Did Paul Write the Letters to Timothy?

[MBS1]

We have just finished the Second Letter to Timothy in mass. At our church it was stated as fact (each week prior to the reading):
“While the letter to Timothy was attributed to Paul, it was actually written some 30 years after his death.”
Now I know some theologians feel Paul did not write Timothy (all one has to do is look at the introduction in the NAB we use in mass.) My question is - has there been now a concensus that Paul didn’t write Timothy, or is it still a matter for theological debate? I have not been able to find an answer - most sources I’ve looked at attribute it to Paul and say it is only recently that there has been any controversy. I would like to approach our priest about this, but want to be sure of the answer. So, what is it? Did Paul write the letters to Timothy? Is it appropriate to announce in mass that he didn’t if there is no concensus about it? Thank you for any help you can give me. God Bless,
MBS1

 

[Deacon_Ed]

There is no generally accepted consensus regarding the authorship of the letter to Timothy. Paul may have written it, or may have asked a scribe to write it for him based upon material that Paul supplied.

It is certainly true that the style of writing is quite different from that of Paul’s other writings, and that the vocabulary is different. This would be the primary argument against Pauline authorship. At the same time, arguments suggesting that the errors Paul writes against are Gnostic errors of the 2nd century fail because those same errors started much earlier. Another claim is that the letter to Timothy seems to view a fully developed hierarchical system which was not present in Paul’s time. This, too, is not a good justification for tossing out Paul as the author: a fully developed heierarchy is also reflected in the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch who writes near the beginning of the snd century.

I would hesitate to assert that Paul was not the author.

Deacon Ed

 

[JimG]

I think that the use of textual and literary criticism to cast doubt on the supposed authorship of Timothy (or any other book of the bible) is: (1) less persuasive than the biblical scholars seem to think it is, and (2) has no place withn the Liturgy of the Word.

 

[MBS1]

Thank you both for your replies. Per -

There is no generally accepted consensus regarding the authorship of the letter to Timothy. Paul may have written it, or may have asked a scribe to write it for him based upon material that Paul supplied

Yes, but can anyone say that the scribe wrote it 30 years later? The context in our church is that Timothy was not written by Paul - but by someone else in Paul’s name. In other words, the impression given is that it is not Pauline in authorship. There is no mention of a scribe or even if the letter conveys Paul’s ideas, just that it was written 30 years after Paul’s death.
Thanks, MBS1

 

[JimG]

This is from an article by Steve Ray:

Some modernist scholars have taken a somewhat patronizing position implying that the scholars and historians of the last two thousand years were deluded in their acceptance of Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy. This modern “scholarship” is jousting with windmills and careful study undermines their skeptical speculations. The Pastoral epistles were unanimously accepted as Pauline by the Fathers of the Church, though denied by some heretics.

 

[T.More]

Paul wrote the letter to Timothy. Only liberals disagree. Of course, they disagree with a great many things.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Again, there is no way to know for sure who wrote the letter to Timothy. Textual criticism tells us that the style of writing and the choice of words is not consisten with Paul’s style of writing. Neither 1 Tim nor 2 Tim are considered to be of later composition than the known period of Paul’s life (64 and 67). It is highly unlikely that these letters were written 30 years later (that would make them contemporaneous with John’s Revelation and the situation that is described in Timothy does not appear to fit that time period.

We know that 1st century writers employed scribes or secretaries to do their correspondence. Sometimes the writer would dictate word-for-word what was to be written, and at other times he would take a trusted secretary/scribe and simply provide the message leaving it to the scribe to write out. The seems to be the position of many scholars who question the Pauline authorship of the so-called Pauline Pastoral Letters.

Again, I would be very reluctant to suggest that these letters are anything but authentic in revealing Paul’s mind and thinking. And, of course, because the Church has included them in the canon of Scripture, there is no doubt of their inspired origin.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

T. More:

Paul wrote the letter to Timothy. Only liberals disagree. Of course, they disagree with a great many things.

This statement is, of course, quite incorrect. Both liberal and conservative scholars have called Pauline authorship into question based upon textual and historical criticism. The job of the theologian is to expand our awareness of what is. Sometimes that means questioning what we think we know so that we can grow and develop a greater awareness.

Deacon Ed

 

[Exporter]

Since scribes have been mentioned on this thread, am I correct that St. Peter, while in Rome, used St. Mark as his scribe?

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

JimG:

This is from an article by Steve Ray:

Some modernist scholars have taken a somewhat patronizing position implying that the scholars and historians of the last two thousand years were deluded in their acceptance of Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy. This modern “scholarship” is jousting with windmills and careful study undermines their skeptical speculations. The Pastoral epistles were unanimously accepted as Pauline by the Fathers of the Church, ***though denied by some heretics. ***

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[T.More]

Ed: I disagree with your analysis and conclusions. To doubt Pauline authorship is to doubt the Word of God, which is perfect. This doubt is associated with liberalism (perhaps we define liberalism differently) and generally accompanies spiritual decline (in terms of piety, practice, and numbers) and lack of confidence in the scriptures. You might check our Thomas Reeves’ The Empty Church for statistics.

The best evidence of authorship of 1 Timothy is the introduction itself, which reads: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, 2To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” If the Bible is the Word of God, we don’t need to go beyond that.

The Church has been right on this all along. We did not need apostates (most originally Protestants from Germany) to develop “textual criticism” in the 19th century to tell us that everbody has been wrong. Higher criticism is a fad that will pass with time. Indeed, many of its practioners are not even Christian. Higher crticism is more ideology than methodology. See, for example, Eta Linnemann’s Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?

The lack of spiritual energy that pervades American Catholic Churches is not surprising given that theological presuppositions found in so many of them, such a textual criticism, are little different than those of mainline Protestant Churches, who are undergoing a similar decline. If the relatively novel scheme of textual critcism is right, then there is little reason to even bother with the Bible at all.

I will say that you timidity on the issue does not exactly inspire me with confidence in the Bible. To say “I would be very reluctant to suggest that these letters are anything but authentic in revealing Paul’s mind and thinking” is far short of a clarion call to confidence in the teachings of the scriptures.

T. More

 

[Deacon_Ed]

T. More:

Ed: I disagree with your analysis and conclusions. To doubt Pauline authorship is to doubt the Word of God, which is perfect. This doubt is associated with liberalism (perhaps we define liberalism differently) and generally accompanies spiritual decline (in terms of piety, practice, and numbers) and lack of confidence in the scriptures. You might check our Thomas Reeves’ The Empty Church for statistics.

As a matter of courtesy, it’s “Deacon Ed.” And the number of people attending Mass is not matter of who did or did not write the Pauline letters.

The best evidence of authorship of 1 Timothy is the introduction itself, which reads: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, 2To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” If the Bible is the Word of God, we don’t need to go beyond that.

The only problem with that is the fact that during Apostolic times it was common for people to use the name of a more famous person to lend weight to their argument. So, while this provides evidence, it is not conclusive.

The Church has been right on this all along. We did not need apostates (most originally Protestants from Germany) to develop “textual criticism” in the 19th century to tell us that everbody has been wrong. Higher criticism is a fad that will pass with time. Indeed, many of its practioners are not even Christian. Higher crticism is more ideology than methodology. See, for example, Eta Linnemann’s Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?Pope Pius XII would disagree with you since he authorized the use of these techniques which have added to our body of knowledge with regard to Scripture. While any method can be abused, that does not invalidate the method.

The lack of spiritual energy that pervades American Catholic Churches is not surprising given that theological presuppositions found in so many of them, such a textual criticism, are little different than those of mainline Protestant Churches, who are undergoing a similar decline. If the relatively novel scheme of textual critcism is right, then there is little reason to even bother with the Bible at all.

I disagree. We need to know as much about Scripture as we can. We do not interpret Scripture in isolation; we must know the literary genre, the historical and social setting in which the author worked. In part we know this because we can look at the work and determine the period of time in which is was most likely written. For example, one would never confuse, say, The Hunchback of Notre Dame with a modern piece of fiction – the style of writing is so different that it’s easy to tell them apart. One does not read Beowulf thinking that it was written in Elizabethan English or even Shakespearian English.

I will say that you timidity on the issue does not exactly inspire me with confidence in the Bible. To say “I would be very reluctant to suggest that these letters are anything but authentic in revealing Paul’s mind and thinking” is far short of a clarion call to confidence in the teachings of the scriptures.

Timidity? I refuse to go beyond what the Church claims, and She does not claim Pauline authorship. The current stand on the Church is that if Paul did not write the pastoral letters they certainly reflect his thinking.

As I said, since the Church has included them in the canon of Scripture they are, in fact, inspired. What more do you want?

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Exporter:

Since scribes have been mentioned on this thread, am I correct that St. Peter, while in Rome, used St. Mark as his scribe?

Exporter, generally, tradition (lower case “t”) holds that Mark was the scribe used by Peter. Peter, it is said, did not read or write Greek and Mark did, so he dictated to Mark.

Deacon Ed

 

[T.More]

Deacon Ed: It is helpful to remember that textual criticism is rooted in secular humanism, Enlightenment philosophy and German ideology (I would refer you again to Linnemmann’s book). It does not have heavenly origins.
If the Catholic Church has embraced this methodology, I am not surprised at its spiritual state (which I presently reading about in Michael Rose’s Goodbye Good Men - yikes!). It is functionally the same as mainline American Protestantism, which has also embraced the same thinking (and has had a similar decline).

As I mentioned, your uncertainty about plain statements in the scriptures (such as the express statement that Paul authored the epistle) would not give me confidence in either the Scriptures or the Church if I were in your parish. Indeed, it could lead me to doubt both. This decline in confidence is widespread and accompanies purveyors of textual criticism.

T. More

 

[T.More]

As I said, since the Church has included them in the canon of Scripture they are, in fact, inspired. What more do you want?

I need to know that what it says is true.

Pope Pius XII would disagree with you since he authorized the use of these techniques which have added to our body of knowledge with regard to Scripture.

I have been wanting to look into this. Can you please link me to the relevant encyclical or whatever document this is in? I would be interested to see to what extent Ctaholicism has been influenced by German idealism (a root of textual criticism).
Thanks

 

[Benedictus]

I have never found the arguments against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles very convincing. One reason is that they have a very personal tone, esp. II Timothy.

6 For I am even now ready to be sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith (II Tim 4:6-7)

To me, this sounds like something Paul would have written during his second imprisonment, knowing that he was about to be martyred.

Make haste to come to me quickly. 9 For Demas hath left me, loving this world, and is gone to Thessalonica (II Tim. 4:8b-9)

Again, this seems very personal. Whenever I read this passage, I get the impression that Paul feels a bit lonely or abandoned.

The cloak that I left at Troas, with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, especially the parchments. (II Tim. 4:13)

These seem like odd details to add to something written 30 years after Paul was dead.

use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thy frequent infirmities. (I Tim. 5:23)

Again, this seems like an odd detail written by a real Paul to a real Timothy.

Who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and contumelious. But I obtained the mercy of God, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. (I Tim 1:13)

This is a rather harsh indictment of Paul. I think it is unlikely that a later author would call him a “blasphemer”.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

T. More:

I need to know that what it says is true.

The fact that it is a) inspired and b) selected by the Church makes it true. As I said, what more do you want? Or, is it possible you doubt the Church herself?

I have been wanting to look into this. Can you please link me to the relevant encyclical or whatever document this is in? I would be interested to see to what extent Ctaholicism has been influenced by German idealism (a root of textual criticism).
Thanks

The Encyclical is

Divino Afflante Spiritu

.

Deacon Ed

 

[T.More]

The fact that it is a) inspired and b) selected by the Church makes it true. As I said, what more do you want? Or, is it possible you doubt the Church herself?

It is not “true” in any conventional use of the word “true” (perhaps a postmodern view, in which words have little or no meaning). The epistle expressly attributes authorship to Paul. If Paul is not the author, that statement in the epistle is not true.

If the Church requires people believe 1 Timothy’s express statement that it was written by Paul to be true even though the epistle was not written by Paul, of course I will not believe the Church. It is impossible to even copmprehend what that means. With teachings like that, it is no wonder the spirituality of Catholic laity is largely indistinguishable from that of secular counterparts.

T. More

 

[Deacon_Ed]

T. More:

It is not “true” in any conventional use of the word “true” (perhaps a postmodern view, in which words have little or no meaning). The epistle expressly attributes authorship to Paul. If Paul is not the author, that statement in the epistle is not true.

If the Church requires people believe 1 Timothy’s express statement that it was written by Paul to be true even though the epistle was not written by Paul, of course I will not believe the Church. It is impossible to even copmprehend what that means. With teachings like that, it is no wonder the spirituality of Catholic laity is largely indistinguishable from that of secular counterparts.

T. More

Hmmm… I think I understand what you are saying. It is, however, not correlated to reality in this case. For example, we know that if Paul simply used a scribe and gave him a message: “Tell the Collosians not to do XYZ.” and the scribe then wrote a letter to that effect. Is Paul the author? We know that some of the Scriptural references in the Gospels were made from people’s memory – and they are not rendered correctly (or, in at least one case, even from the correct book). Does that make the Gospels invalid? Mt 21:5-7 has Jesus riding both on a donkey and a colt coming in to Jerusalem – did he stand on both and ride them? Matthew and Mark have different sequences for when Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple. Does that make them invalid?

We have to be careful about tryuing to make every word and sentence in Scripture inerrent, because we would then have to toss Scripture out as being most unlikely to have had things happen as written.

Deacon Ed

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Deacon Ed,

Textual criticism tells us that the style of writing and the choice of words is not consisten with Paul’s style of writing.

I’m betting if these same textual critics read some of my writings from just a few years back, they would conclude that they were not consistent with my writings today. I don’t find such criticism to be error-free. I especially find such criticism skeptical when their conclusions are contrary to ancient tradition.