Did St. Paul write I Timothy and II Timothy?

[redox]

I usually stick to Catholic authors when reading books concerned with Christianity. However, I received a book titled “Reading the Bible Again for the First TIme” by Marcus Borg as a gift. Dr. Borg is a Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University. I have read only about half of it, yet I already found several claims that I find troublesome.

I will mention only one in this post. In one of his footnotes, Prof. Borg claims that, “Virtually all mainline biblical scholars see I TImothy and II Timothy and Titus … as realtively late documents written around the beginning of the second century, some forty years or more after the death of Paul. In antiquity, it was acceptable practice to write in the name of a revered figure of the past.”

Can anyone offer anything to refute or support this claim of his?

Thanks!

Redox

 

[Publisher]

I thouroughly enjoy Marcus Borg’s books. He is one of my favorite authors. I believe you will find he is correct about I & IITimothy, Titus and a few others concerning their authorship.

It was not considered wrong for others to write under others names if they held them as their mentors or teachers. He also includes 1&2 Peter.

There are a large amount of the letters that have disputed authorship…usually it is tradition which provides authorship…similar to the gospels.

 

[MBS1]

I have also seen this before. In fact they announce it in our church before reading Tim or Titus. I also think it says this in the NAB and New Jerusalem bibles.

The best answer I have seen is that Conservative Theologians believe they were written by Paul. Why? If you believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and all 13 of Paul’s epistles state they were written by Paul, than you have to conclude they were. Otherwise, while it may seem like a small thing, scripture could be said to be grossly incorrect on authorship. If incorrect on that, why believe the rest? More “liberal” Theologians argue for the “ghost” writer theory. This is due to the difference in style. However, there is certainly not consensus among theologians, so the point is still up for debate, I guess.

The other idea I have seen is that the primary epistle was written by Paul (I mean why ask to bring his cloak which he had left behind if it was written 30 years later - 2 Tim 4:13). However, some paragraphs may have been added to it to complete the epistle. I’m not sure I buy that, but that is what some think.

Also, if you remember when the books of the bible were being chosen, one of the standards was that they had to have been written by Jesus’ disciples or apostles. If there was a question about Pauline authorship of these epistles then, they probably would not have been included when the scriptures were being canonized. The early Church seemed to have to question as to authorship. However, that was then, and this is now. God Bless,

MBS!

 

[Nita]

Don’t put too much faith in Marcus Borg and his works. Couple thousand years from now there will be irrefutable “proof”, from scholars MUCH wiser than we, that he never wrote the books anyway.

Nita

 

[redox]

I thouroughly enjoy Marcus Borg’s books. He is one of my favorite authors. I believe you will find he is correct about I & IITimothy, Titus and a few others concerning their authorship.

It was not considered wrong for others to write under others names if they held them as their mentors or teachers. He also includes 1&2 Peter.

There are a large amount of the letters that have disputed authorship…usually it is tradition which provides authorship…similar to the gospels.

But, I need to know what basis he has for his conclusion. That will influence my own conclusion. And, I need to know how the Catholic Church feels about this.

 

[Atreyu]

The best answer I have seen is that Conservative Theologians believe they were written by Paul. Why? If you believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and all 13 of Paul’s epistles state they were written by Paul, than you have to conclude they were. Otherwise, while it may seem like a small thing, scripture could be said to be grossly incorrect on authorship. If incorrect on that, why believe the rest?

It can be wrong on authorship because the identity of the author is not an issue of faith or morals, per se. I really don’t care who wrote which books of the Bible. I like to think that Paul wrote those epistles, but it really doesn’t matter one way or another.

 

[Liberian]

Redox,

Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums. I hope you have a blessed and fruitful time here.

You have already gotten some answers to your question; while I have my opinions I am not an authority on the subject so I will keep them to myself.

By the way, are you a chemist?

• Liberian

 

[AmyS]

It can be wrong on authorship because the identity of the author is not an issue of faith or morals, per se. I really don’t care who wrote which books of the Bible. I like to think that Paul wrote those epistles, but it really doesn’t matter one way or another.

Then what about the Protovelum Of James? They couldn’t guarntee he was the author of it. Plus it didn’t match up with all the teachings that went along with the other parts of the bible.

 

[redox]

Redox,

Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums. I hope you have a blessed and fruitful time here.

You have already gotten some answers to your question; while I have my opinions I am not an authority on the subject so I will keep them to myself.

By the way, are you a chemist?

• Liberian

No, not a chemist. But, a chemistry teacher. All the same, I am amused by your “reaction.”

 

[redox]

Nothing here solid enough to go on yet. Keep those responses coming, folks!!!

 

[thistle]

NAB Commentary.

From the late second century to the nineteenth, Pauline authorship of the three Pastoral Epistles (First and Second Timothy and the letter to Titus) went unchallenged. Since then, the attribution of these letters to Paul has been questioned. Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters. A second group believes, on the basis of statistical evidence, that the vocabulary and style are Pauline, even if at first sight the contrary seems to be the case. They state that the concept of church organization in the letters is not as advanced as the questioners of Pauline authorship hold since the notion of hierarchical order in a religious community existed in Israel before the time of Christ, as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Finally, this group sees affinities between the theological thought of the Pastorals and that of the unquestionably genuine letters of Paul. Other scholars, while conceding a degree of validity to the positions mentioned above, suggest that the apostle made use of a secretary who was responsible for the composition of the letters. A fourth group of scholars believes that these letters are the work of a compiler, that they are based on traditions about Paul in his later years, and that they include, in varying amounts, actual fragments of genuine Pauline correspondence.
If Paul is to be considered the more immediate author, the Pastorals are to be dated between the end of his first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28,16) and his execution under Nero (A.D. 63-67); if they are regarded as only more remotely Pauline, their date may be as late as the early second century. In spite of these problems of authorship and dating, the Pastorals are illustrative of early Christian life and remain an important element of canonical scripture.

 

[Mintaka]

Analysis by means of style and vocabulary is suggestive, but it isn’t conclusive. Somebody writing to a friend is almost bound to utilize different words than he uses for a formal letter to a group. Also, people’s style tends to change over time.

So “you pays your money and you takes your choice.”

But whoever wrote the letter (I think Paul), it’s still pretty clearly inspired.

 

[redox]

I think the information is getting meatier. But, I would like to hear from as many points of view as possible. Does anybody know what the Magisterium has to say about this?

 

[william123]

Dear MBS1,
As a catholic,
Just on my opinion, i do not think any of the Bible is up for debate.
Answerss??? Please, tell me if you think otherwise.

 

[pnewton]

I find the evidence from style to be ridiculous. If my posts here were compared with my writing at work, then the conclusion from this evidence would be I am not typing this, but someone else is. Timothy and Titus were personal. The style is personal. Especially in the last letter to Timothy, Paul was getting close to meeting his maker. Of course the style is drastically different than it was when he wrote to the Churches at large. In fact, if these letters would have been by written in the name of Paul only, they easily could have been penned in his style to resemble his other epistles. The very differences reflect the humanity of the writer.

Finally, I am tired of modern scholars thinking they know more about the first century than those that lived then, the generation after and the generation after that. I have found that the biggest weakness to modern scholarship is a bias against the miraculous and against the traditional. There is an economic need and an emotional need to find some “new” truth. Professors do not get published for saying everything is as we always knew it to be. Books sell and scholars advance by innovation, thus contributing to a bias for the new and innovative.

 

[TMC]

There is considerable debate on the authorship of I & II Timothy, even within the Catholic church, with the “not Paul” crowd currently in the majority. What is not debated is that the books are part of the canon and therefore found by the Church to be inspired Scripture. I think its worth pointing out the distinction because its sometimes lost in these discussions that the vast majority of those that deny Pauline authorship are not saying the books should not be in the canon or that they are not Scripture.

 

[Todd_Easton]

If church organization is the determining factor, I don’t see it. In 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, the words bishop and presbyter seem to be used interchangeably. This is not the case in the writings of the early second-century martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, where presbyters are clearly subordinate to the bishop. If 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus were early second-century works, I would expect them to show the same church organization described by Ignatius of Antioch but they don’t. A reasonable conclusion, based on church organization, is that they were written much earlier, even as early as the middle of the first century by St. Paul.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

But, I need to know what basis he has for his conclusion. That will influence my own conclusion. And, I need to know how the Catholic Church feels about this.

Timothy 1 and 2 and Titus are called the Pastoral Epistles and were not written by Paul, but in the name of Paul around 100 -110 C.E., (closer to the time the gospel of John was put in its final written form). They are valuable from a historical perspective, since they reveal the beginnings of that type of church organization which, with modifications, has persisted to the present.

**. Distinctive Assertions **
A. Faith is not so much a personal commitment as it is a body of propositions to be believed. (I Timothy 1:19)

B. Remarkable stress on good works (I Timothy 2:10; 5:10; 6:8; II Timothy 2:21; Titus 2:14)

C. Justification, on the human side, is the outcome of both faith and works. (Titus 3:5ff)

D. “Savior” is a title used for God as well as for Christ. God: (I Timothy 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4). Christ (II Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6).

E. “Epiphany” is a term used to refer to both the first and second comings. It can refer to both God and Christ. (II Timothy 1:9f; Titus 2:13).

** Absence of key Pauline concepts **

A. The phrase “in Christ” is not used.

B. The indwelling Spirit occurs in only 2 places: II Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:5.

**. Unique vocabulary and style **

360 words contained in the Pastorals do not appear in the authentic letters; new words appear frequently:

eusebia (piety or religion)
sound doctrine
sobriety

 

[Bookcat]

First off Marcus Borg is NOT one to read…

as to the question of authorship…I vote for Paul.

 

[StTommyMore]

I thouroughly enjoy Marcus Borg’s books. He is one of my favorite authors. I believe you will find he is correct about I & IITimothy, Titus and a few others concerning their authorship.

It was not considered wrong for others to write under others names if they held them as their mentors or teachers. He also includes 1&2 Peter.

There are a large amount of the letters that have disputed authorship…usually it is tradition which provides authorship…similar to the gospels.

Actually he is dead wrong. Scott Hahn and John Bergsma are two scholars off of the top of my head that are working to buck the trend among “Bible Scholars” that are interprest the Scriptures with hermeneutic of doubt.