Corpus-Paul

[Rod Rilea <rrilea AT logos.com>]

Kevin,

I found the following information that may help.

PASTORAL EPISTLES

Early Historical Testimony 

The question of Paul's authorship of these three letters has been more hotly
debated than that concerning any of the other Pauline epistles. Yet evidence
of acquaintance with and acceptance of the Pastoral Epistles as canonical
writings is early and abundant in church history. In the well-known
discussion of the canon by Eusebius in the early 4th cen., the Pastorals
were accepted as Paul's and classed with the Homologoumena (Acknowledged
Books).

Long before this, however, Clement of Alexandria (e.g., Stromata, II, 6) and
Tertullian (e.g., On Prescription Against Heretics, chap. 25) made many
citations from these epistles, attributing them to "the apostle" or else to
Paul by name. The Muratorian Canon (c.  a.d. 173) includes the Pastorals in
its list of accepted NT books. Irenaeus, writing before the end of the 2nd
cen., quotes or alludes to every chapter of the Pastorals except Tit 1
(e.g., Against Heresies, II, 14.7). Hegesippus (Memoirs Concerning the
Martyrdom of Symeon), Theophilus of Antioch (To Autolycus, III, 14),
Epistles of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, Athenagoras (A Plea for the
Christians, sect. xvi, xxxvii), Justin Martyr (e.g., Dialog with Trypho,
sect. vii. xxxv), Epistle of Barnabas (e.g., sect. xii), and Ignatius
Epistle to Polycarp, sect. iii. iv) are examples of historical notices well
within the 2nd cen. The citations in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians
(c. a.d. 110) are numerous and clear and were so early that there was not
time for a fraudulent composition to have gained sufficient stature to be
used without question by this man who had known the apostle John (e.g.,
sect. iv, viii, xii). To argue, as does J. C. Baker in his article "Pastoral
Letters, The" (IDB, III, 670) that both Polycarp and the author of the
Pastorals used a common source, appears utterly gratuitous. Even Clement of
Rome ( a.d. 95) reveals possible awareness of I Tim (e.g., First Epistle to
the Corinthians, sect. xxxvii).

The only dissenting voices regarding canonicity of the Pastorals were such
heretics as Basilides, Marcion, and Tatian, whose rejection was based upon
doctrinal disagreement with their contents. Yet this very rejection focused
attention on the matter of canonicity, so that their acceptance by the
church as a whole becomes the more impressive. This unanimity of opinion
prevailed until the 19th cen.

Problems of Authorship 

The widespread critical rejection of the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals
usually rests upon one or more of the five problems discussed below. In
spite of the trend, many scholars have continued to accept the genuineness
of the Pastorals, including Guthrie (1957), Hendriksen (1957), Jeremias
(1953), Spicq (1947), Schlatter (1936), Lock (1924), White (1910), Ramsay
(1909), Zahn (1906), and Godet (1893).

1. Chronological setting. The problem is caused by inability to fit the
chronological data of the Pastorals into the framework of Acts. If the
imprisonment demanded by II Timothy is the Roman imprisonment of Acts 28,
then the freedom reflected in I Timothy and Titus must precede Acts 21. A
place must be found where Paul leaves Timothy in Ephesus while he departs
for Macedonia (I Tim 1:3). The closest one can come to solution on this
premise is to note that Paul went from Ephesus to Macedonia on his third
journey (Acts 20:1), but Timothy either accompanied him or joined him soon
after (Acts 20:4). This becomes difficult to harmonize with I Tim 3:14.
Furthermore, the tasks laid upon Timothy in the epistle would take
considerable time to effect.

Inasmuch as Acts ends without stating the outcome of Paul's case, it is
gratuitous to insist that Acts 28 was his final imprisonment. The historian
Luke has consistently left the impression that no serious charge had been
filed against Paul (Acts 25:26-27; 26:31-32). Paul himself expected release
from this imprisonment (Phm 22; Phil 1:23-25; 2:24). For Acts to end as it
does with no hint that Paul's prospects were not realized is inexplicable.
Early historical testimony, including Clement of Rome, the Muratorian Canon,
and Eusebius, tells of a trip by Paul to Spain, and thus argues for release
from the first Roman imprisonment, a period of renewed missionary activity,
and then a later imprisonment which was final. The so-called historical
problem against Pauline authorship is a problem only if one assumes that
Acts tells the whole story of Paul's life. Such an assumption is both
unnecessary and unwarranted.

2. Ecclesiastical complexity. It has been objected that the Pastorals
reflect a state of organization in the church too advanced for the days of
Paul. Thus a 2nd cen. date is posited. Attention is called to the various
grades of clergy, and the detailed descriptions regarding their
qualifications, salary, and discipline. Yet the same two officers are found
in the undisputed letters of Paul (Phil 1:1), and even the Jerusalem church
had deacons and elders (Acts 6; 15:2-6). Interchangeability of the titles
"bishop" (Gr. episkopos) and "elder" is a clear 1st cen. usage. Plurality of
elders was Pauline policy (Acts 14:23; Phil 1:1), and remuneration of elders
was taught by Paul in I Cor 9:7-14. The existence of female deacons is
paralleled by the case of Phoebe (Rom 16:1), and the enrollment of widows
had a much earlier instance in Acts 6.

The examples of organization are much more at home in the 1st cen. than in
the 2nd cen. church of Ignatius. The Qumran sectarians well before a.d. 70
had an overseer or superintendent (mfbaqqer, the ordinary Aram. and Heb.
word for overseer and exact equivalent of Gr. episkopos, Manual of
Discipline 6:12-14; see Frank M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran,
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1958, pp. 175 ff.).

3. Doctrinal viewpoint. Sometimes it is argued that the Pastorals reflect a
lowered theology from Paul. The author is supposed to be a sincere Paulinist
(thus accounting for certain similarities to Paul's teaching), but Paul's
basic doctrines are missing, and even some of his terminology is allegedly
used in a different way.

However, God is presented as Father ( I Tim 1:2), who chose the redeemed
from eternity past (II Tim 2:10), and became their Saviour through Christ's
mediation (I Tim 1:1; 2:5-6). Salvation is based on God's grace, not man's
works (Tit 3:5). The Holy Spirit is the One who warns believers (I Tim 4:1).
The purpose of the epistle dictated its scope, and hence it is not
legitimate to expect exhaustive treatment of theological truths in this
manual of procedure for church administration.

4. Linguistic peculiarities. Since the appearance of P. N. Harrison's The
Problem of the Pastoral Epistles in 1921, this argument has had great
influence. Harrison pointed to the large number of words which occur only
once in the NT (hapax legomena), and argued that the proportion of new words
per page in the Pastorals is significantly higher than in the ten Paulines.
Other peculiarities are the absence of characteristic Pauline words and
certain word groups. Affinities have been claimed with 2nd cen. vocabulary
and style.

However, if the comparison of new words to total vocabulary is made, the
result is quite different, and the Pastorals have only a slightly higher
percentage than Romans. Of the words that occur in the ten Paulines but not
in the Pastorals, 80 percent of them appear in one letter only, thus missing
from the other nine as well as the Pastorals. Of the 175 hapaxes in the
Pastorals, 80 of them are found also in the LXX. Of the hapaxes which are
found in the writings of 2nd cen. Church Fathers, all but a few were known
prior to a.d. 50. Thus a case for 2nd cen. authorship has hardly been
established. The total length of the Pastorals and of the other ten Paulines
is much too small to allow any rigid conclusions based on statistical
analysis. A difference in subject matter calls for different vocabulary. It
may also be noted that these alleged linguistic differences apparently never
caused suspicion in the early church.

5. Heretical opposition. The heresy under attack in the Pastorals is alleged
by some to have been 2nd cen. Gnosticism. References in I Tim 1:4; 4:1-5;
6:20 have been appealed to as demanding this conclusion. However, the
author's use of the common word antithesis in I Tim 6:20 is no proof that
Marcion's treatise of that name was in view. Further, nowhere in Gnostic
literature are aeons called "genealogies" (I Tim 1:4). It is better to
regard them as Jewish, as a similar reference in Tit 1:14 clearly implies,
as well as the context in I Timothy.

The discovery of Coptic codices of Gnostic treatises originally written in
Gr. in the 2nd cen. a.d. confirms the testimony of Irenaeus and Hippolytus
about Gnostic origins. The Gnostics were specifically Christian heretics who
quoted widely from the authentic NT books. The movement began in Palestine
and Syria within two decades after Pentecost in direct opposition to the
gospel. Thus reaction against the radical ideas of the Gnostics could be
expected in the later NT epistles (W. F. Albright, History, Archaeology and
Christian Humanism, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964, pp. 39-42,277, 295). See
Gnosticism. 

Pfeiffer, Charles F., Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, (Chicago, IL: Moody
Press) 1975, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.

> Rod Rilea, Customer Service Representative
> Logos Research Systems, Inc
> 715 SE Fidalgo Avenue, Oak Harbor WA 98277
> *   Tel:     (800) 875-6467 x 2216  *  Fax:    (360) 675-8169
* Email:   rrilea AT logos.com         * Web:     http://www.logos.com
FREE email list management service  http://www.ChristianEmailService.com


Subject: External Evidence of Authorship
From: "Kevin Smith" <kgs AT iafrica.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:19:06 +0200
X-Message-Number: 4

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0069_01BF14F7.6A9CC5C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear friends

This is my first post to this list. My thesis promoter suggested that =
somone on the list may be able to help out with the following problem.

In studying the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (=3D PE) I found =
conflicting evaluations of how strong the external evidence for Pauline =
authorship of the PE is when compared with the external evidence for =
other Pauline Epistles. Guthrie (NT Introduction, p. 585-588) says the =
PE are as well attested as any of the other Paulines except for Romans =
and 1 Corinthians. W.G.Kummel (Introduction to the NT, p. 370) and =
Dibelius-Conzelmann (The Pastoral Epistles, p. 1-2) both regard them as =
being poorly attested.

I would like to review the external evidence for the other 10 Paulines =
so that I can compare it with that of the PE, but neither Guthrie nor =
Kummel list it. Could anyone help me out, either by listing the main =
witnesses for each letter or by pointing me to a publication that gives =
such a listing.

Many thanks,

Kevin Smith
Doctoral student
University of Stellenbosch
South Africa
kgs AT iafrica.com

------=_NextPart_000_0069_01BF14F7.6A9CC5C0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Dear friends</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>This is my first post to this list. =
My thesis=20
promoter suggested that somone on the list may be able to help out with =
the=20
following problem.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>In studying the authorship of the =
Pastoral=20
Epistles (=3D PE) I found conflicting evaluations of how strong the =
external=20
evidence for Pauline authorship of the PE is when compared with the =
external=20
evidence for other Pauline Epistles. Guthrie (<EM>NT Introduction, p.=20
585-588</EM>) says the PE are as well attested as any of the other =
Paulines=20
except for Romans and 1 Corinthians. W.G.Kummel (<EM>Introduction to the =
NT, p.=20
370</EM>) and Dibelius-Conzelmann (<EM>The Pastoral Epistles, p. =
1-2</EM>) both=20
regard them as being poorly attested.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I would like to review the external =
evidence for=20
the other 10 Paulines so that I can compare it with that of the PE, but =
neither=20
Guthrie nor Kummel list it. Could anyone help me out, either by listing =
the main=20
witnesses for each letter or by pointing me to a publication that gives =
such a=20
listing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Many thanks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Kevin Smith</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Doctoral student</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>University of =
Stellenbosch</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>South Africa</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:kgs AT iafrica.com";>kgs AT iafrica.com</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></=
HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0069_01BF14F7.6A9CC5C0--