Do you think Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles?

Discussion in 'Sacred Scripture' started by ChristusResurrexit, Mar 2, 2015.

  1. ChristusResurrexit

    ChristusResurrexit Member

    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Hey my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus! I bless you, Nomi Patris, et Filli, et Spiritus Sancti. (Hope you return the blessing.) :)

    So, I have kind of noticed this forum does not have many post. So, I guess I plan on maybe helping to start discussions alittle bit more often here than I originally planned. Maybe it will help with peoples boredom. Lol.

    Anyway, what do you personally think of the pastoral epistles, if you have studied them enough to know what I'm talking about? I'll just say, for those who don't know what I'm speaking of, is 1 & 2 Timothy, as well as Titus. Many scholars believe Paul did not write them. I have to say, I agree with them based on the internal and external evidence we have. I also have one interesting theory that also helps show why Paul may have not written them, if anyone wants to hear it. What do you guys think? Anyone? Anyone have evidence contrary to scholars claims?
     
  2. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,010
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    I believe St. Paul the Apostle wrote the 1st and 2nd epistles to St. Timothy and the epistle to St. Titus. I believe this because I believe the early church knew more than any post-modern "scholar" 1900 years removed from their writing could ever credibly infer from reading (more like reading into) the grammar cues they claim to find.

    Moreover, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God written, infallible and inerrant in all things on which it authoritatively speaks. I believe that every word of it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus it has God as its principle author and God cannot lie. So, when the author of these epistles identifies himself as St. Paul, it is not just his testimony we have for its authenticity--it is God's too.

    I am not surprised that "scholars" would try to destroy the credibility God's primary medium for communicating the Gospel. Scholars 2000 years ago tried to do the same to Christ, calling him a demoniac, a madman, a heretic, and more. What I am surprised by is the number of serious minded so-called Christians who actually fall for this rot. How can anyone who considers himself a Christian really entertain that the Bible isn't all that it says it is? To do so undermines the witness of both the Scriptures and the catholic tradition of the Church.
     
    JoeLaughon and highchurchman like this.
  3. Anne

    Anne Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    183
    Likes Received:
    199
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglo-Catholic
    Which scholars refute Paul as the author??
     
  4. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,010
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Please share your theory CR.
     
  5. ChristusResurrexit

    ChristusResurrexit Member

    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Well, a majority of scholars in Biblical scholarship dismiss Paul wrote them. I don't see this as a challenge to Christianity in anyway shape or form. It's inspired scripture, in the end, it does not matter the author.
     
  6. ChristusResurrexit

    ChristusResurrexit Member

    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I don't see why we have the take this as a challenge to our faith, because I simply don't see it. But, it's your opinion. I'm sure many of my own Catholic brethren may not agree with me. Many would though. It's an opinion, not really a theological issue; as I see it. I thought it would be fun to have a little discussion over it. See what we can get out. Maybe even see if we can all come to a similar conclusion! :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2015
  7. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,010
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    I can give you 3 reasons why it is taken to be and is a challenge to the Christian faith. They are as follows:

    1 Timothy 1:1-2..."Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord."

    2 Timothy 1:1-2..."Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, to Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."

    Titus 1:1-4..."Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; but hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour; to Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour."

    If the Bible is a trustworthy witness of our faith then these passages must be equally trustworthy. If no,t then why believe any of it?

    Both the Bible and Catholic Tradition claim the author of these 3 epistles is St Paul. Your scholars says these attributions are lies, often based on something as scant and flimsy as what they call internal evidence (I guess the internal evidence provided in these 3 passages is ignored, how often this is the case). These are mutually exclusive stances. One side is right the other is wrong. I would think a Christian would side with the Bible and with the Tradition of the Church. But what do I know. I am merely a lowly layman.
     
  8. ChristusResurrexit

    ChristusResurrexit Member

    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I see what you're saying. However, he could have just been writing in the spirit of Paul for a Pauline audience. I mean, we also need to consider the historical context as well. I think the internal and external evidence should also be examined. These are important for scholars and historians. We as Christians can't simply dismiss something just because we don't like it. We really need to examine it. You see, the Bible is read too much in the theological perspective at times. But other times, it's read too much in the historical-critical perspective too much at times. I think we need to do alittle of both. You know? Because, clearly, the works are theological works. So reading it theologically would be good so we know what the theology is. Then, we should read it in a historical-critical method so we can fully understand it. We need to examine it with a so called "critical eye". Meaning, we need to be rational about it. :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2015
  9. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,010
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Hmm, so a rational reading would be one that says that the portions of the text that clearly identify St. Paul as the author are not St Paul himself but rather a medium channeling St. Paul's spirit. Who wrote the epistles to Timothy and Titus then?
     
  10. ChristusResurrexit

    ChristusResurrexit Member

    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Catholic
    There were many psuedographical writers in this time period. This is not uncommon to see. Some hypothesize that the Pastoral epistles were written after the time of the heretic Marcion, because he didn't include them in his canon. Though, I don't believe that at all, it is interesting to note that Marcion did not include these in his biblical canon. It's unknown why, seeing that Marcion included the majority of Paul's writings in his canon. Back to the author, he was simply writing in the spirit of Paul. I guess the best way I can put it is in the person of Paul... We need to consider the internal evidence as well which shows that Paul may have not written these. As I said, let us be rational.
     
  11. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,010
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Let us be. So which of the pseudopigraphical authors was it that wrote in the spirit of paul in these epistles?
     
  12. ChristusResurrexit

    ChristusResurrexit Member

    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Well, he is pseudonymous. We can't know. Most believe it was a someone within the Pauline community. I have a slightly different theory. I think it could have been a Jewish Christian, or at least a Christian outside of the Pauline community who had been influenced by Paul in certain areas. This is based on the language he uses to describe the atonement in 1 Timothy 2:6.
     
  13. Anne

    Anne Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    183
    Likes Received:
    199
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglo-Catholic
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  14. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    884
    Likes Received:
    723
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    If he is pseudonymous then why couldn't he just be St Paul himself? What evidence do we have that it couldn't have been Paul, when the Epistles bear his signature, linguistic/syntactical style and other epigraphic evidence used by scholars to connect documents to people?
     
    Lowly Layman and Anne like this.
  15. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,010
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Rationally speaking, if you can't know who wrote the epistles then you can't know that Paul didn't write them.

    But let's also consider this pseudonymous writer hypothesis of yours. It is not uncommon you say. Was it common in the bible? I think not. We have four gospels. Only two are attributed to Apostles. Mark and Luke were followers of Peter and Paul and Tradition teaches that they wrote down the reminiscences of the Apostles. If ghostwriting was such a common practice then surely these gospels would have been prime candidates to be pseudopigraphically written by the Apostles whose reminiscences they are to lend authority and credence to them and yet they were not. This weakens the likelihood that other books would be attributed pseudopigraphically when these important gospels weren't. And without any other evidence, not even the name of another suspect who you can point to and say "he wrote the Timothy and Titus letters" then it is irrational to expect an objective person to believe it was written by anyone other than the person whose name is on it. You might as well claim it was the one armed man. There's just as much evidence that he did it as anyone else other than Paul. What your asking us to do is to take your statements and those of your schoslars on faith even while your statement would undermine our Faith. Rational? I think you fall short of the standard you demand.

    But there's more to consider. We are Christians. Our reason is shackled to the gospel. We are not to use a "critical eye" but the eyes of faith. The gospel says that these words were written that ye might believe not that ye might criticize. Our God is the author of truth not a collaborator with forgers. Give him--and his book-- more credit than that.

    -Blessings and good night.
     
    Anne likes this.
  16. ChristusResurrexit

    ChristusResurrexit Member

    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Catholic
    It doesn't have his linguistic/syntactical style. One of the top reasons the majority of scholars reject it.
     
  17. ChristusResurrexit

    ChristusResurrexit Member

    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Actually, the gospels are considered pseudonymous. Even beyond that. They are simply considered anonymous. I only think the tradition that Luke wrote his gospel is the 100% accurate one. Internal and external evidence clearly shows that John did not write his gospel. Matthew and Mark may have been written by what tradition says, however, I highly doubt this based on the external evidence and some internal evidence.

    When I talk about the critical eye, I mean we should be rational about it. Yes, we are to read with faith, but not blind faith! I've seen both sides of the argument, and I come to my own conclusion which I view as the most logical. I am a rational person. I can't have 100% faith unless I know what I believe is reasonable. Not only this, but clear rational study also helps me better refute the non-believers.
     
  18. Anne

    Anne Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    183
    Likes Received:
    199
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglo-Catholic
    That's the scariest thing I've read all day. I believe in a crucified and resurrected King....nothing reasonable 'bout that, as G. K. Chesterton would put it.
     
  19. Anne

    Anne Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    183
    Likes Received:
    199
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglo-Catholic
    Sorry, that was too facetious. I meant to illustrate that either our reason is influenced primarily by scripture and secondarily by tradition or we elevate it above these two authorities. Which is what, I believe, LL was getting at concerning a "critical eye."
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.
  20. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    884
    Likes Received:
    723
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Proof?
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.

Share This Page