Kummel [Kumm.Int, 371-4], along with Dibelus and Conzelmann [Dibel.PE, 1-4], use the six standard arguments against Pauline authorship, which we cite below; others use one or more of them as well. I will deal with the first of Kummel's objections last (entry #7) ,because it involves a special pet peeve of mine! In entry #6 I will put any out of the ordinary arguments that I have observed.

A word is in order as a preface. Dibelus and Conzelmann insist that the burden of proof is on those who hold for Pauline authorship of the Epistles. It matters not to them that the claim is made WITHIN the Pastorals that Paul is the author - they, and many other critics, they are far too secure in their arguments, and far too presumptuous - Dibelus and Conzelmann, for example, note passages in the Pastorals that are much like those in the Pauline letters that they accept; but rather than accept this as an indication of Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, they dismiss them as works of excellent imitation by the pseudonymous writer! (Formerly, such passages were regarded as "fragments" lifted from genuine and otherwise unknown Pauline letters - a theory now very much in disuse. - For one advocate, see Barc.TTP) When an argument runs in circles like this, one wonders how strong the case truly is - and as we shall now see, the arguments against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals are very weak. With that in mind, let us begin.

Some folks like to spit this sort of argument out without specific cites, and make it sound like the Pastorals are riddled with contra-Pauline theology; but thus far I've found only four instances (see Pric.INP, 506):

1a) Confusion over definition of the law. Cited in this regard is 1 Tim. 1:8-10 -

1 Tim. 1:8-10 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

Hanson objects [Hans.PE, 3] that whereas in Galatians and Romans, the law is "a power hostile to man," here it simply condemns evildoers. Scott [Scot.PE, xx] similarly claims that the Pastoral writer:

...has confused the Mosaic law with law in general, and think of it merely as a necessary check on evildoing.

Scott also adds: "Paul with his reverence for Jewish law, could never have said that it was not intended for righteous men." In reply to these authors [see also Hould.PE, 28; Bass.12TT, 41], we may say:

i) The views about the law are complimentary and compatible - not contradictory. I don't see a great deal of force in these objections; it seems to me that Paul could easily conceive of the law both as hostile to man AND as a check on evildoing - as indeed I would! I also fail to see any reason why Paul's reverence for the law contradicts the idea that it was not intended for righteous men (because at any rate, according to Romans 3, there aren't any!). This is conceptually much the same as saying that when Jesus said that He came to call not the righteous, but sinners, He was denigrating His own mission! Marshall [Mars.PE, 375] also notes that this statement is similar to Romans 7:16.

ii) This verse may indicate Lukan influence. Wilson [WilsS.LkPE, 90] points out that the word here for "teachers of the law" (nomodidaskaloi) appears in the NT only in two other places: Luke and Acts. We may perhaps see here a "shadow" of Lukan influence.

For informational purposes, I would also add that:

iii) In context, Paul is addressing a heresy that misuses Jewish beliefs. In verse 7, Paul refers to the heretics thusly: "They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm." Obviously, these heretics were making IMPROPER use of the law, [Fee.12TT, 10] and Paul was simply "emphatically opposing the futilities of much Pentateuchal speculation" [Guth.PE, 60] - hence the seeming lack of "reverence" for the law. In addition Marshall [Mars.PE, 376] points out that when addressing a Hellenist audience, Paul's response will be unlike that made to Judaizers in Galatians and Romans, where a positive view of the law could be easily misinterpreted.

1b) Confusion over "faith" - personal, or loyalty to a church tradition? Throughout the Pastorals, Paul refers to "the faith" in the sense of a creed or a tradition, which is said to contradict Paul's usual way of referring to faith only in a personal way (Barc.TTP, 6). However, Paul refers to "the faith" in a creedal way in other places (Rom. 4:12, 4:16; 1 Cor. 16:13, 2 Cor. 13:5, Gal. 1:23; 3:23, 6:10; Phil. 1:25, 27; Col. 2:7). It was therefore not a foreign usage to him; he simply uses it that way more often in the Pastorals, as we would expect if he were writing to church leaders whose job it was to safeguard creeds and traditions - and considering that he was near the end of his life, this would not be a bad idea [Town.PTPT, 312]!

1c) The Pastorals lack the Pauline mysticism. I can only ask here why critics expect personal letters to contain mysticism, and why they expect Paul to always be the same way every time he writes a letter! (This cardboard-cutout view of personality, I have noted, is dreadfully common among critics! May we ask what Paul has to get mystical ABOUT in these letters??)

1d) Confusion over baptism. Critics cite Titus 3:5 -

Titus 3:4-5 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit...

Scott [Scot.PE, 175] claims that this is reflecting a step towards later sacramentalism, seeing baptism ("washing") in itself as effective for salvation. In reply, we may note:

The "washing" is referred to metaphorically. There is an allusion here to water baptism, but the basis of this verse is metaphorical, referring to the spiritual cleansing ("rebirthing") power of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the word Paul uses here for "renewal" is used elsewhere in the NT in connection with the renewing, cleansing work of the Holy Spirit. (Fee.12TT, 157; Kell.PE, 252, Allen.EPEP, 337 - For similar imagery, see Romans 6:4, 1 Cor. 6:11, and Eph. 5:26; see also our comments here.)

It may be further added that the word we translate "rebirth" had broader meanings in Jewish and pagan contexts as well. [Barc.TTP, 300] This adds to the interpretation that the rebirth itself is the washing, not the act of baptism (Which would actually be counted as a "righteous thing" to be done that could not save us!!).

Some critics object that he Pastorals cannot fit into the chronology of Acts - which is rather amusing, since many of the same critics do not regard Acts as reliable in the first place! At any rate, the usual answer here is that these letters were written after the time given in Acts. Kummel is aware of this, but objects that:

2a) Acts 20:25, 38 indicates Paul would no longer be able to return to the East. (see also Bass.12TT, 19) Let's take a look at these verses first, in context.

Acts 20:17-38 From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they arrived, he said to them: "You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me--the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace. Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" When he had said this, he knelt down with all of them and prayed.

They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him. What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again. Then they accompanied him to the ship.

Kummel seems to have allowed his imagination to run away with him! This does not say that Paul will not return to the East; it DOES say that Paul did not THINK he would see them again, which is not the same thing! But Kummel has a second objection:

2b) There is no proof of such a journey to the East, or of Paul's release from prison. Actually, there is some evidence of this:

i) An expectation of release is found in Acts and in the prison epistles. Festus (Acts 26:30) and Agrippa indicate that Paul was guilty of no wrongdoing. Paul shows confidence in his imminent release in the prison Epistles (Phil. 1:25, 2:24; Philemon 22).

ii) 1 Clement 5:6-7 indicates that Paul was released. The letter contains these lines:

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. He bore witness to the rulers, and then passed out of the world...

Dibelus and Conzelmann object that Clement betrays no knowledge of a journey to the East, or of a release from prison, but this is irrational. A writer referring to "the western limit" in that time and place always meant Spain [Knig.PE, 17], as indicated by parallel statements in Strabo and Philostratus [LeaGr.12TT, 34n]- though some have tried to fudge by saying that Clement is referring to Rome as the western limit! This would be extraordinary, since Clement was writing from Rome! At any rate, since there is certainly no way to fit a Spanish mission into Acts, it looks as though Paul was released from his first imprisonment, and would have had time both for a journey to the East and for the Pastorals. (Simply dismissing this as merely a "deduction of what must have happened" from Paul's stated plans in Romans [Perr.NTI, 265] does not do justice to the fact that Clement, writing only thirty years later, would certainly have known that such a journey took place, as would have many others of his time.)

Indications that Paul was released from prison are also found in the Muratorian Canon and in the Acts of Peter [Town.12TT, 17], and in statements by Clement that Paul suffered imprisonment several times [LeaGr.12TT, 34].

In spite of the above, which he does note (saying that there is "beyond a doubt a stream of tradition which held that Paul journeyed to Spain"), Barclay [Barc.TTP, 15] concludes - on the same page, no less! - that the trip to Spain was assumed from the travelogue of Paul in Romans 15! Why? he objects that "in Spain itself there is not and never was any tradition at all that Paul had walked and preached there; there are no stories about him, and no places connected with his name. It would be indeed strange if the memory of that visit had become totally obliterated." Perhaps it would be strange, IF we knew that Paul's journey to Spain had been as significant and successful as his other mission trips - but that is precisely what we do NOT know! (Indeed, one might say the same of Arabia - which we know Paul visited from Galatians!) Therefore we may not make any decisions on this basis either way.

2c) There is no time for a journey to Spain and to the East between when Paul would have been released and his second imprisonment and execution. This is cited by Scott [Scot.PE, xx]. But there was a span of at least 3 years available - plenty of time, even in the ancient world, to make the journeys. (Other amounts of time have been suggested: 4 years [Hans.PE, 14] or as much as 5 years [Fair.PE, 26].) In Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire, M.P. Charlesworth has written (p.155):

Communication with Rome [for Spain] was quick and easy, the main ports being Tarraco, Carthago Nova, and Gades. The first town was the seat of the imperial governor, and it was hither that reinforcements and all official messengers were sent, and a regular service must have been ensured. It was only four days sail from Rome, and from it every part of Spain could soon be reached by road. In the ordinary way it took five days to Bilbilis, but an imperial freedman, travelling with important news and at full speed, managed to arrive at Clunia (which was further along the road than Bilbilis) in seven days from Rome, which implies three days land-journey. From Ostia to Gades took seven days under favourable conditions, and the average time was doubtless around ten.

Thus, there was plenty of time for Paul to travel around as suggested.

Finally, let it be added that we should hardly take the absence of a viable peg to put in the chronological hole of Acts as reason for robbing Paul of the Pastorals! There is also no reference in Acts or in the other Pauline letters to Paul's frequent imprisonments, all five beatings, and all three shipwrecks in 2 Cor. 11:23-7 where they are noted. Obviously, Acts is not intended to be a complete biography of Paul! [Moss.12TT, 15]

Objection #3 points out that Paul does not deal with false teachers in the Pastorals as he does in his other epistles. Kummel states that the author of the Pastorals does not engage in substantive debate, and refers to traditional teaching rather than to Christ as his basis; Dibelus and Conzelmann note the difference as well. (See also Hans.PE, 3) This is rather easily explained in that Paul was writing to individuals who were "long-term associates who did not need to be instructed on elementary teachings," [Oden.12TT, 13] and not to a church full of dense-gray-matter sorts as was the case at Galatia, Corinth, and elsewhere. It is also explained in part by these verses:

1 Tim. 14-15 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The indication here is that Paul would have ordinarily delivered such instruction in person, but feared being delayed - and if 2 Timothy is any indication, that happened in the worst way: Paul was imprisoned again! (Dibelus and Conzelmann, incidentally, dismiss the above as an artificial construct - in which case, if the true writer of this was not indisposed, we may ask why he bothered to write the letter in the first place and himself did not appear in person!)

We may also note that Paul's typical way of dealing with church leaders seems to be reflected in the speech in Acts 20, quoted above. Note that Paul issues warnings similar to those found in the Pastorals. Also see Romans 16:17 and 2 Thess. 3:6, which reflects Paul's method of passing teaching through a third party.

(An objection related to this one, one that seems to no longer be held, is that the heresy attacked in the Pastorals is late. Numerous similarities have been noted, however, between the Pastorals heresy and the heresy in 1 Corinthians [Town.12TT, 24].)

Many critics say that the church organizational structure depicted in the Pastorals is too advanced, indicating a date beyond Paul's death. Kummel and many others use this one [Scot.PE, xxi; Barc.TTP, 5; Hould.PE, 16], with Bassler [Bass.12TT, 18] rather exaggeratedly describing the organizational scheme depicted as "far beyond" what is found in Paul's other letters. Nevertheless, the entire "church order" objection is strictly an arbitrary one, and against the evidence:

i) It is simply presumed that churches could not have developed so far in Paul's time. Grant observes that "...we should beware of assuming that all churches 'developed' in the same way at the same time." [Gran.HNT, 212] Paul was certainly a man of genius, quite capable of organizing a church and its functions. Furthermore, the idea of "slow development" is simply left over from the Tubingen and history-of-religions notion of how things evolve: Change can also be quite rapid, especially when there is a need for it! As Ellis points out [Ellis.PP, 46], the transformation of Germany between 1989 and 1990 would have to be dismissed as ahistorical on the sort of grounds required by critics! This alone is grounds for dismissing this objection; but there is more:

ii) There are indications both of such development in other NT churches, and that the development is not as far along as some claim. Church offices referred to in the Pastorals are also found in Phillipians 1:1 (elders and deacons) and in Acts 14:23 and 20:17 (elders). The letter to Titus regards bishops and elders as the same, which is NOT a reflection of the second century monarchial episcopacy, which is where most skeptics of Pauline authorship find a parallel. (It may also be added that such qualifications as delineated by Paul would have been well-known in the second century, when critics claim that the Pastorals were written!) Finally, separate studies by Burke [Burk.ME] and by Meier [Meie.PrPE] have shown that the level of administration depicted in the Pastorals is "still a long way off" from the organizational level found in Ignatius or Polycarp at the beginning of the second century.

Bassler [Bass.12TT, 18, 64] acknowledges the above, but nevertheless insists that the presence of qualification lists, ordination rites, proscribed duties, and disciplinary processes indicates a more developed state than described in Acts and Phillipians. But this is rather a strange objection: Aside from the fact that the church could easily devise official structures from other organizations (see below), Bassler herself notes that the lists of virtues offered in the Pastorals are quite like similar qualification listings offered throughout Greco-Roman society - in fact, one such list from a Greek writer offers a list for a military officer that is (in her words) "indistinguishable" from that offered by Paul! One is constrained to ask why critics assume that the early church was so stupid that they a) could not readily (much less within 30 years!) quickly and easily adapt the basic organizational practices of their surrounding culture; or, b) would create any kind of office or position of any sort without SOME idea of what qualifications the person needed, how they would get the job, and what they would do once they got the job!!! (Philippian elder: "Well, I'm an elder! Now what do I do?") Even if they were not quite as developed in the time of Acts and Philippians (10-15 years before the Pastorals), there were certainly SOME sort of qualifications and structures needed for the folks in Acts and Philippians! Which leads to our final note:

iii) The organization depicted find parallels outside Christianity. For example, Scott [Scot.PE, 30] observes that the word used for "bishop" (episkopos) was "used in the pagan world to denote a governing man in any civic or religious organization." There was also a similar office found among the Qumranites. [CarMoo.Int, 364n] Therefore, there is no reason to assume a late date for the Pastorals on this basis.

Scott [Scot.PE, 32], however, does add this objection: He quotes 1 Timothy 3:6, which says of an overseer:

1 Tim. 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.

This, he says, is "an unguarded admission that the Pastorals are considerably later than Paul" - for he claims that the Ephesian church was composed of entirely new converts, so there would be no reason for Paul to make this kind of demarcation. However, Scott's characterization of the Ephesian church is quite wrong; if we read Acts, we find that the Ephesian church was at least a dozen years old at the time that Paul would have written 1 Timothy, which indicates converts of at least that long. In this light also, it is significant that Paul did NOT include this restriction in his letter to Titus (1:6), who apparently WAS over a church of recent converts in Crete!)

Finally, let us add that if the Pastorals are as advanced in their organization as is supposed, then it is rather odd the three churches as diverse in their structures as the Roman Catholics, Plymouth Brethren, and Presbyterians cite the Pastorals as their manual for organization! [Fee.RCO, 142]

It is sometimes objected that there is no evidence of the Pastorals early on; they are not mentioned by Marcion [see Barc.TTP, 5], and they are not in the earliest collection of Pauline letters (P46). Knight [Knig.PE, 13] and Kelly [Kell.PE, 3], however, see evidence of the Pastorals in the letter of 1 Clement (96 AD - evidence so strong that Streeter thought that the Pastorals were influenced by 1 Clement!), in Ignatius (110 AD), and Polycarp (135 AD - see also Town.12TT, 31).

As for Marcion, Tertullian noted that he rejected the Pastorals; and Oden adds that Marcion "was prone to cut what he did not like. The absence of the Pastorals from his skewed canon cannot be significantly weighted as a reflection of consensual, primitive Christianity." [Oden.12TT, 11] We can discern, for example, that Marcion would have had a hard time swallowing 1 Timothy 1:8, 4:1-5, and 6:20, and 2 Tim. 3:16! [Town.12TT, 31; Moss.12TT, 14] There were also a few other things in the Pastorals that Marcion would also frown at: The regulations regarding women (Marcion's church allowed women to hold church offices, in line with his view on gender differences); the marked distinction between the laity and the officeholders (again, not typical of Marcionism), and the recommendation that Timothy take wine for his stomach (the Marcionites used WATER for the Eucharist!). By the time he cut out all of this, there would not be much left in the Pastorals for Marcion to use! (In fact, there is so much in the Pastorals that Marcion would dislike that some scholars have suggested that they were a polemic designed to "reclaim" Paul from Marcion's influence!)

Houlden [Hould.PE, 40] counters that Marcion could have altered the Pastorals to his own purpose, but we may ask in light of all that he would have cut, why he should have bothered! He needed a Gospel - hence the cutdown of Luke - but what need would he have of what would remain in the Pastorals regarding church organization? As he a) already HAD the model of the established church to go by, and followed it as far as we know; and b) was himself an excellent organizer, he would have no need whatsoever for these letters! [Blac.Marc, 4-8](On the other hand, it should be noted that it is thought likely that Marcion's disciples, after his death, DID admit the Pastorals into their "canon," and that therefore Marcion did not explicity reject them!)

As for the P46 collection, we may also note that it does not include Philemon, which is almost universally accepted as Pauline. It is also missing 7 leaves, and while that may not have left room for the Pastorals, it is noted that the scribe of P46 compressed his writing as he went along, seemingly in an effort to fit more material in - and the absence of Philemon may suggest that he would have left out letters to individuals. [Knig.PE, 14]

Few critics make use of this particular objection, recognizing that it is, at any rate, an argument from silence. Bassler [Bass.12TT, 18] adds to the argument that the Pastorals "seem to have been absent from earlier collections as well," although she only names the Codex Vaticanus as an example, and that is too late (325-350) to have any pull in the matter. Her source for this data is Gamble [Gamb.NTC, 41-2], who makes this judgment based on inferences from "manuscripts, patristic writers, and later canon lists," albeit still with no specification, and with the admission that the status of the Pastorals prior to Ireneaus is "unclear." It is therefore safe to say that nothing may be drawn from the (supposed) absence of the Pastorals from P46. Indeed, since the P32 papyrus, which is dated to the same period as P46, contains Titus, the whole P46 issue is now moot!

Here are a few odd ones I've picked up - some showing that critics often do not pay close attention to what they read.

6a) Instructions to Timothy. Price asks [Pric.INP, 506], "Is it conceivable that Paul should have urged Timothy to remain at Ephesus, and carefully instructed him concerning his mission (in 1 Timothy), and then commanded him to come to him at Rome (in 2 Timothy)?" The answer is, YES! First of all, there is probably a space of at least 2-3 years between 1 and 2 Timothy; second, by the time of 2 Timothy, it is apparent that Paul thinks that the end of his life is near - and thus, he wishes to see his "adopted son" one more time. Who would not, under what was probably the threat of a death sentence?

Scott also complains [Scot.PE, 39], regarding the qualifications of deacons and other officials, that as Paul could have given instructions in person before leaving Ephesus, there is "no adequate reason why a letter of this kind (1 Timothy) should have been written instead of personal instruction before leaving Ephesus." I can think of a perfect reason: When he was in Ephesus, Paul hadn't thought about it yet! And, has Scott not heard of the idea of getting things down in black and white for documentary purposes? (See Kell.PE, 230) Even so - the same complaint would apply to some pseudonymous, later writer!

6b) History with Timothy. Price also asks (ibid.), "Again, Timothy is said to have witnessed Paul's sufferings at Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, all of which occurred before Timothy became Paul's associate." This is in reference to 2 Timothy 3:10 - which says that Timothy KNOWS of Paul's sufferings - not that he WITNESSED them! The Greek word in question indicates something that is studied, carefully noted, and taken as an example [Kell.PE, 198] - but not necessarily witnessed. (The same word is translated "investigated" in Luke 1:3.)

6c) Paul the repetitive? Scott [Scot.PE, xx], regarding a second journey to the East for Paul, says: "The apostle, whose pride it was to be always breaking new ground for the gospel, would not have repeated himself in this aimless way." In reply, I say, "Huh?" Has Scott never heard of checking up on things in person or visiting your friends and associates? Did Scott know Paul personally that he is so sure that his drive to find new territory would keep him from ever going back to a place he had already been? Did not Paul say that he wanted to see the Corinthians again? Somehow, I do not think Scott has read very carefully - especially in light of these contradictory comments by him on the SAME PAGE:

1) "We know too little of the life of Paul or of the Church of his time to say of any writing ascribed to him that by intrinsic signs it cannot be his work."

2) "We cannot help but feel that the mind at work in these Episles is different, in its whole bent and outlook, from that of Paul."

....Eh?

6d) Was Timothy OK with Paul? Some object that Paul treats Timothy in the Pastorals like a young and inexperienced person, whereas elsewhere he does not. Barrett [Barr.PE, 9-10] cites these verses from 2 Timothy:

3 Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

7 Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.

14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

22 Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

On the other hand, Barrett notes these verses, where Timothy is seen as one who, in his opinion, would not need such advice:

1 Cor. 14:17 For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor. 16:10 If Timothy comes, see to it that he has nothing to fear while he is with you, for he is carrying on the work of the Lord, just as I am.

Phil. 2:19 I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, that I also may be cheered when I receive news about you.

1 Thess. 3:2-6 We sent Timothy, who is our brother and God's fellow worker in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith, so that no one would be unsettled by these trials. You know quite well that we were destined for them. In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way, as you well know. For this reason, when I could stand it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith. I was afraid that in some way the tempter might have tempted you and our efforts might have been useless. But Timothy has just now come to us from you and has brought good news about your faith and love. He has told us that you always have pleasant memories of us and that you long to see us, just as we also long to see you.

All of this, Barrett insists, indicates that Timothy was so well trusted - "notwithstanding" the indication of inexperience in 1 Cor. 16:10! - that he would not need the type of advice given in 2 Timothy.

Frankly, Barrett here is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's mustache. First, he should consider the context of the words of 2 Timothy:

2 Tim. 2:1-2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In other words, Paul is listing things that Timothy should entrust to OTHERS - he is NOT giving advice to Timothy outright. But even if he were, it should be remembered that Paul considered Timothy his "son" - and even today, fathers give sons basic advice, even when they have been over it time and time again and even when both of them are rather aged! (Besides that - on one's deathbed, a father tends to focus on the most important things in life -- irrespective of how many times it had been told before, or how well the son is doing!)

Similarly, Scott [Scot.PE, 51] objects concerning this verse, 1 Tim. 4:12 -

1 Tim. 4:12 Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.

Of this, Scott says that Timothy would have been at least 40 when Paul allegedly wrote the Pastorals, so Paul could hardly have called Timothy "young." But this is a false reading, derived from faulty supposition and a lack of knowledge of the personal and societal context of the remark. We should note first that Paul is referring to OTHERS considering Timothy to be young - he does not call Timothy "young" himself! But even if he did, there is no reason to suppose that Timothy was any older than his mid-30s. (The same Greek word, neotos, is used to describe the "rich, young ruler" in the Gospels!) Second, we should recall (again!) that Paul is addressing Timothy as his own son, and would probably have been in his 60s as he wrote the Pastorals - relatively speaking, Timothy was young, to Paul! Third, within the societal context: Polybius regarded 30 as "young," and Ireaneus wrote that 40 was young. [Allen.EPEP, 288] So, Paul's designation of Timothy as young is quite acceptable!

6e) Time problems in 2 Timothy. This is an interesting objection: It is observed on both sides that some months would pass before this letter would get to Timothy in Ephesus [BFS.PE, 135], and that Paul asks for his cloak and books [Hould.PE, 33], which is considered problematic if Paul expected to be executed. However, other than that travel times were not as turtle-like as the critics claim (see above), another critic has observed that this is an indication that Paul did NOT expect that his execution was imminent [Hans,PE, 100] - although he may have thought it was inevitable. (In 2 Timothy 4:9, 21, Paul urges Timothy to "do his best" to come before winter - this indicates that Paul did not expect immediate execution; no doubt, Rome was rather like our own bureaucracies inasmuch as appeals and paperwork could delay things rather excessively!)

6f) Pointless assurance? Houlden [Hould.PE, 69]objects that if this were really Paul writing to his trusted Timothy, there would be no need for the assurance in 1 Tim. 2:7 that Paul was telling the truth about himself. Granted: Tim would not need the assurance, but the heretics and new generation of Christians whom Timothy would confront, calling upon Paul's authority, certainly would! [Moss.12TT, 35] We may observe that Paul elsewhere had questions asked regarding his authority (viz., 1 Corinthians) and it is not surprising to see him raising this defense often. (This explanation could also apply to the extended explanation at the beginning of Titus regarding Paul's ministry.)

And now, here's the last major objection, my special pet peeve -

The language and style is not that of Paul. Kummel refers to word counts, special vocabulary, and "logarithms of vocabulary" as literary proof against Pauline authorship. Others cite unusual phrases such as "faithful is the saying" which occur in these letters but nowhere else in Paul's works (1 Tim. 1:15, 3:1, 4:9, 2 Tim. 2:11, Tit. 3:8). More often called upon is the use of many particles in the Pastorals that appear nowhere else in Paul.

I would like to begin by repeating something I said elsewhere: Things like choices of words should be disregarded forevermore as a determination of authorship. Over the years I have seen many NT and Bible scholars (on all sides) make outrageously absurd statements about literature that would send a literary symposium into fits of giggles. Word choice and writing style are NOT suitable criteria for saying that a person did or did not write a particular piece of literature - especially when we are dealing with writing samples as small as the Pastorals! In this regard, conservative scholars rightly cite the work of Yule [Knig.PE, 39; Oden.12TT, 13], who notes that samples of at least 10,000 words are needed to make such determinations - and the Pastorals are rather short of that mark! To put it bluntly, quoting one commentator who has a modicum of literary sense: "...literary art cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation." [Guth.PE, 214]

Beyond that, critics need to test their theories more broadly before they make outrageous statements like the above. I have yet to see these sort of guidelines applied to other literary works and authors as a guide, and the same sort of conclusions reached; for example, Plato's later works show a broader range of vocabulary that his earlier ones, and Hamlet has more unique words than any other Shakespearian play - yet no one denies Shakespeare its authorship! Furthermore, critics also need to take the following things into account:

i) The influence of a scribe. In other letters, Paul does make use of a scribe. (In another tribute to their attempt to save their own theory, Dibelus and Conzelmann regard the suggestion of a scribe as merely a "modification" of a declaration of inauthenticity! See also Houlden [Hould.PE, 21-2], who merely dismisses the idea without reference or explanation.) The chief proponents of this view are Moule and Wilson, the former of whom has suggested Luke as the scribe for the Pastorals, noting a commonality of vocabulary between Luke/Acts and the Pastoral letters; while the latter has compiled a significant case for complete Lukan authorship [WilsS.LkPE]. This evidence includes:

• The language and style of the Pastorals. Luke/Acts (L/A) and the Pastorals (PE) share 37 words that are not found elsewhere in the NT, which considering the brevity of the Pastorals is rather significant. Certain stylistic quirks (Latinisms, turns of phrase, and use of parts of speech) are also common only to the two works. An interesting contribution is also made on the particles question (see below): Some of the particles lacking in the Pastorals are of the sort that L/A use for narrative contexts, which obviously makes them not usable in the PE.
• Similarity in thought. Wilson offers a detailed analysis showing common perspectives in terms of eschatology, salvation, and christology.

I would add here that certain Hellenistic influences noted in the Pastorals, and allusions to the works of Philo and the LXX, fit well the premise of the educated Gentile convert Luke writing the Pastorals. (This is supported by Quinn [Quin.LTi, 4], who, like Wilson, dates the Pastorals - and we gather, also Luke-Acts - to 80-85 AD.)

Others support some type of this position. Knight, for example, suggests that Paul was simply influenced by Luke's language, having been with him for so long! [Knig.PE, 50] But I would suggest that the idea of Lukan composition is a good one - some have even suggested that the Pastorals were part of the unwritten "third volume" of Luke/Acts! - and that we also look to the influence of a scribe on Paul's OTHER letters, and adjust our thinking appropriately in seeing the Pastorals as either written partially or totally in his own hand, or else see Paul as using an entirely different scribe than usual, most probably Luke (as is noted in 2 Tim. 4:11, Luke was the only person who remained with Paul). As Ellis points out [Ellis.PP, 45], a trusted scribe usually shaped vocabulary, style, and composition, in direct proportion to the amount of trust the writer placed in him. Paul quite likely had a great deal of trust in Luke, and would probably permit him certain freedoms in composition beyond the basic message.

Some objections to this thesis are:

1) That which is noted is by Houlden [Hould.PE, 25], who remarks upon the lack of Pauline theology in Luke/Acts. We have addressed this issue here: One may not presume that Luke was a robot clone of Paul!

2) Bassler [Bass.12TT, 19] objects that there is "no hint of a secretary" in the Pastorals, whereas "those undisputed letters that do reveal a secretary's hand retain the distinctive Pauline vocabulary style."

The problem here is twofold. First, the only thing that Bassler apparently considers a suitable "sign" of a secretary is a direct statement within the letter in question that a secretary is involved! (I.e., "I, Birdbrain, wrote down this letter.") Such a direct statement is hardly necessary; indeed, the difference in style is "sign" enough! Second, Bassler here, like other critics, treats writing as some sort of mechanical process: Secretaries certainly would vary in their influence, and we may perceive that Paul would be more inclined to exert control over a scribe in critical theological matters (especially when writing to folks who were stubborn and not very "clear on the concept"!) than he would over a trusted companion like Luke in a personal letter to someone like Timothy or Titus who pretty much know his teaching and know how to handle things. Which leads to our next point:

ii) The recipient of the letters. Perrin [Perr.NTI, 265] observes that the style of the Pastorals is quiet and meditative, whereas Paul was usually dynamic, dramatic, and given to emotional outbursts. Laying aside that this sort of objection again reduces Paul to a cardboard cutout who is only capable of acting and emoting in one dimension (as Ellis [Ellis.PP, 46] puts it: "a rather narrow personality unable to combine charism and church order and passionately fixated for life on a very few theological issues"!), we should keep in mind that the audience and recipients of Paul's letters would have a great deal to do with how he writes. (You folks out there might want to check your e-mail archives, for example, and see how your manner changes according to who you are writing to.)

In most of his epistles, Paul is writing to a large group of people with diverse backgrounds and educational levels. In some cases, he is angry with them! But the Pastorals are written to two gentlemen he cares about deeply: Young men whom he had probably converted, nurtured, and had in his service [Knig.PE, 8]; whom he calls his "sons," and who probably were very much sons to him, inasmuch as Paul evidently never married and had children of his own; and whom, by the evidence of the contents of the letters, were men he had a tremendous affection for and who were intensely loyal to him [TT.RMex, 442-5]. In that light, the specific phrase, "faithful is the saying," has the character of something a father would say to a son in instruction. We should expect a less direct engagement than Paul would normally use, since he is not writing to the people who are at fault directly! [Town.12TT, 32]

iii) The lack of need for certain words. What need was there for Paul to use words like cross, crucify, and freedom (contra Barc.TTP, 12 and Bass.12TT, 19), when he was writing to men who knew the basic facts and did not need instruction in them (Timothy and Titus should have been familiar with Paul's teachings on these subjects for at least 15-20 years by this point! - Allen.EPEP, 257), and such things were not relevant to the topics at hand anyway?

iv) Miscellaneous data. In spite of the above, similarities to Paul's usual style are apparent in the Pastorals. Even Dibelus and Conzelmann agree that the "loose train of thought" style found in 2 Timothy is quite like that of Paul in Romans 12 and Colossians 3-4. On the other hand, they note that the Pastorals are written in a "higher" type of Koine Greek than the rest of the NT - and take that as an indication of non-authenticity! Apparently it does not occur to them that in writing to an audience of wider intelligence levels, Paul would be apt to use a "lower" form of Greek than if he were writing to a single person who, being a LEADER in the church, may conceivably be the most intelligent of the lot! (It is also perhaps an indication of Lukan influence, as Luke's is the best Greek of the Gospels.)

To more specific data [Knig.PE, 42-3; Gran.HNT, 214-5; see also Guth.PE, 212-228]: