Did St. Paul write I Timothy and II Timothy?

[StTommyMore]

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

Wrong. Paul wrote them. Though literary criticism has its place, it does not trump the Traditions of the CHirch dating back to the Apostolic age.

 

[shaky]

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.

With 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul said> All scripture is given by inspiration of God etc.

At this point in time there was No NT Scriptures when Paul wrote this epistle! Now with Paul who was writing to Timothy.
What Inspired Scripture was Paul referring too ?

 

[CalCatholic]

With 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul said> All scripture is given by inspiration of God etc.

At this point in time there was No NT Scriptures when Paul wrote this epistle! Now with Paul who was writing to Timothy.
What Inspired Scripture was Paul referring too ?

The Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures).

 

[ianjmatt]

Authorship is irrelevant when it comes to inspiration. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that 2 Timothy and Titus were written in the ‘school of Paul’ so to speak, and similarly with 2 Peter. What is important is the authority of Church councils in recognising the inspiration and authority of the letters. The canon exists because of the authority of the Church, not the other way round.

 

[triumphguy]

It doesn’t matter who the human authors were if they were accepted into the canon of Scripture by the Church.

Canonicity guarantees that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that they are accepted as scripture by the Church, not that letters attributed to Paul were actually written by Saul who became Paul.

 

[farpinho]

On the bright side, IF Timothy is authentic, we can assume an earlier date for Luke-Acts, I guess

 

[shaky]

Authorship is irrelevant when it comes to inspiration. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that 2 Timothy and Titus were written in the ‘school of Paul’ so to speak, and similarly with 2 Peter. What is important is the authority of Church councils in recognising the inspiration and authority of the letters. The canon exists because of the authority of the Church, not the other way round.

When reading 2 Timothy 3:16. All Scripture IS given inspiration by God etc. With the Word ‘‘IS’’ there. This is saying that all scripture in the bible IS inspired by God.
Is the Word IS in the Original Greek Manuscript ?

If the word IS is NOT in the Original Greek Manuscript. Then it would read>All Scripture Given Inspiration by God etc.
This would change the Context of the scripture to mean that ONLY All Scripture Given Inspiration by God is profitable. This then would mean only scripture THAT has been given Inspiration by God. This would also mean THAT there could be scripture THAT is NOT inspired by God.

 

[Zenkai]

St. Paul wrote 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy. The Epistles say so, and there is no reason to doubt what the Bible says.

 

[guanophore]

When reading 2 Timothy 3:16. All Scripture IS given inspiration by God etc. With the Word ‘‘IS’’ there. This is saying that all scripture in the bible IS inspired by God.
Is the Word IS in the Original Greek Manuscript ?

If the word IS is NOT in the Original Greek Manuscript. Then it would read>All Scripture Given Inspiration by God etc.
This would change the Context of the scripture to mean that ONLY All Scripture Given Inspiration by God is profitable. This then would mean only scripture THAT has been given Inspiration by God. This would also mean THAT there could be scripture THAT is NOT inspired by God.

You are right, of course, and since we don’t have the originals anymore, we have to rely upon those who were looking at them.

We can also look at the context of the passage:

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Paul if referring to Timothy’s Jewish heritage, and the fact that he was brought up on the Septuagint.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Scott Hahn presents a strong case for Pauline authorship in the Commentary to 1 Timothy from the Ignatius Study Bible.

There is also a very detailed discussion of the issues here:

newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm

Short story: There is not enough evidence, given strong reasons for Paul being the author, to accept, given relatively inconclusive evidence otherwise, that he was not.

 

[shaky]

You are right, of course, and since we don’t have the originals anymore, we have to rely upon those who were looking at them.

We can also look at the context of the passage:

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Paul if referring to Timothy’s Jewish heritage, and the fact that he was brought up on the Septuagint.

Hi quanophore

Looking at it in that Context then one can certainly say the OT Septuagint IS inspired by God.
And if the Church is 100% Correct in Choosing through canon Process what books and the letters of Paul are inspired by God. Then all scripture in the bible IS inspired by God.

 

[stevekehl]

With 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul said> All scripture is given by inspiration of God etc.

At this point in time there was No NT Scriptures when Paul wrote this epistle! Now with Paul who was writing to Timothy.
What Inspired Scripture was Paul referring too ?

That is inaccurate. Peter wrote that Paul’s writings were Scripture, showing that Paul’s epistles were widely read by the first century church. Paul also quotes the Gospel of Luke (10:7) in 1 Timothy 5:18. Luke opens his gospel by acknowledging there were several biographies of Jesus already written, but Luke wanted to investigate and ensure what was taught was true. Even Bart Ehrman said Christianity was a highly literate religion in an illiterate age.
As for who wrote the Timothies and Titus, I believe Paul did. I’m no scholar but why would personal notes be included by a second century disciple. Such as take some wine for your stomach (1Tim. 5:23) bring my cloak and books when you come to visit and bring Mark, Luke is already here (2Tim. 4:11) Hey, I’m spending the winter at Nicopolis,meet me there (Titus 3:12). It would be hard to understand why someone writing under Paul’s name, an accepted practice in the second century, would go out of their way to be so deceitful while writing about purity, good works, describing qualifications for church leaders, and instructions for fruitful living.My vote goes to Paul.

 

[farpinho]

That is inaccurate. Peter wrote that Paul’s writings were Scripture, showing that Paul’s epistles were widely read by the first century church. Paul also quotes the Gospel of Luke (10:7) in 1 Timothy 5:18.

That does not necessarily quote Luke, check Deut. 25:4

 

[shaky]

That is inaccurate. Peter wrote that Paul’s writings were Scripture, showing that Paul’s epistles were widely read by the first century church. Paul also quotes the Gospel of Luke (10:7) in 1 Timothy 5:18. Luke opens his gospel by acknowledging there were several biographies of Jesus already written, but Luke wanted to investigate and ensure what was taught was true. Even Bart Ehrman said Christianity was a highly literate religion in an illiterate age.
As for who wrote the Timothies and Titus, I believe Paul did. I’m no scholar but why would personal notes be included by a second century disciple. Such as take some wine for your stomach (1Tim. 5:23) bring my cloak and books when you come to visit and bring Mark, Luke is already here (2Tim. 4:11) Hey, I’m spending the winter at Nicopolis,meet me there (Titus 3:12). It would be hard to understand why someone writing under Paul’s name, an accepted practice in the second century, would go out of their way to be so deceitful while writing about purity, good works, describing qualifications for church leaders, and instructions for fruitful living.My vote goes to Paul.

In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter is not actually saying Paul’s writings is Scripture. He is Just saying that Paul’s Letters can be twisted like Scripture can be twisted>Old Testament Scripture.

I could write a letter to someone and they could read it and take the letter out of Context.

 

[guanophore]

In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter is not actually saying Paul’s writings is Scripture. He is Just saying that Paul’s Letters can be twisted like Scripture can be twisted>Old Testament Scripture.

I could write a letter to someone and they could read it and take the letter out of Context.

2 Peter 3:14-17

Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the **other **scriptures.

Ok, if we agree that the OT Scriptures are the "other"s, then which ones are “hard to understand”?

There are Scriptures hard to understand, written by Paul, then there are “other” Scriptures…

 

[stevekehl]

2 Peter 3:14-17

Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the **other **scriptures.

Ok, if we agree that the OT Scriptures are the "other"s, then which ones are “hard to understand”?

There are Scriptures hard to understand, written by Paul, then there are “other” Scriptures…

Thanks for saving me some time.

 

[shaky]

2 Peter 3:14-17

Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the **other **scriptures.

Ok, if we agree that the OT Scriptures are the "other"s, then which ones are “hard to understand”?

There are Scriptures hard to understand, written by Paul, then there are “other” Scriptures…

When Actually was Paul’s writings taken as Scripture ? Was the Gospel of Thomas or the Acts of Peter along with many other Epistles, Acts and Gospel Books considered Scripture that did not make it into the bible before the Cannon Scripture was established ?

There are plenty of Old testament scripture hard to understand which can be twisted. I have had discussions with Jews Showing them Christ throughout their OT Scriptures. They twist and Interpret these Scriptures differently to Show Christ is Not Shown in these OT Scriptures
How can one be so blind to the Crucifixion death burial resurrection etc of Jesus Christ in the book of Isaiah ?