. 11). He thankfully reports the outcome of his first defense as the Lord stood by him (even though others did not) and strengthened and delivered him (v. 17) and then affirms that the Lord will bring him to his heavenly kingdom (v. 18, echoing the perspective of v. 8).

Paul concludes all three letters with a form of the grace be with you formula that marks all the Pauline letters, using the abbreviated form that made its first appearance in his letter to the Colossians.

These three letters certainly claim to be by Paul the former persecutor of Christians who was called to be Christ’s apostle, who traveled far and wide in the Mediterranean world preaching the gospel and suffering for it, who continued to feel responsibility for the churches and for his apostolic delegates (cf. Phil. 2:18-23), and who continued to deal with actual situations and individuals in specific places. The self-testimony of the letters is most explicit in the identification of the author in the first verse of each letter, but it is also found in the repeated and pervasive personal references that the author makes about himself and about his relationships with the addressees and other individuals. On this background, it is not difficult to understand why the almost unanimous consensus of the church until the nineteenth century was that the letters were from Paul the apostle.

RECIPIENTS

The recipients of the letters are identified in the salutations as Timothy (1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2) and Titus (Tit. 1:4). The personal references to these two men throughout the letters (note the second person singular imperatives and personal pronouns) are further corroboration that these individuals are the recipients. But alongside this, the church as a whole and specific groups of church members are instructed through Timothy and Titus, sometimes more directly (e.g., the church, 1 Tim. 2:1ff.; women, 2:9ff.; bishops and deacons, 3:1ff.; slaves, 6:1ff.), sometimes less directly (cf. the words in Tit. 2:6, which occur in the middle of Paul’s instructions to men and women, likewise urge the young men …, and also those in 3:1, remind them …). By either method Paul is writing to the whole church as well as to his fellow workers Timothy and Titus—or through Timothy and Titus. This implicit fact surfaces in the plural you in the concluding benediction of each letter: grace be with you (1 Tim. 6:21; 2 Tim. 4:22), which in Titus is made even more explicit with the addition of all (Tit. 3:15). This broader address must be kept in mind even though it does not nullify the fact that the letters are written explicitly to Timothy and Titus.

Timothy

Timothy (Τιμόθεος**) is first mentioned in Acts 16:1, 2, where he is placed at Lystra during Paul’s second missionary journey and is described as the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek and as well spoken of by the brothers in Lystra and Iconium. 2 Tim. 1:5 gives Timothy’s mother’s name as Eunice and his grandmother’s as Lois, and indicates that both had a sincere faith (see the commentary). Acts 16:3 indicates that Paul wanted this man to go with him, and, because of Jews who knew of his mixed family background, had him circumcised. From that point on he became Paul’s assistant and continued as such to Paul’s last imprisonment (2 Timothy).

Timothy and Silas (Silvanus) remained at Beroea (Acts 17:14) when Paul was sent away because of the agitation of the Thessalonian Jews, but then when Paul was in Athens he asked Timothy to come join him as soon as possible (v. 15). Paul moved on to Corinth, and there, according to Acts, Silas and Timothy were with him (18:5). There they also joined with him as proclaimers of Christ (2 Cor. 1:19). During this period Timothy and Silas, apparently as coworkers with Paul in establishing and building the Thessalonian church, are included with him as coauthors in both 1 and 2 Thessalonians (1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:1; note also the pervasive, but not exclusive, use of first person plural pronouns in these letters). In 1 Thessalonians we discover that Timothy had actually joined Paul already in Athens and was sent from there by Paul to strengthen and encourage the Thessalonians in their faith (1 Thes. 3:1-3) and then returned from there to Paul in Corinth bringing the good news of their faith and love (3:6-8).

Acts 19:22 indicates that Timothy was with Paul in Ephesus and Asia on the third missionary journey and that during Paul’s stay in Ephesus he was again sent into Macedonia (cf. 18:5). 1 Corinthians, written while Paul was still in Ephesus, twice mentions Timothy being sent by Paul to Corinth (4:17; 16:10, 11). Later, Timothy was again with Paul and was included with Paul in the salutation of 2 Corinthians (1:1). When Paul reached Corinth and wrote to the Christians in Rome, he conveyed Timothy’s greetings (16:21). Acts 20:4 includes Timothy among those who joined Paul at Troas at the end of the third missionary journey and who apparently accompanied him to Jerusalem. Timothy is again included in the salutations of the letters to the Philippians (1:1), Colossians (1:1), and Philemon (1:1), the so-called Prison Epistles, and from this we may deduce that he was with Paul in Rome (cf. also Phil. 2:19). In fact, Timothy is mentioned in all but three of the Pauline letters (Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus).

1 Tim. 1:2, 3 has Timothy remaining in Ephesus at the time of Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment.⁵ 2 Timothy finds him still at Ephesus (cf. 1:18; 4:9ff.), while Paul is in prison in Rome for the second and last time. Outside the Pauline letters and Acts we find a Timothy referred to in Heb. 13:23 as our brother and as being released. It is thought, for good reasons, that this is the same Timothy (cf., e.g., Bruce, Hebrews, 390f. and the literature cited there).

Three things stand out about Timothy: (a) In regard to his background, Timothy had a strong religious heritage in his own family, biblical training from his youth, and a strong commendation already as a young man from the church, both his own congregation at Lystra and the neighboring congregation at Iconium (2 Tim. 1:5, 6; 3:14-17; Acts 16:1-3). (b) In regard to his service, Timothy was a faithful and consistent coworker with and assistant to Paul, who regarded Timothy as one of his most trustworthy and dedicated associates and one to whom he could assign difficult tasks (e.g., at Thessalonica, at Ephesus, and especially at Corinth; in addition to the passages cited above see especially Phil. 2:19-24, particularly 20-22; 1 Thes. 3:2, 6; 1 Tim. 1:18; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:2 and all of 1 and 2 Timothy). (c) In regard to his personality and temperament, equally striking is Timothy’s apparent timidity and need for encouragement⁶ (cf. possibly 1 Cor. 16:10, 11; and the repeated notes in 1 and 2 Timothy, e.g., God has not given us a spirit of timidity [2 Tim. 1:7], do not be ashamed [1:8], be strong [2:1], suffer hardship [2:3], let no one look down on your youthfulness [1 Tim. 4:12], do not neglect the spiritual gift [4:14], pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching [4:16], guard what has been entrusted to you [6:20]). Timothy’s timidity (and thus his need for encouragement) may have stemmed from a realistic appraisal of a difficult situation, from a natural propensity, or from both.

Paul addresses Timothy as his spiritual son (1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; cf. Tit. 1:4). That is, Paul writes to the younger man as his own spiritual convert, as one he has spiritually nurtured, and as one who serves under him as a son serves his father (see especially the commentary on the phrase Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέϰνῳ ἐν πίστει in 1 Tim. 1:2).

Titus

Titus (Τίτος**) is the addressee of the letter bearing his name, as the salutation (1:4) indicates. He is referred to by name 12x in the NT (2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; Gal. 2:1, 3; 2 Tim. 4:10; Tit. 1:4; Τίτ(ι)ος Ἰούοτος [Acts 18:7] is someone else; see Bruce, Acts). He was a Greek who remained uncircumcised as a test case for the gospel with reference to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:3) and Paul’s partner (ϰοινωνός) and fellow worker among the Corinthians (2 Cor. 8:23). He undertook several difficult assignments in Corinth as Paul’s representative, including both the collection (8:6) and the responsibility of dealing with the tense situation that arose between Paul and the Corinthians (7:6, 7, 13-15; 12:18). From the letter to Titus it may be surmised that Titus accompanied Paul to Crete and was left there to strengthen and organize the work (Tit. 1:5ff.). Apparently Titus did rejoin Paul at Nicopolis as Paul requested (3:12), and we find him at the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy north of Nicopolis in Dalmatia (2 Tim. 4:10). Eusebius reflects the tradition that Titus returned to Crete and served as a bishop there until his old age (HE 3.4.6).

Paul calls Titus his γνησίῳ τέϰνῳ ϰατὰ ϰοινήν πίοτι ν, true child according to a common faith (Tit. 1:4). This designation is almost identical to what Paul calls Timothy in 1 Tim. 1:2; the most noteworthy difference is the addition of common before faith. The use here of ϰοινός (NT 14x), common, for that which is communal or shared finds its closest counterpart in the NT in Jude 3, common salvation. Paul may use it in reference to Titus, not to Timothy, because of a need to remind Titus, the churches on Crete, and the false teachers of the circumcision (1:10; cf. v. 14) that Titus the uncircumcised Greek and Paul the Hebrew of the Hebrews share the same faith (cf. Gal. 2:3, 4; 3:7-9, 14, 28-29). Titus, no less than circumcised Timothy, is Paul’s spiritual son in this shared faith, and it is to him as such that Paul writes the letter.

SETTING AND CONCERNS

Historical Setting

From 1 Timothy and Titus one gathers that Paul is moving about freely and is not in prison, as he was when he wrote the Prison Epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). 1 Timothy relates that he is on his way to Macedonia and implies some contact with Ephesus, where Timothy is, having been encouraged by Paul to remain there (1 Tim. 1:3), and that he hopes to come to Ephesus before long (3:14). The letter to Titus implies that Paul has been on Crete, where Titus is (Tit. 1:5), and says that he plans to winter in Nicopolis, some 200 miles northwest of Athens on the west coast of Greece, and have Titus come to him there. It also mentions that Paul will be sending Artemas or Tychicus, who are apparently with him at the time, to fill Titus’s place when Titus leaves Crete (3:12). Zenas and Apollos, fellow evangelists, have probably been with Paul, since they are going through Crete, probably delivering Paul’s letter, and he commends them to Titus (v. 13). There is no definite indication of where Paul is as he writes these two letters, and the evidence is not sufficiently interlocked that an itinerary emerges.⁷ For the same reason the data at our disposal make it difficult to decide the order in which 1 Timothy and Titus were written. I have opted for the order 1 Timothy and then Titus, though others have chosen the opposite order.⁸

It is clear, however, that 2 Timothy is the last written of the three letters, because of Paul’s situation and expectation as he writes it: He is in prison in Rome (1:16, 17; 2:9; 4:16, 17) and has come successfully through his first defense, though no one supported him in it (4:16, 17). But he expects to die soon (vv. 6, 18), probably thinking that his second defense will lead to execution. As he writes, all his fellow workers have gone elsewhere (e.g., Titus to Dalmatia, v. 10) except Luke (v. 11). Before this imprisonment, Paul has apparently been to Troas, Corinth, and Miletus (vv. 13, 20). It appears from several references in the letter that Timothy is in Ephesus as Paul writes 2 Timothy, as he was when Paul wrote 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3): In the context of his request that Timothy come to him (2 Tim. 4:9) Paul indicates that he has sent Tychicus to Ephesus (v. 12), presumably as Timothy’s replacement. He also says that Timothy will know of the service Onesiphorus rendered at Ephesus (1:18), and he mentions Hymenaeus (2:17) and Alexander (4:14), who are elsewhere associated with Ephesus (cf. for both 1 Tim. 1:20 and possibly for the latter Acts 19:33, 34), and Prisca and Aquila (2 Tim. 4:19), who are in Ephesus in the last reference to them in Acts (Acts 18:18-19, 24-26). Paul asks Timothy to come to him soon (2 Tim. 4:9), before winter (v. 21), and to bring Mark (v. 11), his cloak, and some specific books (v. 13).

Purposes

Two broad concerns characterize all three letters: (1) Paul warns Timothy and Titus about a false teaching (see the separate section on The False Teaching below) and exhorts them to stand against it; (2) Paul gives instructions to the Christians of Ephesus and Crete, through Timothy and Titus, concerning their conduct and church life. In 1 Timothy and Titus the latter includes instructions concerning what sort of men are to be appointed to church leadership (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-9; cf. 2 Tim. 2:2). These concerns are not treated individually but are interwoven in the letters.

In 1 Timothy Paul especially seeks to encourage Timothy (in view of the latter’s timidity, noted above) in regard to his responsibility over against the false teaching and his responsibility as the church’s leader/teacher. Paul deals with the false teaching in 1:3-11, 18-20; 4:1-7; 6:3-10, 20-21, and gives specific instructions to the Christians about their conduct in 3:14, 15 and the bulk of the letter. He instructs and encourages Timothy as the leader/teacher in 1:3ff., 18, presents Timothy’s responsibilities as leader/teacher in some detail in 4:6-16; 5:1-3, 17-25, interjects at key places in the text Timothy’s responsibility to teach and apply the truths that Paul is communicating (5:7; 6:2c), and concludes his instructions and admonitions to Timothy with a charge and a warning in 6:11-14, 20-21.

In the letter to Titus Paul warns Titus about the false teaching, exhorts him and the elders to refute it (1:9-16; 3:9-11), and communicates through the letter and through Titus himself instructions for the Christians on Crete. As with 1 Timothy, these concerns are intermingled, especially in the first chapter.

2 Timothy is especially marked by Paul’s repeated urging of Timothy to suffer with him for the gospel in the strength of God (manifested in God’s gift [1:6], his Spirit [1:7, 14], his power [1:8], and his grace [2:1]; see further 1:6-14; 2:1-13; 3:12; 4:5) and by his insistence that Timothy retain and guard the apostolic message (1:13, 14), that he pass it on to faithful men to teach others also (2:2), that he handle and teach it correctly (2:15), and that he be guided by it and by the OT in all his teaching and conduct (3:10-17). These two keynotes are intertwined and come together in a third, which is Paul’s charge to Timothy to be the Lord’s faithful servant who, relying on the Holy Spirit (1:14) and equipped with the God-breathed scripture, effectively and gently teaches the truth (2:24-26), who unceasingly preaches the word and applies its truths, and who does the work of an evangelist and fulfills his ministry (4:1-5).

Along with these instructions and exhortations the letters also give instructions regarding the comings and goings of Paul, Timothy, Titus, and their fellow workers (1 Tim. 1:3; 3:1; Tit. 3:12, 13; 2 Tim. 4:9, 11-13, 21). This aspect becomes particularly important in 2 Timothy, where it stands in the shadow of Paul’s impending death (4:6).

The False Teaching

It appears that the false teachers and false teaching confronted in all three letters are of the same sort, since similar errors or tendencies are mentioned and similar terminology used, though not in every mention of them. As is often the case in Paul’s letters (e.g., Colossians), one must put a number of pieces together in order to ascertain the nature of the false teaching. Paul is not interested in describing the teaching but in refuting it, so different aspects come up in different passages.

The false teachers are characterized by an interest in myths (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; Tit. 1:14; 2 Tim. 4:4) and genealogies (1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9), a concern with the law or a Jewish orientation (1 Tim. 1:7; Tit. 1:10, 14; 3:9), an interest in antitheses that they identify as knowledge (1 Tim. 6:20), a tendency toward controversy, argumentation, and speculation (1 Tim. 1:4, 6; 6:4, 20; Tit. 1:10; 3:9; 2 Tim. 2:14, 16, 23), deceptiveness (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Tit. 1:10-13; 2 Tim. 3:6ff., especially v. 13), immorality (1 Tim. 1:19, 20; Tit. 1:15, 16; 2 Tim. 2:16, 19; ch. 3), and a desire to get material gain by means of their teaching (1 Tim. 6:5; Tit. 1:11; 2 Tim. 3:2, 4). In addition to these aspects mentioned in all three PE (see also the list of parallels between 1 Timothy 1 and Titus 1 in the comments on Tit. 1:10-16), there is the harsh asceticism described in 1 Tim. 4:1-5, according to which some, in Ephesus at least, were apparently forbidding marriage and eating of meat, and a teaching that the resurrection had already taken place (2 Tim. 2:18; cf. 1 Tim. 1:19, 20). The false teachers were primarily but not exclusively Jewish (Tit. 1:10). Paul regarded their teaching as opposed to Christ’s teaching and the apostolic teaching (1 Tim. 6:3; cf. 2 Tim. 4:15) and to the truth (2 Tim. 2:18).

Certain of these elements suggest that their teaching was along the line of, if not necessarily identical to, that of the false teachers opposed by Paul at Colossae (cf., e.g., philosophy and deception, Col. 2:8; Jewish regulations and the law, 2:16, 17; asceticism, 2:18-23). Paul sets the false teaching into the context of the difficulties of the last days (2 Tim. 3:1ff.) and is certain of its ultimate lack of success over against the church (2:19; 3:9). See the further discussion below of the PE’s Warnings against False Teaching.

5. Whether or not Paul was released from his Roman imprisonment will be considered below in the section on the Pastorals’ Relationship to Acts and the Other Epistles.

6. For the development of this point see Hull, Man.

7. However, for a fascinating attempt to assemble such an itinerary see W. Metzger, Die letzte Reise.

8. Cf., e.g., Bruce, Letters, 289: As between I Timothy and Titus, however, there are few criteria or none that could enable us to assign priority to the one or the other. Titus is placed first in the following pages simply so as not to separate I Timothy from II Timothy. For an argued statement of this same position see Doty, Classification, 192-98.

ATTESTATION IN THE EARLY CHURCH

The PE were known and regarded as Pauline in the early church.⁹ There are a number of similarities between the PE and 1 Clement (ca. AD 96).¹⁰ These similarities have been accounted for in different ways,¹¹ but Falconer is correct in saying that the most probable explanation of the similarities, both in ideas and in language, between the Pastorals and I Clement is that the former, as they now are, were known to Clement.¹² Kelly notes that "several passages … in the Ignatian letters (c. 110) seem to echo passages in [the PE] so closely that only excessive caution refuses to admit direct dependence."¹³ There are also indications that the Epistles were known and used by Polycarp (ca. AD 117), Justin Martyr (ca. AD 140), and others (see Bernard and White), and at about the same dates were included in Syriac and Latin versions.

The only exceptions to the early church’s acceptance of all three of the PE as Pauline were the heretics Marcion, Basilides, and Tatian. Tertullian says of Marcion that "he rejected [recusaverit] the two Epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus."¹⁴ But this in itself makes Marcion a witness to the traditional place which the Epistles to Timothy and Titus occupied in orthodox circles at Rome about the year 140.¹⁵ In his preface to Titus, Jerome reports that Tatian (who died about 170) denied the authenticity of 1 Timothy because it conflicted with his asceticism, but recognized Titus, and that Basilides, like Marcion, rejected all three of the letters. Jerome implies in the same preface that these adverse judgments were not critical in any true sense, but merely arbitrary.¹⁶ Indeed, there are no traces in the writings of the time, or later in the early church, of discussion of the style of the PE or other such matters—though there are in the case of Hebrews. Clement of Alexandria states that some—apparently meaning those of a gnostic bent—rejected the PE because they did not like the expression ἡ ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις in 1 Tim. 6:20.¹⁷ Thus it comes as no surprise that the Gospel of Truth, ascribed with some plausibility to Valentinus (ca. 150), does not quote the PE, even though it quotes all the other books of the NT.¹⁸

The Chester Beatty papyrus codex of the Pauline Epistles, inline-image ⁴⁶, which is generally dated about the middle of the third century,¹⁹ presents a bit of a puzzle in that it does not contain the PE; but it is also not wholly preserved. As the document now stands there are seven leaves missing. Some doubt that space was available to include the PE in view of the number of words the scribe wrote on each page. Others suggest that the scribe was beginning to write smaller so as to fit more words on each page, as might be evidenced by a comparison of the earlier and later parts of the manuscript.²⁰ Others suggest that the scribe added pages to the codex that have since been lost, and still others that, since he also does not include Philemon, the scribe deliberately included only the letters to the churches.²¹ In view of the several plausible explanations, it is probably best to leave this an unanswered puzzle. But it is hardly a testimony against the PE, since the papyrus documents that have been preserved and discovered are hardly the norm for what was canonical.²²

By the time of Irenaeus (second century), when NT books are being quoted by the author’s name, the PE are definitely regarded as Pauline.²³ Guthrie puts it well: [their] attestation is as strong as most of the Pauline Epistles, with the exception of Romans and I Corinthians.²⁴

9. The documentation of this attestation has been set forth fully by Bernard (pp. xi-xxi) and N. J. D. White (pp. 75-81) with pages of quotations. For a full discussion of attestation in the early church cf. also James, Genuineness, 5-24.

10. See White, 76f.; Bernard, xix, the latter of whom presents the material from 1 Clement and the Pastorals in parallel columns.

11. A committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology (NT in the Apostolic Fathers, 37ff.) did not consider the similarities close enough to constitute proof of literary dependency. Streeter, however, who held that the PE were written later than 1 Clement, argued that they borrowed from Clement’s letter (Primitive Church, 153).

12. Falconer, 5. Bernard (p. xix) came to the same conclusion: Holtzmann explains these coincidences between Clement and the Pastorals to be due to ‘the common Church atmosphere’ in which they all originated; but it seems as if they were too close to admit of any other hypothesis save that Clement wrote with the language and thoughts of the Pastorals in his mind.

13. Kelly, 3.

14. Adv. Marc. 5.21. The sentence reads as follows: I am surprised, however, that when he [Marcion] accepted this letter [Philemon], which was written but to one man, he rejected the two Epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which all treat of ecclesiastical discipline.

15. Bernard, xviii. Kümmel discounts this as evidence (Introduction, 370).

16. N. J. D. White, 76.

17. Strom. 4.9.

18. Cf. Kelly, 4.

19. Second or third century according to UBSGNT, 913; ca. 200 according to NA²⁶, 686.

20. Jeremias, 4.

21. So, for example, Quinn, inline-image ⁴⁶.

22. See the comments of Guthrie, Introduction, 587f.

23. Irenaeus, Haer. 1, preface 1; 1.16.3; 2.14.7; 3.3.3; 4.16.3. See also Clement of Alexandria (died 215), Strom. 1.350; Tertullian (died 220), De praesc. 6.25; Adv. Marc. 5.21. Cf. also the Muratorian canon. There seems to be a consensus on this point; cf., e.g., Kümmel, Introduction, 370, who says that from the end of the second century on, however, the Pastorals are regarded without question to be letters of Paul.

24. Guthrie, 19f. Cf. also Falconer, 3.

RELATIONSHIP TO ACTS AND THE OTHER EPISTLES

INCONGRUENCIES

Most (but not all) of those who accept the self-testimony of the PE and the testimony of the early church to Pauline authorship acknowledge that the history and events of the PE do not seem to fit within the history of the life of Paul found in the book of Acts²⁵ and reconstructed from the other letters of Paul and that those events must, therefore, have taken place after the time period covered by Acts and the other letters. Of course, it cannot be absolutely proved that the PE cannot be fitted into the book of Acts, and several have sought to do so. The most recent attempts, which are very able indeed, are by de Lestapis,²⁶ Reicke,²⁷ and van Bruggen.²⁸ But as we examine the points at which Acts (with the other letters) and the PE might be referring to the same events, a number of incongruencies emerge:

1 and 2 Timothy place Timothy in Ephesus and 1 Timothy has Paul going to Macedonia (1:3). In Acts Paul does travel to Macedonia from Ephesus (Acts 20:1), but Timothy has not been left behind in Ephesus but sent ahead to Macedonia (19:22). Furthermore, Timothy accompanies Paul on his journey to Jerusalem (20:4). It is possible that Paul left Timothy with the Ephesian elders at Miletus, but when he would have done so the direction of Paul’s journey was toward Jerusalem, not Macedonia (21:1-17). Paul came by Crete for a time during his journey to Rome (27:7-13), but we know nothing of the whereabouts of Titus at this time. It would be more than two years after that time (28:30) before Paul could have written to Titus that he planned to spend the winter in Nicopolis. This would seem to be an inordinate delay in writing a letter that has as one of its main purposes the reiteration to Titus of his responsibility to see to it that spiritual leaders are appointed for the churches (Tit. 1:5), unless of course Titus is meeting resistance and needs Paul’s apostolic authority. 2 Timothy refers to Paul visiting Corinth, Troas, and Miletus (4:13, 20), and these events appear to be recorded to inform Timothy of them. In Acts, Paul visits the same places, but Timothy is with him (20:4) and does not need to be informed of these events (cf. 20:2f., 5ff., 15ff.). In Acts, Trophimus is not left sick at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20) but continues with Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 21:29).

Similar incongruencies are seen if it is attempted to relate Paul’s imprisonment in 2 Timothy to Acts and the Prison Epistles. In the Prison Epistles, which have historically been regarded as written from Rome during the imprisonment recorded at the end of Acts,²⁹ Timothy is included with Paul in the salutations (Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Phm. 1). But in 2 Timothy, also written when Paul is in prison in Rome, Timothy is in Ephesus and is asked to come to Paul. Furthermore, while in 2 Timothy Paul’s imprisonment is difficult (cf. 2 Tim. 1:16, 17), and he expects to die soon (4:6), in the Prison Epistles he expects to be released from prison and return to Philippi and Asia (Phil. 1:19, 25, 26; 2:24; Phm. 22). Acts itself does not mention the expectation found in the Prison Epistles, but it does present certain factors congruent with that expectation and with the realization of it: Even though he had kept Paul in prison for some time, the verdict of the Roman governor Porcius Festus was that Paul had committed nothing worthy of death (Acts 25:25). Festus asked Agrippa to hear Paul and to advise him what to write to Caesar, to whom Paul had appealed (v. 26). Agrippa’s words to Festus after the hearing, This man might have been set free had he not appealed to Caesar (v. 32), are probably what Festus wrote to Caesar. If this is so, then the stage was set for the release expected in the Prison Epistles and, before that, for the two years of relatively loose house arrest described in Acts 28:16ff.

Therefore, when the same persons and places are mentioned in Acts (and the Prison Epistles) on the one hand and in the PE on the other hand, the same events are not being referred to, with the possible but doubtful exception of Crete. Of course, not every event in the period of Paul’s life covered by Acts is, in fact, recorded in Acts (e.g., some of the events mentioned in 2 Cor. 11:24ff.), so we cannot absolutely rule out a solution that places the PE in that framework. But it is more likely that events as significant as those standing behind the PE took place outside the Acts framework—after the Acts imprisonment and the expected release—than that they occurred during the period of time covered by Acts and merely escaped notice there.

THE RELEASE AND SECOND IMPRISONMENT

What, at any rate, might have happened at the end of the two-year period mentioned at the end of Acts? Parry suggests that the time reference and the use of aorist ἐνέμει νεν in Acts 28:30 describes the period as past and implies that at the end of the two years he left Rome.³⁰ Paul’s release might have come about in any of a number of ways: If the accusers did not appear the case would eventually lapse. It might also be that Paul was tried and acquitted or that the Roman government dropped the case against him.³¹ The idea that Paul was released for one of these reasons and was later imprisoned in Rome again, this time with the expectation that he would be executed,³² would be in accord with the expectations of the Prison Epistles, with the temper of Acts, particularly the statements of Festus and Agrippa recorded there (see above), and with the conditions reflected in the PE.

Also in support of this view is testimony from the early church that Paul was, indeed, released and then imprisoned again. The first possible witness is 1 Clement 5:6, 7 (ca. AD 96):

Paul … preached in the East and the West, and won noble renown for his faith. He taught righteousness to the whole world and went to the western limit [ἐπί τὸ τέϱμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών]. He bore witness before the rulers [ϰαὶ μαϱτυϱήσας ἐπί τῶν ἡγουμένών], and then passed out of the world and went on to the holy place, having proved himself the greatest pattern of endurance.³³

The question at issue here is the meaning of τὸ τέϱμα τῆς δύσεως.³⁴ Those who argue that it refers to Rome say that Clement is writing from the standpoint of his eastern readers and that τέϱμα refers to the conclusion of a course, which in the context and for Paul is Rome.³⁵ Those who regard the τέϱμα as Spain argue that one writing from Rome would not regard Rome as the West and that furthermore "in the first century τὸ τέϱμα τῆς δύσεως would be the Pillars of Hercules at the Straits of Gibraltar, that is, Spain."³⁶ If Spain is meant, then a release from Paul’s (first) Roman imprisonment is implied, after which he went to Spain and other places.

It has been said that this reference to τὸ τέϱμα τῆς δύσεως only echoes Paul’s hope and expectation expressed in Rom. 15:24, 28 and that it is not an independent testimony that Paul’s plans were carried out. However, one writing from Rome not much more than thirty years after the purported event would certainly have independent evidence on the matter. Clement seems to have such evidence since he mentions in the same context something not found in the NT, namely, that Paul was in bonds seven times (v. 6). Some have responded that even if this were true, this passage in 1 Clement does not mention the journeys that the PE presuppose.³⁷ But 1 Clement speaks of Paul preaching in the East and the West, which specifies neither the journeys of the PE nor any other, but which certainly does not rule them out and would in fact cover those journeys.

Therefore if 1 Clement 5:6, 7 is a testimony for Paul’s release from his (first) Roman imprisonment, it provides testimony in accord with the PE. But if τὸ τέϱμα τῆς δύσεως refers to Rome, then the passage is silent on whether Paul was released and traveled freely after his imprisonment (since on either view Paul dies in Rome), and no argument against the release and second imprisonment should be based on such silence.

The second main witness is that of the Muratorian canon (ca. AD 180):

Luke described briefly for most excellent Theophilus particular [things], which happened in his presence, as he also evidently relates indirectly the death of Peter (?) and also Paul’s departure from the city as he was proceeding to Spain.³⁸

It is agreed that the Latin of the canon is not easy to understand, but it very clearly refers to a journey of Paul from Rome to Spain and gives the probable reason that this is omitted by Luke from Acts. The canon, unlike 1 Clement, speaks of Paul’s departure from the city [Rome] as he was proceeding to Spain, thus providing a witness to the release of Paul from his first Roman imprisonment. If the words about the journey to Spain are suspect, it does not necessarily follow that the reference to the release (Paul’s departure from the city) must also be suspect.

As with 1 Clement, it has been said of the Muratorian canon’s reference to Paul’s departure from Rome and journey to Spain that it is ultimately based just on the hope and expectation expressed in Rom. 15:24, 28.³⁹ Zahn’s response to this view is still noteworthy:

The groundlessness of the opinion that the tradition of the Spanish journey and of the second Roman imprisonment has arisen from Rom. xv.24, 28, can be seen from the fact that important defenders of the view that Paul was twice imprisoned in Rome do not mention Spain at all, but merely speak in general of a resumption of missionary preaching in the interval between the two imprisonments; so Eus. H. E. ii.22.2 …, the real Euthalius, circa 350 …, and Theodore…. Jerome also … only hints indefinitely at Spain in the words in occidentis partibus….⁴⁰

Eusebius, whom Zahn refers to, wrote in the early fourth century (HE 2.22.2, 7):

Tradition has it [λόγος ἔχει] that after defending himself the Apostle was again sent on the ministry of preaching, and coming a second time to the same city suffered martyrdom under Nero. During this imprisonment he wrote the second Epistle to Timothy, indicating at the same time that his first defense had taken place and that his martyrdom was at hand…. We have said this to show that Paul’s martyrdom was not accomplished during the sojourn in Rome that Luke describes.⁴¹

In 2.22.2, 3 Eusebius calls on what many regard as an erroneous interpretation of 2 Tim. 4:16 as confirmation of his report. But the worthlessness of his own comment, Lightfoot observes, does not affect the value of the tradition on which it is founded, and which must be held quite distinct.⁴² Eusebius, as he himself says, is relating the common view held by those before him. After him a number of writers reflected this tradition (e.g., Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Pelagius, and Theodoret).

There appears to be no testimony from the early church that contradicts this testimony to a release and an implied or explicitly mentioned second imprisonment and that insists, instead, that Paul died during the Roman imprisonment described in Acts. The first testimony is quite early (ca. AD 96) and is given by one living in and writing from Rome. Surely the Roman Christian community some thirty years after Paul’s imprisonment was aware of what resulted from that imprisonment. The Muratorian canon is also associated with Rome, and Eusebius describes the release and second imprisonment as the accepted tradition and mentions no objections or alternative views.

This testimony to a release and second imprisonment is in accord with the self-testimony of the PE, with Paul’s expectation in the Prison Epistles, with the description in Acts 28 of Paul’s Roman imprisonment, and with what can be inferred from Acts concerning the manner in which his case went to Rome, so the various sources are mutually corroborative.⁴³ But even if one takes the view that what is said in 1 Clement has nothing to do with a release from imprisonment and that the Muratorian canon is based "on the legendary Gnostic Acts of Peter (A.D. c. 160-170)," as does Harrison,⁴⁴ the PE themselves still stand as valid testimony to the release and second imprisonment.

25. For discussion of the historicity of the events recorded in the book of Acts and an affirmation of such historicity see the introductions to Bruce, Acts; Marshall, Acts; and Longenecker, Acts; and Guthrie, Introduction, 354ff., and the literature referred to in these works. Cf. in particular Gasque, History, especially 251-309.

26. De Lestapis, Énigme.

27. Reicke, Chronologie. For summaries of Reicke’s and de Lestapis’s arguments see Trummer, Paulustradition, 53-56. Cf. further the similar treatment of this question in J. A. T. Robinson, Redating, 67-85, which makes extensive use of Reicke’s work. Cf. also Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer, which places 2 Timothy in the situation of Paul in Rome as reflected particularly in Acts and Philippians (p. 170).

28. Van Bruggen, Die geschichtliche Einordung.

29. For a defense of this position and a discussion of alternatives see Guthrie, Introduction, in his treatment of each of these letters and in his special section on The Captivity Epistles. See also the literature cited by him.

30. Parry, xv.

31. Marshall, Acts, 426, lists the possibilities named here, along with the suggestion that Paul was executed, which he finds unlikely. For an overview of the question with citations of the relevant discussions see Bruce, History, 361-64. For a more in-depth discussion with comments on the proposals of Lake and Ramsay and on the relation of the question to the practice of Roman law see Cadbury, Roman Law. For a more recent treatment see Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law, 99-119.

32. Pherigo, Paul’s Life, argues that Paul was released from the imprisonment recorded in Acts and labored a few years longer. For a contrary view see Haenchen, Acts, 71.

33. The translation is that of Bettenson, Early Christian Fathers, 52. See also the translations in Lake, Apostolic Fathers, I, 17; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, I/2, 274.

34. The various interpretations of the expression are dealt with by Dubowy, Klemens, 17-79.

35. E.g., J. Moffatt, Enc. Bib. IV, col. 5088; Harrison, Problem, 107.

36. James, Genuineness, 32. See also Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ad loc.; idem, Biblical Essays, 423ff.; Zahn, Introduction II, 68ff. More recently this view has been held by Holtz (p. 18) and Brox (p. 30).

37. E.g., Kümmel, Introduction, 378.

38. As translated in Theron, Evidence, 109 (§96).

39. E.g., Harrison, Problem, 108.

40. Zahn, Introduction II, 74.

41. As translated in Lake, Eusebius, 165, 167, 169.

42. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 425.

43. Lightfoot states the conclusion forcefully: Indeed, so irresistible has this evidence appeared to impartial critics, that the release has been accepted as a fact by many writers who cannot be suspected of any bias towards this result—by Hug, for instance, who places the Pastoral Epistles earlier in St. Paul’s life, and by Ewald, who denies their genuineness entirely (Biblical Essays, 428).

44. Harrison, Problem, 107-8.

CRITICAL ARGUMENTS CONCERNING AUTHORSHIP

Questions and doubts about the Pauline authorship of the PE began to be raised in the nineteenth century and have continued until the present time. The first forceful challenge to Pauline authorship was made in 1807 by Schleiermacher, who disputed the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy on the basis of its language and biographical statements.⁴⁵ Despite these bases to Schleiermacher’s argument, Schweitzer astutely evaluated this challenge by saying that it was not Schleiermacher the critic, but Schleiermacher the aesthete who had come to have doubts about 2 Timothy and, on that basis, about 1 Timothy.⁴⁶

Just a few years later, in 1812, Eichhorn extended Schleiermacher’s judgment to all three PE on the basis of divergent religious language.⁴⁷ Baur (1835) and the Tübingen school extended this doubt about the Pauline corpus and came to the conclusion that there were only four authentic Epistles of Paul.⁴⁸ Holtzmann (1880) brought all the objections together and produced a most thoroughgoing criticism of the Pauline authorship of the PE.⁴⁹

Since that time repudiation of the Pauline authorship of the PE has become a mark of critical orthodoxy. The position became widespread in the English-speaking world with the publication in 1921 of Harrison’s well-known book, The Problem of the Pastorals,⁵⁰ which advanced its case on the basis of detailed linguistic and stylistic analyses. Because the self-testimony of the Epistles to Pauline authorship is so explicit and pervasive, those who object to Pauline authorship have either adopted the view that they are pseudonymous (so most of those who reject Pauline authorship, e.g., Dibelius-Conzelmann, Gealy, Barrett, Brox, and Hanson) or have concluded that they contain genuine Pauline fragments (so Harrison and, e.g., Falconer, Easton, and Scott).

But while the Pauline authorship of the PE was being challenged and denied, there were able scholars who were affirming Pauline authorship and responding to the questions that were raised. In the nineteenth century this list of scholars included Alford, Ellicott, Huther, Plummer, Lightfoot,⁵¹ Hort,⁵² and Godet.⁵³ In the early and middle part of the twentieth century it included (among others) the commentators Bernard, Weiss, White, Parry, Wohlenberg, Lock, Robertson, and Schlatter, and Zahn in his Introduction and James in his monograph on the subject (Genuineness). From the middle of the twentieth century until the present date it has included the following commentators: Spicq, Jeremias, Simpson, Guthrie, Hendriksen, Kelly, Holtz, Ridderbos, Bürki, and Fee.

We have already mentioned the difficulty of coordinating the PE with Acts and the other letters of Paul, which for some (including Harrison) has figured in arguments against Pauline authorship of the PE (see above, Relationship to Acts and the Other Epistles). We concluded that there is strong evidence that Paul was released from the imprisonment described at the end of Acts and that the PE are from a later period of his life, after that release. In the sections below the other arguments against Pauline authorship of the PE will be laid out and an evaluation of each presented.

THE METHOD OF COMMUNICATION

Brox crystallizes and emphasizes an argument that has been brought against the Pauline authorship of the PE before, namely, that the method with which the writer of these letters communicates is quite different from that seen in the other letters of Paul.⁵⁴ In the other Pauline letters⁵⁵ Paul argues his case and interacts directly with those with whom he may differ or whom he seeks to correct. He sets forth his argument at some length and gives reasons for his position and answers objections that he presumes the readers would have. The author of the PE does not argue at any great length and appeals rather to compliance with the truth already known and given. In the PE the false teaching and teachers are warned against more than argued against. Except for Timothy and Titus, the members of the Christian community are dealt with indirectly through Timothy or Titus rather than directly.⁵⁶

There is a large measure of truth in this analysis, even if the differences may be overdrawn. But the differences are what one would expect from an apostle dealing with and through his apostolic assistants. It would be strange indeed if he wrote to them in the way that he wrote to the members of a local church. Thus the differences in and of themselves are evidence not of non-Pauline authorship but of a more personal form of letters addressed to apostolic assistants. Paul’s comments to the Ephesian elders at Miletus in Acts 20:17ff. can be taken as an example of the way in which Paul communicated with leaders of churches.⁵⁷ There also we see no development of teaching or of argumentation over against false teaching. Rather, Paul warns against false teachers that will arise and appeals to the leaders to be vigilant. He mentions what he has already taught, implying that his teaching has provided them that by which they can recognize and withstand the error that will arise, appeals to himself as an example for their own ministry, and commends them to God and his grace. The similarity between the method in this brief account in Acts and that in the PE, especially 2 Timothy, is quite remarkable and gives evidence that this method is as Pauline as that usually seen in the letters to the churches.

Furthermore, even in the other Pauline letters Paul sometimes does not develop his argument but simply appeals to the body of truth that has been given as the standard that his readers should uphold and act in accordance with (note the classic statement of Phil. 3:17, 18 and the discussion of it below under Warnings against False Teaching). Examples of this are Rom. 16:17 and 2 Thes. 3:6 (cf. 2:13; 3:14). One might even say that this is a pattern Paul follows where he is writing to the reader(s) concerning a third party. And in the PE it is often with third parties, especially false teachers, that Paul is dealing.

It would also be an overstatement to say that the PE only appeal to a known body of truth and do not develop from time to time the teaching presented. The rationale for prayer is a skillfully developed piece (see the commentary on 1 Tim. 2:1-7). The reason that women should not teach men and should learn in silence is more developed in 1 Tim. 2:11-15 than in 1 Corinthians 14, though along the same lines. Why one should not follow the asceticism of the false teachers is answered by a theological gem of a statement (4:1-5). The arguments for slaves serving their masters (1 Tim. 6:1f.; Tit. 2:9, 10) is quite similar to those found in Ephesians and Colossians. These few but appropriate examples will suffice as illustrations of the point.

In summary, there are differences of method, but they are what one would expect in an apostle writing to his assistants and are, in fact, seen elsewhere in the NT where the apostle deals with church leaders. Furthermore, similarities to this method are also found in the earlier Pauline letters and in fact are more or less the norm there when Paul is dealing with a third party. Finally, one must recognize that the methods of the earlier letters are also utilized in the PE. Thus the method of writing fits the PE as letters of Paul to his assistants rather than being an incongruity that points away from Pauline authorship.

THE MANNER OF ADDRESSING AND INSTRUCTING TIMOTHY AND TITUS

It is further objected that the way in which the author addresses Timothy and Titus and deals with them is contrary to the historical situation that would have existed. Gealy, for example, points to the way in which they are addressed as Paul’s children (1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4), are treated as still youthful (1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22), and are instructed rather authoritatively. He insists that this is contrary to the fact that these men have been Paul’s associates for a number of years and occupy positions of responsibility and authority in the church next to ‘Paul.’ ⁵⁸ This objection to Pauline authorship, which seems on the surface quite valid, is probably a problem of perception and evaluation from the perspective of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries rather than one inherent to the situation.

We get a clearer perspective on this problem by observing that its various ingredients are all present in the earlier letters as well. Paul calls Timothy my beloved and faithful child in the Lord even when he writes to the Corinthians about Timothy’s spiritual leadership in their midst (1 Cor. 4:17). He encourages them to listen to Timothy because he will remind them of Paul’s ways, which Paul teaches. Furthermore, Paul summons and dispatches Timothy and Titus and other assistants at will, even sending a command (ἐντολήν) for them to come to him (Acts 17:15), and they come and go as he calls or sends them (cf., e.g., Acts 19:22; 1 Cor. 4:17; and 2 Cor. 8:6; 12:18, where Paul twice urges Titus to do certain things). The need to alleviate Timothy’s fears was apparently long-standing, since Paul asks the Corinthians to see that he is with you without cause to be afraid (1 Cor. 16:10) and says that no one is to despise Timothy (v. 11), just as later he was to write to Titus, let no one disregard you (Tit. 2:15).

The pattern found in the PE is, therefore, found in Paul’s earlier dealings with these associates, though it may appear to be different because it is a more sustained presentation of what we see only glimpses of earlier. Furthermore, the references in the PE to the youthfulness of Timothy (1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22) must be understood from the perspective of that day, when a man was considered youthful until he became old (see the commentary on these verses).

The nature of Paul’s relationship to Timothy and Titus is a crucial element in understanding most of the differences between these letters written to his apostolic assistants and the earlier letters written to the churches. We have already noted some difference in Paul’s method of communication. We will also note differences in content and subject matter, theological terminology, linguistic style, and vocabulary. We will often find that these are not disparate differences but aspects of one difference manifesting itself in interrelated ways. Thus, if in writing to an apostolic assistant rather than to a church the apostle uses at times a different method, his writing will most likely also show differences in content, both of which in turn will probably be expressed in part in different theological terminology, linguistic style, and vocabulary. Therefore, rather than having to explain the differences under the assumption that the PE are Pauline, one should expect that the letters to apostolic assistants will be noticeably different in comparison with those to churches. In fact one should think they were not genuine if they did not have these differences. This is especially the case when we have found that certain characteristics of these letters are also discovered in his dealings with these apostolic assistants and other spiritual leaders elsewhere in the NT. They may well be marks of authenticity rather than strange differences from the earlier Pauline letters.

WARNINGS AGAINST FALSE TEACHING

The Method of Addressing the Problem

A large part of the objection to the Pauline authorship arises from the way in which the false teaching and false teachers are handled in the PE. As was noted above, it is said that Paul uses a reasoned presentation concerning error in his other letters but that here that presentation is lacking and only warnings and appeals are given.⁵⁹ As was also indicated above, there is ultimately no difference of method, since both ways of addressing the problem of false teaching, are found in both the PE and the other letters, though differences of approach are seen, depending on who is addressed: When, as is usual, Paul is pleading with those who are in danger of being affected by false teaching, he does, indeed, seek to persuade them from that course. But where he has already made his case (in earlier teaching, for example) and wants to warn the Christians against the false teachers as a third party, his method of dealing with them in earlier Pauline letters is similar to that which we find in the PE.

Philippians 3 is a classic example. Early in the account he issues a