Authenticity of 2 Timothy

  • Thread starter Thread starter steve53
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

steve53

Guest
Some scholars have tried to dismiss 2 Timothy by saying it is a forgery and not written by Paul. Most of these same people believe that Luke/Acts was written in the late 90’s A.D. as well.
Are they forced to question 2 Timothy because of Paul’s reference to being in Rome in bondage, and saying that Luke was with him?
If authentic, 2 Tim would certainly undermine the theory espousing a late creation of Luke/Acts.
 
Luke/Acts ends abruptly with Pauls journey to Rome. If it was written later you would expect the author to say what Paul did in Rome. The non-Christian scholars are promting an agenda IMO.
 
Are these scholars infallible? Ask them that question. The Bible is very difficult as you know…who can understand it. (The Eunich, Jewish, studied). Acts 8:30

Also, are they talking about these issues to be “right” about something? That always makes me wonder. We should be loving others and asking leading questions all the while serving other people. (lowering ourselves). If they are beating you over the head with their theories…I would pray for them. 🙂
 
Dave_B said:
Luke/Acts ends abruptly with Pauls journey to Rome. If it was written later you would expect the author to say what Paul did in Rome. The non-Christian scholars are promting an agenda IMO.
Click to expand...
That is my thought as well. Apparently, they use semantics and vocabulary to show that 2 Tim is somehow different from the accepted Pauline letters. Any experts out there?

And, yes, to say Luke was written 40 years later, the entire preamble to Luke would have to be a deliberate lie. And if you believe that,well, what’s the point?
 
I don’t put a lot of faith in internal textual analysis 2,000 years after the fact. It is an indicator at best.

A writer’s style changes over time. Different subject matters require different vocabularies. Different secretaries/scribes bring different translation/editorial skills to the table. Different audiences need different approaches. Comfort in a foreign language (Greek) grows over time.

A letter by Paul mysteriously showing up decades after his death would raise questions about authenticity. Yet the very early Church Fathers (e.g., Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement) quote Paul’s pastoral letters without question, implying they were widely circulated and unquestionably accepted.

Apparently the only ones who questioned the Timothy letters early on were heretics (Marcion comes to mind).
 
Regardless of provenance, the Church has well tested its content and accepts it as inspired. Let the scholars mumble amongst themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top