Exe-Jesus: July 2016

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Who wrote the Books of . . . 1 and 2 Thessalonians?

Who wrote the Books of . . . 1 and 2 Thessalonians?

Posted by Clark Bates
July 30, 2016

Paul's missionary journey to Thessalonica was a volatile one, but resulted in two epistles that have become foundational to the church overall and in varying degrees to particular denominations. Continuing with our series regarding New Testament authorship, we push forward with the contested letters of Paul. While 1 Thessalonians is widely accepted as authentically Pauline, 2 Thessalonians is not. However, the connection between these letters is such that it would be detrimental to not write of both together. In recent years, contemporary skeptical scholarship has all but dismissed the possibility of Pauline authorship in these letters and it is because of this that we now turn our attention to them.

Against Pauline Authorship

Paul visited the city on his second missionary journey, as recorded in the book of Acts (17:1-9). It was a tumultuous stay for three Sabbaths, resulting in a riot, created by Jews within the city. Because of this, Paul and Silas were sent out of the city. Luke's account of Paul's time in Thessalonica, it is suggested, differs dramatically from the references to the visit found in the epistles. If, as Luke recounts, Jews were among the converts during his time, it would be unlikely for Paul to refer to them as having “turned to God from idols” (1 Thess.1:9).

What's more, Luke suggests that Paul's visit was merely three to four weeks (three Sabbaths), yet the epistles speak of activities that surely would have taken longer. For instance, Paul claims to have worked long enough to set an example (1 Thess. 2:9) and praises the Philippians for sending him money twice while he was in Thessalonica (Phil.4:15-16).

Beyond this opposition there are three matters that must be addressed regarding the authorship of 1 and 2 Thessalonians:

The Co-Authorship of the Letters
The Alleged Interpolations in 1 Thessalonians
The Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians

Co-Authorship

Both letters name Paul, Silas, and Timothy as the authors of the letters, yet they are traditionally ascribed strictly to Paul. Many scholars argue that this is not accurate, nor is it fair. The dominant use of the first-person plural within the writing of the epistles, even in the thanksgiving section stands out among the rest of the Pauline corpus, including those letters that name someone else in the salutation (1 Corinthians, Philippians, and Philemon).¹ In antiquity, it was rare to include multiple people within a salutation and the use of the plural “we” would likely have been understood as referring to authorship.

Interpolations of 1 Thessalonians

The authenticity of 1 Thessalonians is not questioned by many scholars today. It exists as one of the seven letters ascribed to Paul in the critical canon Pauline writings. However, critical scholars do argue for the addition of non-Pauline material into the letter known as interpolations. Some suggested sections of interpolation are 2:1-10 and 5:1-11, but most support for this view surrounds 2:13-16.

The use of the phrase “wrath of God” coming upon the Jews, it is argued, must refer to the destruction of the temple in AD70. Therefore, this section could not have been included in the original text which is dated within the mid-50s. What's more, the section reflects a very negative view of the Jew's hope for final salvation which is in direct conflict with Romans 11:26. It is reasonable to assume, then, that this section is especially non-pauline.

Against the Pauline Authorship of 2 Thessalonians

Skepticism regarding the Pauline authorship of this second epistle began in the 19^th century with F.C. Bauer, but much of the modern force against traditional authorship is indebted to the writings of Charles Mason in 1957 and Wolfgang Trilling in 1972. While the usual critical arguments have been employed regarding vocabulary and style as theology have been employed these have not survived into much of the contemporary debate. The two main points of debate regarding the letter in modern scholarship are rather paradoxical. It is argued that 2 Thessalonians is too similar to 1 Thessalonians to have been written by Paul and 2 Thessalonians is too unlike 1 Thessalonians to be written by Paul.

The thrust behind the “similarities” argument is that no author would duplicate material from one letter to another so soon after to the same audience. Both letters share commonalities in salutation, verbal application and structural configuration. It is said that every paragraph in 1 Thessalonians has a counterpart in 2 Thessalonians.² Both letters feature the unusual double thanksgiving (1 Thess. 1:2 and 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:3 and 2:13) and a transitional benediction (1 Thess. 3:11 – 13; 2 Thess. 2:16-17). These similarities lead many scholars to conclude that whoever wrote the epistle clearly utilized 1 Thessalonians as their template.

The striking differences between the letters are also pointed out by much of critical academia, centered largely around the eschatology of the two epistles. It is suggested that Paul displays a sense of imminence in 1 Thessalonians which is very typical of the early church. He has an expectation of being alive for the second coming (4:17) and cautions his readers against trying to calculate the times and dates (5:1-4). However, in 2 Thessalonians warns against thinking that the second coming is imminent. He even states that the rebellion and introduction of the “man of lawlessness” must precede the second coming (2:1-4). If 1 Thessalonians is Pauline and reflects his actual eschatology, it must be that 2 Thessalonians is not.

In Favor of Pauline Authorship

It should be noted that Luke's account of Paul's time in Thessalonica makes reference to “God-fearers” as well as Jews becoming converts to the gospel. God-feareres were Gentiles that worshiped the Hebrew God and would still be, in Jewish eyes, Gentiles. Because of this, embracing the one true God found through Jesus Christ would be to “turn from idols to the true God.”³

Regarding the length of Paul's sojourn in the city, Luke is actually rather vague. The Acts narrative states that Paul and Silas preached for three Sabbaths and that some time after that certain Jews instigated a riot. There is no clear direction of time, therefore a stay of several months cannot be ruled out. Even with this possibility, however, it is not as unreasonable as critics might suggest that Paul could have accomplished the activity detailed in the Thessalonian epistles over the period of one month.⁴

Co-Authorship

While it is true that the use of first person plurals dominate the epistles, that does not mean the author(s) only uses plurals. In fact, there are several instances of first person singular references in both letters (1 Thess. 2.:18; 3:5; 5:27; 2 Thess. 2:5; 3:17). If the letters had been genuinely co-authored, this would be rather unusual. The use of a first person plural can be seen as a literary device, but it is also possible that Paul makes mention of Silas and Timothy so prevalently precisely because they were closely associated with the church at Thessalonica. Even if it is accepted that the letter is co-authored, Paul would be the primary author and voice of the writing, and thus the ascription of 1 and 2 Thessalonians to the apostle is not unjustified.

Interpolation of 1 Thessalonians

While it shouldn't be minimized that this passage contains harsh overtones toward the Jewish people and its potential conflict with Romans 11, there exists no textual evidence that this passage was ever absent from the epistle. What's more, the suggestion that early Christians would have been able to merely insert new sections into widely distributed Pauline letters without difficulty or trace runs into insurmountable logistic difficulties.⁵ What's more, the verses themselves are not out of context. Paul's commendation of the Thessalonian's reception of the Word of God and encouragement regarding their persecution fit the theme of 2:1-12 nicely. The use of “God's wrath” against the Jews is a sentiment found in other areas of the New Testament related to the widespread Jewish rejection of the Messiah (Matt. 23:32; Acts 7:51-53) and brings to close the sin of Israel and her refusal to listen to God.

In Favor of Pauline Authorship of 2 Thessalonians

The letter claims to be written by Paul, Silas, and Timothy, and is even attested by Paul to be in his own writing (3:17). No responsible early church authority questioned Paul's authorship of 2 Thessalonians.¹ It is included within the Muratorian Canon as well as the Marcion Canon and known by the early church fathers, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin and Irenaeus.

Despite the conventional arguments against Pauline authorship attributed to similarities and dissimilarities, many scholars, not all evangelical, still maintain traditional authorship. The verbal parallels should be acknowledged, but much of the similarities are overblown. The passages in question largely circulate in the opening and closing portions of the letters where you might expect a repetitious formulation. The differences in the letter, especially regarding the body of 2 Thessalonians betray any suspicion of reliance on 1 Thessalonians by a pseudonymous author.

The main point regarding the dissimilarities between the epistles is theological. This argument is considered all but certain by critical scholars but hinges upon the preconceived notion that the apostle could not have held these two eschatological positions simultaneously. As a point of fact, many Jewish apocalypses contain the same mixture of imminence and warning signs that we see in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Even more to the point, the same mixture is found within the gospels. One need only consider Matt. 24:33 with Matt. 24:44b for an example. Like so many circumstances in the dual letters of Paul, the difference in content (eschatological included) rests on the different pastoral needs for each writing.

Critics often overemphasize the teaching of “immediacy” within the early church while also downplaying the importance of imminence in later Christian writings. The eschatology of 2 Thessalonians seems to be dependent on the book of Daniel causing some to consider that the eschatology of each letter are not in conflict but rather two stages of the same crisis.² If this consideration is correct, there ceases to be any difficulty. While most critical scholars posit a pseudonymous author for 2 Thessalonians, the same difficulties that plague this suggestion regarding other Pauline epistles plague this one as well.

Conclusion

While it can be agreed that there is a potential of co-authorship within the letters, the existence of Paul the apostle as the primary author for both remains the more reasonable position. The argument from tradition, the ratification of verbal and structural similarities and eschatological dissimilarities, and the insurmountable difficulties with the suggestion of pseudonymity should lead readers to find assurance in Pauline authorship. These letters are written by an apostle with a sincere pastoral desire toward his church, seeking to commend them, encourage them, and calm them in times of distress and persecution. They are yet another intimate window into the heart the “least of the apostles.”

1F.F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, WBC, (Waco: Word, 1982), xxxii – xxxiii.

2Consider, 1 Thess. 1:1a v. 2 Thess. 1:1a; 1 Thess. 1:3 v. 2 Thess.1:11; 1 Thess. 1:3 v. 2 Thess. 1:3-4; 1 Thess. 1:4 v. 2 Thess. 2:13 among others.

3Rainer, Reisner, Paul's Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 348-49.

4It is argued by several that only one of the gifts sent by the church at Philippi was actually sent to Paul in Thessalonica. Peter T. O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 535-36; Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 3-4.

5Charles Wannamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 30-33.

6D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament: 1 and 2 Thessalonians, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 536.

7Colin R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, SNTSMS 126, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). The basic argument is that the second coming has filled the church with fear rather than joy, resulting in words of encouragement at first, followed by words of solace in the second as an effort to counter false teaching that the second coming has already passed.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Book Review: With My Eyes Wide Open by Brian "Head" Welch

Book Review: With My Eyes Wide Open by Brian Welch

posted by Clark Bates
July 23, 2016

Brian “Head” Welch, With My Eyes Wide Open: Miracles & Mistakes on my Way Back to Korn, Nashville: Nelson Books, 2016.

Contemporary biographies of pop culture icons are not normally my preferred reading. I must admit, that my sole reason for selecting this book, was that I grew up listening to the author's original band Korn. Brian Welch and I are close to the same age and I was on the ground floor of Korn's meteoric rise to stardom. They were a very original band for the time with a sound that, to that point, had never been heard before. My interest in the band diminished over the years and ultimately disappeared as I came to know the Lord and sought to surround myself with those things that lifted up the name of Christ.

Needless to say, after hearing of the author's conversion to Christ some years ago I remained skeptical but hopeful. As the years have progressed, his faith has remained central in his public life and I commend him for that; especially in the culture of heavy metal music. Having not read his initial book I am only marginally familiar with his conversion story, but much of that experience highlights the narrative of this recent work, in which the author takes readers through an open and honest reflection on the years following his conversion and attempts to rejoin the music industry while caring for his ever-growing daughter.

Brian's story stands out in its honesty. Many authors, especially Christian ones, would balk at the thought of recounting tales of failure and doubt, let alone the author's confessions of depression and fear that held him captive. The book's openness can at time be refreshing, while at others infuriating. The reader often finds themselves wondering why the author continues to make the same mistakes, regardless of his willingness to admit his naivete and spiritual immaturity. The single father's narrative of struggle with a daughter turned young woman resonates with all parents, especially those who have lost their children to the world in various manners, but the life changing work of Christ through both of their lives offers a much needed glimmer of hope a the close of an otherwise very dark and somber tale.

What's good about the book is its obvious desire to serve as a cautionary tale in tandem with an inspirational anecdote. Brian writes as one who has nothing to hide and desperately hopes that, in his own self-deprecating manner, his repeated missteps will serve as a guide for those following him. Even though his life in the music industry is not relatable to many at the ground level, the book transcends this as many of the author's circumstances are nothing more than those of any parent seeking the best way to provide for their child and honor God simultaneously. The loss of his daughter to depression, cutting, drugs and the like is one too familiar to many parents, which is why the redemption of this father-daughter relationship by Christ at the close of the book feels so satisfying. Possibly the strongest section of the entire writing is the epilogue in which Brian and his daughter write personal letters to the reader. It is within this letter that the author reveals the evangelist which he has become known for. They are an earnest and heartfelt explanation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the need for all who read this book to receive it.

What's less than good about this book is the theological undercurrent that permeates the pages. While a certain level of leniency is necessary given the author's admittedly new faith, one can't help but wonder how much time the author spends in sincere devotion with God. The book itself contains little-to-no references to Scripture and only speaks of the author's prayer life when he is facing financial difficulty of his own design. This could be intentional, perhaps to aid the book in reaching a wider audience that may be reticent to read a book full of bible passages, but it leaves the reader with an uneasy sense that Brian's faith is based primarily on experience.

The language of the narrative, as it relates to divine matters, belies a certain charismatic motif. While I am not aware of what denomination the author may hold or where he might worship, his mannerisms and dialogue do tend to indicate a denomination less interested in biblical study than blind faith and experience. While this is not meant to detract from the sense of purity in Brian's spirituality, one has to ask that if the author were sincerely involved in daily study would he have still erred in so many ways that would be perhaps more obvious to a seasoned believer? In like manner, the only mention of prayer being when the author is in distress reveals an all-too-common theme within young Christianity. The central key to an awareness of the mind of God is through prayer, thus when believers speak of praying solely when concerned about present circumstances it often reveals more about why they are in said circumstances than it does about their faith.

The book itself reads very easily. The language is not refined prose, nor should it be expected to be, but what stands out most is the stark contrast between the narrative of the text and that of the epilogue. As was mentioned above, the personal letter form the author to his readers in the epilogue powerfully presents the gospel (with scripture) in an unapologetic and sympathetic manner. So different is the wording of the epilogue to that of the body of the text, it leaves the reader wishing the author had written more of this throughout the book.

At its end the book succeeds in its purpose of sharing the difficulties of life while giving glory to the Lord. Where the author may benefit from more purposeful study of God's Word is balanced with his willingness to speak of Christ openly. There is little reason to doubt the author's sincerity as his life exemplifies that of an evangelist tot he lost youth in his musical climate. One prays that as Brian and his daughter continue to grow and age and faith they only grow closer together and to Christ, ever faithfully preaching and testifying to His supremacy. While I no longer find Brian's particular music styling of interest I am encouraged by his life and pray he runs faithfully to the end.

Clark Bates is a graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and manages an apologetics and theology blog at http://www.exejesushermeneutics.blogspot.com.

I received this book free from W Publishing Group and Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookLookBloggers.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

What's the Earliest Complete List of the New Testament Canon?

Given the recent series of posts regarding the Canon of scripture and New Testament authorship, I wanted to share the excellent work that Michael Kruger is doing on the subject:

What is the Earliest Complete List of the Canon of the New Testament

And

Another Look at the Earliest Complete List of the New Testament Canon

Monday, July 11, 2016

Who Wrote the . . . Pastoral Epistles?

Who Wrote the . . . Pastoral Epistles?

posted by Clark Bates

July 11, 2016

The Pastoral Epistles (hereafter known as Pastorals) of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus, are possibly some of the most challenged works within the Pauline corpus. A large number of scholars find the discrepancies in text, setting and style to be insurmountable for traditional authorship and thus suggest that the Pastorals should be seen as the work of a pseudonymous author in the second century. Others examine the same evidence and find it lacking, or even supporting of the traditional Pauline view. In keeping with the series on New Testament authorship what follows is a brief overview of both positions followed by my own personal conclusion on the matter:

Arguments Against Pauline Authorship:

As it relates to textual problems within the Pastorals, most modern scholarship has sought to build upon the writings of P.N. Harrison. According to Harrison, “The three Pastorals make use of 902 words, of which 54 are proper names. Of the remaining 848 words, 306 do not occur in the other ten Pauline letters. Of these 306, at least 175 occur nowhere else in the New Testament. . . this leaves 542 words shared by the Pauline letters and the Pastorals. . . no more than 50 are characteristic Pauline words in the sense that they are not used by other writers in the New Testament.”¹

The existence of such a large amount of foreign word structure is certainly reason to pause. When one examines the writings of the uncontested letters of Paul, a certain symmetry exists within them. Common openings and closings are contained in most, as is the repetitious use of certain theological phrases and terms. The marked lacking of these, combined with the addition of terms never before seen in Paul's work certainly suggests another author. Commenting on this stylistic differences, Becker writes, “One notes also that the dramatic vivacity of Pauline argumentation, with its emotional, outbursts, its dialogue form of thought, its introduction of real or imaginary opponents and objections, and the use of metaphor and image, is replaced by a certain heaviness and repetitious style.”²

In addition to the textual difficulties is the question of “when?”. Historical problems arise within the Pastorals directly because nothing that is mentioned within them can be found in the rest of the New Testament account of Paul's missionary journeys. As it has been noted, “It is difficult to fit the situations envisaged in the Pastorals into what we learn of the life of Paul from Acts and the Pauline letters.” These discrepancies are not minute. The author of these letters has manufactures allusions that would give the impression of an historical setting. For example, Paul's only known contact with Crete was his brief stop there en route to Rome as a prisoner (Acts 27:7-13), and this does not easily square with Titus 1:5, “The reason I left you in Crete. . .” We do not have any source to confirm Paul's wintering at Nicopolis (Tit. 3:12). Similarly, the personalia in the Timothy's do not easily square with what we know of Paul's ministry.³

Given that the texts contain a large number of foreign terms, more commonly seen in the time of the apostolic fathers (2^nd century) and the instances recounted within them cannot be found within the recorded account of Paul's travels, the case against traditional authorship increases. This evidence is only bolstered by the theological problems that exist. Many contend that these letters contain quite a number of Hellenistic terms for the salvation event that Paul would not have used. Phrases such as, “the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10); “one mediator between God and human beings” (1 Tim. 2:5); “the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people” (Tit. 2:11) all incorporate some Pauline terms but are used in non-Pauline ways, leading many scholars to propose a pseudonymous author mimicking Paul.

One merely needs to consider how they might respond if someone handed them a letter from, say a pen pal, and when they opened it found that it was written in a way they'd never seen their friend write, discussing events they'd never heard of and covering topics, to this point, never before discussed between the two of you. Your immediate reaction would be that some forgery has taken place. If possible, you might try to contact this friend and verify the letter with them. This is not possible with the ancient text, but skeptics of traditional authorship that the same suspicion would, and should, be warranted.

Arguments For Pauline Authorship

In response to the various factors working against traditional authorship, many scholars have rallied to defend the apostle and mitigate the evidence presented by the opposition as insurmountable. As it relates to textual support, Guthrie has noted, “While it is true that most words found in the Pastorals share more in common with the writings of the apostolic fathers than with Paul, these words are also common in other writings prior to A.D. 50.”⁴ It cannot be argued that Paul would not have known them, nor could it be argued that Paul's total vocabulary consisted of those words contained in the ten epistles (2,177). If Paul used these words it would not be questionable that he could use 306 more (The Pastorals), drawn from the vocabulary of his day.

In addition, it is misleading to say that 306 non-Pauline words occur in the Pastorals. 127 of these words occur in 1 Timothy alone, while 2 Timothy contains 81 and Titus 45.⁵ This means that the vast majority of words are found only in one epistle and the three differ from one another as well. No one suggests that there were three separate pseudepigraphers, yet, according to the earlier reasoning, this should be the case. To put it another way, if the figures show that the three Pastorals were written by one author other than Paul, they also show that the author may well have been Paul.

While much has been said regarding the statistical data of the text it remains that the statistics themselves cannot tells us why the differences exist. They only raise more questions. Is it because of different topics, or because these epistles were written to individuals with certain challenges and not to churches with quite a different set of challenges, or because of different amaneusis?⁶ ⁷ As was suggested above, these uncertainties are quantified if we posit the use of an amaneusis. Some have speculated that Paul used the historian, Luke as his amaneusis, giving him more freedom in the case of the pastorals than in the ten, while others contend that the differences are accounted for precisely because Paul did not use an amaneusis in the Pastorals as he did with ten. While each of these positions are possible, both are speculative and lack enough information to be considered as anything beyond a reasonable possibility. Undoubtedly there are differences. The question is how to account for them. One wonders if the difference between the Pastorals and the ten Pauline letters is greater than the difference that might legitimately be expected between private letters to trusted fellow workers and public letters to churches, letters usually addressing specific difficulties.⁸

Something not regularly addressed by those favoring pseudonymity is the genre of the individual Pastorals. The genres of 1 Timothy and Titus are commonly accepted as “mandate letters” while 2 Timothy is seen as the genre of “testament”. Both of these genres would be well known to the apostle but less so to someone writing in the second century. The mandate letter, in particular, lends considerable support to Pauline authorship, as Johnson notes, “When the letter was read to the people to whom the delegate was sent, the will of the chief administrator would be clear, and the standards expected of the delegate would simultaneously encourage the delegate to faithfulness and provide some written security for the readers against whimsical authority usurped by the delegate. . .”⁹

The reality is that we know fairly little of what Paul did during those years, and there are huge gaps when other events could be squeezed in.

The difficulty with placing Paul in the locations and circumstances noted in the Pastorals I clearly a matte that requires address, and, as should be expected, there is no shortage of response. In way of historical support for the Pastorals, it's often disclosed that the epistle 1 Clement offers credence to the writing of the Pastorals within Paul's lifetime. In 1 Clement 5:7 it is reported that Paul journeyed “to the outer limits of the West.” Within the Roman Empire this would commonly be received as Spain, despite the protests of skeptics. If this is the case, what Clement records could only have taken place after Acts 28.

The reality is that we know fairly little of what Paul did during those years, and there are huge gaps when other events could be squeezed in. When did Paul undergo the frequent imprisonments, five beatings, three shipwrecks and other sufferings mentioned in 2 Cor. 11:23-27? Acts 20:31 records that Paul spent three years in Ephesus but records none of Paul's trips during those years, even though we read in 2 Cor. 1:23-2:1 that Paul visited Corinth at that time. What other journeys might he have taken?

One proposal is that Paul endured two separate Roman imprisonments, only one of which is recorded in Scripture. There is nothing improbable with believing that Paul could have been released after his meeting with Caesar at the close of Acts, and what's more, numerous patristic sources stipulate that Paul was released from his imprisonment in Rome and ministered once again in the East.¹⁰ You may say that it is difficult to fit the events of the Pastorals into the recorded life of Paul, but it is a far greater claim to say that it is impossible to do so.

Finally, if the letter were written by a pseudonymous author a century later, what are we to make of the need for Paul's cloak and scrolls (2 Tim. 4:13); his leaving Timothy in Ephesus when he went to Macedonia (1 Tim. 1:3); his hope to see Timothy soon (1 Tim. 3:14-15); his saying that Onesiphorus searched and found him in Rome (2 Tim. 1:16-17); or his instruction to Titus to help Zenas and Apollos (Tit. 3:13)? No convincing reason has been suggested for the manufacture of hypothetical situations of this nature. The pastorals contain nothing of the legendary accounts contained within known pseudonymous writings like the Acts of Paul in the second century. The Pastorals are more akin tot he Pauline letters than they are to the catalog of known pseudonymous documents of the early church.

Similar arguments for theological support of Pauline authorship are leveled in the same manner as those for textual and historical support. Primarily they rest upon the uneven nature of reporting from those in opposition. Much is made of the theological phrases used in the Pastorals containing Pauline phrases used in non-Pauline ways, but it must be acknowledged that the phrases are still Pauline. Just as it is in the statistical data, the anti-Pauline emphasis is often focused on at the expense of the numerous Pauline phrases used within the Pastorals in the same manner as the uncontested letters of Paul. Terms such as Christ's coming to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15); salvation because of divine mercy and not our works (Tit. 3:5); the importance of faith in Christ (1 Tim.3:13); of election (Tit. 1:!); and of grace (2 Tim. 1:9), among others. The theological style of the Pastorals is inconclusive. Scholars are divided regarding the implication of specific verses, seeing direct opposition to traditional authorship as well as direct support for it. Historically, each of the Pastorals was quoted by church fathers like Polycarp, Irenaeus. Trajan, Clement of Alexandria and others. Its canonicity was never questioned with the exception of the heretic Marcion and Tatian, both of which were unique in their perspectives and not indicative of the whole.

Conclusion

As I have written before, where tradition maintains a particular author and the evidence against such authorship is weak or speculative, there is little reason to adopt another view. In the case of the Pastorals, I believe it can rightly be said that the evidence for and against authorship rests largely on speculation. It is simply the case that not enough information is known for certain. What remains is what might be seen as more likely. I believe that, given the evidence, it is more likely that the Pastoral epistles are the work of the apostle Paul somewhere near the end of his life in the mid to late 1^st century. To believe otherwise creates more problems than it answers and becomes like the pulling of a loose string that unravels a sweater. Each is welcome to conduct their own study to determine where they might fall, for what has been presented is only a cursory examination of the topic.

1 P.N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, (London: Oxford University Press, 1921) 20.

2 J.C. Becker, “Pastoral Letters,” IDB, 3.670.

3 D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An introduction to the New Testament, “The Pastoral Epistles” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 561.

4 Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul, (London: Tyndale, 1956), 9.

5Harrison, Epistles, 20.

6 George K. Barr, “Two Styles in the New Testament Epistles,” LLC, 18 (2003): 235-48.

7As a side note, an amaneusis was a term applied to someone hired by a person seeking to communicate a letter or writing but unable or unwilling to write it themselves. This was a common practice in Greco-Roman culture and one employed by the apostle Paul regularly. The level of freedom allowed to an amaneusis was largely left up to the employer. Some were given a wide range of freedom with linguistic style and interpretation while others were directed to merely record. Because of this and the unknown freedom Paul may have allowed, the use of amaneusis creates another caveat into understanding the differences in the Pastorals.

8Carson and Moo, Introduction, 561.

9 Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul's Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New Testament in Context (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 106-8.

10 The Muratorian Canon, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Theodoret of Mopsuestia, Pelagius and Theodoret.