Interesting Thoughts on Original Sin

The difficulty I see in this position (1 Timothy being a 'later writing' by someone other than Paul) is that the letter is in the Canon of Scripture. It was demonstrably accepted by the early church as true and truthful. The letter begins with:
1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
1Ti 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

It stands to reason, then, that when anyone believes that Paul was not the author, that person by default must believe that the letter begins with a series of bald-faced lies. If the writer was concocting a false letter by pretending to be Paul and pretending to know Timothy, there is no possible way the document could be true (let alone inspired by the Holy Spirit). And if this were the case, the early church was deceived and this letter has no place in the Canon. (I am trying to picture the Council attendees saying, "We don't think Paul wrote this, but it's divinely inspired, so let's include it anyway." )

Therefore, the first statement (thinking it is a later writing) and the second ("in no way does this question the rightful place of 1 Timothy in the Canon") are contradictory and mutually exclusive statements. To me, that position seems intellectually untenable.

 

Here is another thought. When Genesis was written, no one remained alive who had been in the Garden to witness the events, and the account could only have been passed down by word of mouth, so modern "scholars" get away with their manipulations and goosey-loosey interpretations of Genesis. But the N.T. was written at a time when witnesses still lived. Early Christians still lived who knew Paul and Timothy. If a "new" letter suddenly came to light 50 or 100 years after both men died--a letter which no Christian had previously heard of--wouldn't folks be suspicious of it? Wouldn't they question its genuineness and veracity? But 1 Timothy is one of those letters that the Council attendees believed had been passed around among the local churches, and accepted as true, since the very early years.

I have never read any evidence in the writings of the early fathers that they believed there were falsifications or errors within the books and letters they passed down to us as Scripture. The early church did not hold goosey-loosey interpretations anything like these modern concoctions of "Bible criticism." Show me any writer from among the early churchmen, if you can, who wrote that they didn't think Paul wrote 1 Timothy, or for that matter that they doubted the claimed authorship of any one of the Gospels or Epistles. Or show me any such writer who stated their doubt concerning the truth or accuracy of anything written within any one of those Gospels or Epistles. I am convinced that they all--to a man-- accepted these writings as true and accurate, with no reservations. Why shouldn't modern Christians do the same?

 

What did Marcion think of them? They are not anywhere on his list, completely missing, not mentioned for either including or ditching, (c. 150 AD).

The authorship of the Pastorals 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus is suspect and debatable for a number of valid reasons, both external to them and internally within them. To dogmatically deny this is to tacitly suggest that the church was entirely infallible in its selection of material for the canon. (Which of course Biblical Inerrantists would have us all believe because THEY need it to be so or else THEY will then refuse to believe it's inspired by God, (no longer perfect enough for them), never minding that such a claim of inerrancy might not actually be the truth).

The church could quite easily have been in error one thousand six-hundred and sixty-two years ago, when it was convinced that these documents were genuinely authored by St. Paul. Ever since Adam and Eve believed the line sold them by a talking snake ALL human beings have been subject to error and the church on earth was, before then, and is now, entirely composed of fallible human beings. There has been considerably more study of the material and more time to do it since about the year 360 when most of the canon was decided. The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament and 1 & 2 Timothy are in it. It was not however until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on the Biblical canon and it was decided entirely by holy but fallible men.
.

 

What we call pseudonymity and plagiarism were considered normal practice in the ancient world. They weren’t of themselves taken as evidence of dishonesty or malicious intent on the part of the actual author. Biblical literature is no different in that regard. Specific books were included in the biblical canon because those books, when interpreted in a particular way, said what the Church wanted to say, not necessarily because of who (actually) wrote them.

 

The point isn't pseudonymity or anonymity; Hebrews is anonymous, but was accepted as canonical regardless of who wrote it. Hebrews doesn't claim a false authorship -- the author simply never announces himself. The pastoral letters claim to be directly from Paul. If they are not so, they are fraudulent and should be treated as such, pious or no. The early Church was highly suspicious of such fraud, which is part of the argument as to why the pastoral letters are probably genuine. It's also why we do not have, e.g., the Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Judas, etc. etc. The early church was actually quite good at separating Apostolic writings from non-Apostolic. (They did tend to bind non-canonical writings together with canonical writings into codexes for convenience and economy, however, which tends to confuse even the textual critics who should know better.)

There are lots of hypotheses about the pastorals: that only fragments remained of the originals and someone later redacted them into complete works; that Paul (essentially) gave Luke a bullet list of points he wanted made and then allowed Luke to write the letters himself; that someone who knew Paul (Apollos?) crafted the letters after his death in accordance with his wishes; and so on. None of this stuff holds water -- why would someone else include all the little personal details that Paul includes in his letters? Why praise Timothy's mother and grandmother (Eunice and Lois) who would have been unknown to anyone else at that point and long dead anyway (2 Tim. 1:5)? Why include all the individual greetings and imprecations ("Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm.") at the end of the second letter to Timothy? It's silly to think that anyone other than Paul wrote these letters. Obviously an amanuensis was involved, since Paul's habit of long years was to use one (it may indeed have been Luke for all we know). But Paul's authentic voice rings out from them.

 

I unreservedly reject the idea that books of the Bible are "no different" from common writings in regard to practices of pseudonymity and plagiarism. What an incredibly low, scandalous, and slanderous view of holy scripture!

Even if those literary practices "were considered normal practice in the ancient world," it strains credulity to suggest that anyone who writes lies was not being dishonest or that the readers of lies would not consider them dishonest. If they actually were of that mindset, their consciences must have been seared. Let's recall that prostitution, adultery, thefts, and a host of other sinful practices were also "considered normal practice" in that world (and are becoming normalized in today's secular society as well). Are we to suppose that right and wrong are to be evaluated on the basis of what a sinful society considers "normal practice"?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness" is one of God's commandments. It is extremely absurd and laughable to suggest that the writer of a letter would purposely "bear false witness" as to his identity and other details, ostensibly to create a document that teaches upright moral behavior and sincere godliness!

I will remind everyone of this forum's terms of service, which includes the following:

3. Scripture
There shall be no derogatory statements about Scripture, such as that it is not the word of God, not fully inspired, or teaches anything but the truth.​

It has been stated by some in this thread that a part of scripture teaches a falsehood: namely, that the writer of 1 Timothy falsely claimed to be a respected Apostle of the faith.

It has been implied by some that a part of scripture is not the inspired word of God: namely, the part where the writer falsely claims to be Paul. Or, if they maintain that this alleged falsehood is the word of God, then God is being labeled a liar.

 

You realize this is circular reasoning, right? Pseudonymity wasn’t regarded as “bearing false witness” in the ancient world. We cannot impose modern standards on the way we read ancient texts, if we want to understand those texts the way their authors understood them. The books that now belong to the NT canon would have been read as ordinary works the same way everything else was at the time they were written, before they were recognized as belonging to a body of sacred texts.

 

Authorship as a thing gains traction with the coming of Mr Caxton's machine because it was then a matter of value. The ascription in the ancient world was pretty much an acknowledgement of someone's importance and the high esteem in which they were held by those who wrote and by the intended hearers. As such, discussing the authorship of 1 Timothy does not in any sense contravene rule II.3. I am fully cognizant of the rule, and indeed it conforms to my view of scripture, and I was at pains to be very clear about upholding its place in the canon of the New Testament.

 

We also don’t know that the author of 1 Timothy claimed Pauline authorship. That ascription might have been added by a later editor. It may very well have been an epistle that a bishop or a community might have recognized as Pauline in tone, if not in actual vocabulary. So a later editor, in good faith, could have added an ascription of Pauline authorship, with the thought, “if Paul were alive today he would have written this”. Or the original author might have been responsible, with the same thought in mind. Understanding of ‘authorship’ was more fluid in those days. No disrespect to the Scriptures or questioning of the canon is intended by such observations. It’s just the way the world at that time was.

 

I recognize no circular reasoning whatsoever.

pseudonym
soo͞d′n-ĭm″
noun

1. A fictitious name, especially a pen name.
2. A false name; especially, a fictitious name assumed by an author in order to conceal or veil his identity.

​

Anyone who writes under a "pretend" name is free to do so. However, anyone who writes under the name of another actual person is presenting his writing falsely as that of the other person. Since Paul was respected in the Christian community, the person who assumed Paul's name would necessarily have been acting deceitfully for ulterior motives. In other words, he would have been lying. That fact would have been just as true in "the ancient world" as it is today.

Imagine if I hacked your account and assumed your screen name & avatar, and said, "Hi, this is Invictus," blah blah. Hey, I'm just writing under a pseudonym, right? So that would not not be deceitful? Of course it would be. I would be bearing false witness as to what you have & have not said.

 

As I’ve been saying, it would not have been interpreted the way you’re presenting it at that time. In any event, the weight of the evidence points away from genuine Pauline authorship. It isn’t sufficient to argue “it mustn’t have been so, therefore it wasn’t so”. Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch. David didn’t write the Psalms. The Gospels weren’t written by the authors to whom tradition ascribes them. Nor was every epistle claiming to be written by Paul actually written by him. This isn’t a big deal. The canon still is what it is.

 

If it were only so minimal and simple as you portray it!

1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
1Ti 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

In "good faith"?? There is no circumstance in which altering someone else's statement can be done "in good faith". If some later person took a letter which did not identify its author, and altered it to make it look like Paul, that person is a fabricator and a liar. That's"bad faith." People with good intentions let other people's writings speak for themselves; they do not alter them. A bishop would not be in "good faith" if he took a letter without identifier and, not knowing who wrote it, make it appear to be written by Paul just because he thinks Paul wrote it. That would be a dishonest and disingenuous action unworthy of any decent Christian (let alone a bishop).

 

Doubt and unbelief. It's a wonder some people don't insist on placing their hand into Jesus' side... oh wait, another doubter did that.

 

You make your own point. Our approach and attitude to this have changed significantly over time. The introduction of the printing press made it possible for people to make money from writing. We now have a whole industrial section geared to the protection of intellectual property rights. The intent and purpose of the ascription of documents were to give honour and praise in the ascribing. There was no intent to deceive or conceal, it was not a fictitious or a pen name. It was not written in the 21st century, and our task is to understand its meaning in the context in which it was written and to apply that to our own time. In contemporary terms, it is more like a dedication, and no one here is suggesting it was to deceive or con.

 

It’s ironic that you cite a non-historical Gospel to make your point here. There would also have been nothing objectionable in Thomas’ wanting to verify what he perceived with one sense by confirmation from another sense, to ensure he wasn’t being deceived. “Test the spirits”, no?

 

Both of you gentlement have advanced a hypothesis that Christians of 2000 years ago would not consider it unethical to tack a few extra verses onto the beginning of 1 Timothy, to indicate who they thought the author was. (And then you use that to suggest that the author was someone else entirely; go figure.) But it's just your hypothesis. No PROOF that you're right. You're just waving a wild idea in the air, with no historical support.

Meanwhile, the orthodox believers trust the word of God to be truthful.

There is no way you are going to persuade me that Paul didn't write 1 Timothy, and there appears to be no way you're going to believe that Paul did write 1 Timothy. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm done.

 

That’s fine. It wasn’t the point of the thread anyway.

 

As an aside to this discussion - the Council did question the authorship of certain letters (not the Pastoral letters like we're discussing, but James, Jude and 2 Peter).

James begins:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,

To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion:
​

Jude begins:

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,

To those who are called, who are beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ:​

2 Peter begins:

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
​

Additionally Eusebius writes that he, among many, disputed 2 and 3 John and Revelation were written by the Evangelist, but rather a different John. Eusebius writes that some churches refused to read the above, as well as the Epistle to the Hebrews, in their Churches. Notably he explicitly highlights that the Church of Rome refused to read Hebrews in his time.

The Church Fathers didn't care though. Jerome didn't care about claimed authorship so much he quoted not just the above but the Gospel of the Hebrews in his writings as well - and in the time of Jerome people had already discounted that Gospel because they had determined it was written in the 2nd Century, not by Matthew as was originally thought. And the Council of Rome, in the same time period, added half of the disputed texts (the Antilegomena) to the Canon anyway, even though the majority agreed they weren't written by who they claimed.

Why did they accept some but not others? Because they looked at the content of the writings. They determined James was probably not written by James - some Christian writers in the same time period even claimed the salutation had been added to the letter at a later date. They also determined regardless to put aside arguments over authorship and just agree it was divinely inspired. They determined the Apocalypse of Peter was not written by Peter and also was not divinely inspired, so they tossed it. It's not the apostolic authorship that makes the NT divinely inspired, so it's okay if evidence comes out that they're not apostolically authored (unless you're an inerrantist over an infallibilist).

Also, the legitimacy of the Pastoral Letters were never disputed. But, from modern scholarship it seems quite probable they weren't written by Paul.

 

Thank you for still regarding me as a gentleman. The hypothesis is indeed the considered opinion of many scholars, and I think that it is reasonable. My point remains, that authorship is not a big deal until you can make money out of it, and that becomes a possibility with the advent of the printing press. It indeed changed the world, and without it the Reformation may not have happened, and certainly, it would have been very different without it. I am indifferent as to how that ascription arose. There are some good arguments that support that position. Once upon a time they would have been referred to as proofs, however, in the post-enlightenment agree the very concept of proof has changed.

Orthodox believers do receive the New Testament, including 1 Timothy, as canonical scripture. Your implication that to question Paul's authorship of 1 Timothy is to make one heterodox is unacceptable. I am happy to live in a world we people can have divergent opinions, and still maintain civility and unity.