There are two letters addressed to this disciple of Paul in the NT canon, but neither shows an awareness of the existence of the other (contrast 2 Pet 3:1). The term "first" does not mean that the letter so designated was written first, but only that it is longer than the other, which was therefore called "second". The subject of 1 Tim is similar to that of Titus; but again, there is nothing in either missive to show that there is any awareness of the other, nor do we know which of the three Pastorals was written first.

1. The Background

   Some biographical details about Timothy from Acts and the rest of the Pauline corpus are useful because they may have shaped the author's image of the recipient. Timothy lived in Lystra, in southeast Asia Minor, and was probably converted as a result of Paul's evangelization there, around 46 AD. When the apostle passed through again around 50 AD, Timothy joined him as an itinerant missionary and remained in his service as a faithful assistant throughout Paul's career. According to Acts 16:1-3, Timothy's father was a Gentile, but his mother was a Jewish Christian, and Paul had him circumcised so as not to scandalize the Jews. During the "second missionary journey" of 50-52, Timothy accompanied Paul to Phrygia and Galatia, then to Europe (Philippi, Thessalonica and Beroea). He was sent back to strengthen the Thessalonians, and joined Paul in Corinth bringing good news (1 Thess 3:6; Acts 18:5), so that his name was joined to Paul's in the sending of 1 Thess (1:1). He helped Paul in the evangelization of Corinth (2 Cor 1:19); but we lose track of him during the years when, according to Acts 18:18 - 19:1, Paul returned to Caesarea, Jerusalem and Syrian Antioch, only to set out again ("Third Missionary Journey") through Galatia and Phrygia to Ephesus. During Paul's stay in Ephesus in 54-57, Timothy was with him at least part of the time. In late 56 or early 57, probably to collect money to take to Jerusalem, Paul sent him from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 19:22; 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10) with the understanding that he would eventually go to Corinth. It seems that Timothy arrived there just after 1 Corinth was delivered. The message was not well received, and Timothy hurried back to Paul in Ephesus to report it. Timothy was probably with Paul when the apostle finally left Ephesus in the summer of 57, for when Titus brought the good news of the resolution of the situation in Corinth, Paul and Timothy sent 2 Corinthians (1:1) from Macedonia. Timothy spent the winter of 57-58 with Paul in Corinth, during the sending period of Rom (16, 21). In Acts 20:4-5, he is with the apostle at the beginning of the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem before Pentecost in 58; he went ahead and waited for Paul at Troas. This is the last mention of Timothy in Acts. At the time of the composition of the undisputed letters (ca. 51-58?), Timothy's name was mentioned as co-author of 1 Thessalonians, Phlm and 1 Corinthians. Since his name is also associated with Paul's in Col 1:1 and respectable scholars believe that this letter was written by Paul from Rome, it is often thought that Timothy was with Paul during the Roman imprisonment of 61-63; but this is far from certain.

   Over the years, Paul wrote warm evaluations of Timothy. In 1 Thess 3:2, Timothy is presented as Paul's "brother" and servant of God in the gospel of Christ. Paul writes to the Philippians (2:19-23): "I have no one like him"; he is Paul's son in the service of the gospel, and he does not look after his own interests but those of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 4:17; 16:10-11, Timothy is described as Paul's beloved and faithful child, not to be despised for doing the Lord's work.

   How does the biographical information in 1 Tim fit into this picture? In its attitude towards Timothy, I Tim (as well as 2 Tim) is very close to the undisputed Pauline letters: Timothy is a beloved son of Paul and a servant of God; he is to be an example, just as he learned from Paul; he is not to be despised. Beyond that, 1 Tim describes Timothy as a young man (4:12; 5:1) who had a gift, which was given to him "through prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbyters" (4:14); he was also subject to frequent illnesses (5:23). At the time of his writing, he was in Ephesus, left there by Paul who had gone to Macedonia (1:3), hoping to return to Ephesus soon (3:14-15; 4:13). This information does not fit into the career of Paul and Timothy that we have just recounted from the Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters. For example, when Paul left Ephesus for Macedonia in 57, Timothy did not stay behind. Therefore, as in the case of the letter to Titus, scholars have postulated a "second career" for Paul after the end of his captivity in Rome in 63, arguing that Paul returned to Ephesus (despite Acts 20:25,38, where he told the Ephesian elders in about 58 that they would never see him again), and then, in the mid-60s, he left Timothy behind and went to Macedonia.

2. General Analysis of the Message

   The "division according to content" in the summary above shows a complex sequence in 1 Tim, with much going back and forth. Sometimes Paul tells Timothy what to do (1:3-20; 4:6ff); at other times he addresses the problems of the community directly (e.g., in chapter 2). The topics discussed in the first section are taken up later (false teaching, church structure). We will follow the organization of content adopted in the treatment of Titus, even though they are not treated in the same order in 1 Tim.

   1. Opening Formula: 1: 1-2

      It is shorter than Titus'. Instead of the unusual "servant of God" that we find there, the apostle identifies himself as commissioned by God our Savior and Jesus Christ our hope, which gives him a basis on which to give instructions to the church. The address to Timothy and the greeting are virtually the same as those to Titus.

   2. Body:
      1. 3: 1-13; 5: 3-22a: Theme of church structure or order
         1. Presbyter/bishops

            This subject was first dealt with in Titus and concerned only the appointment of presbyters/bishops in Crete. The situation is more complicated in 1 Tim, as the treatment of the structure in Ephesus spans two strangely unrelated segments, the first describing the bishop (overseer) and deacons, the second describing widows and presbyters. Christianity in Ephesus dated back to at least the 50s, while Christianity in Crete may not have been established until several decades later. The fact that 1 Tim 5:19-20 proposes a process in Ephesus for bringing charges against a presbyter suggests an institution that had existed for some time. Most of the qualifications stipulated in Titus 1:5-9 for combined presbyters/bishops who are the teachers of the community are stipulated in 1 Tim 3:1-7 for bishops. In all likelihood, these bishops were presbyters; but since 5:17 indicates that only some presbyters were involved in preaching and teaching, it is likely that not all presbyters were bishops. The statement that anyone who aspires to the role of bishop aspires to a noble office (3:1) shows how highly regarded that position was. The warning to those who are bishops not to become conceited (3:6) would make sense in such a situation.

         2. Deacons

            Alongside the presbyters / bishops of Ephesus, there are deacons (3:8-13) who should have similar qualifications: respectable, not given to wine, not seeking dishonest gain, married only once, managing their children and home well. It is not clear why some men are presbyters / bishops and others are deacons. It is specified in 3:10 that deacons are to be tested before they are allowed to serve, so they may represent a younger group. However, there may have been social or economic distinctions about which we have no information and can only guess, e.g., the deacons may not have been wealthy enough to have a large house where the Christian community could gather - if possession of such a space was expected of presbyters / bishops as part of the hospitality requirement. The root of the verb diakonein suggests service, and deacons may have performed more menial services than those provided by presbyters/bishops. The promise that deacons who serve well will obtain an excellent position suggests the possibility of becoming presbyters / bishops (which might explain why the qualifications are the same). There are probably also women deacons (3:11) for whom the qualifications are listed: respectable, temperate, trustworthy. It can be assumed that they performed the same type of service as the male deacons, but some have speculated that at times the female deacons performed for women functions that the male deacons performed for men. Unfortunately, we do not know anything specific about this service since 1 Tim does not say a word about what deacons are to do for the Christian community. In Acts 6:1-6, diakonein is used for serving at the tables, and from this came the idea that deacons served at the tables and distributed food. Yet, historically, it is a misunderstanding to consider Stephen and the Hellenistic leaders chosen in this scene in Acts as deacons; at most, one can ask whether Luke was interpreting them in light of the deacons he knew in the churches of the 80s. Since Stephen and Philip were preaching, this could mean that the later deacons were preaching and teaching.

         3. Widows

            The widows (5:3-16) were another group at Ephesus. They had a fixed community status, but it is not clear whether they should be described as holding a position or constituting an order. Paul makes a clear distinction between women who are widows only because their husbands have died, and those who have a special role in the church, for whom he lists qualifications. Special ("true") widows must be sixty years of age, have been married only once (and thus committed to remain single), have no dependent children or grandchildren, have raised their children well, and be known for their good deeds. They were expected to be women with no personal wealth (5:5,16), and therefore the church was to provide for them from the common goods (Acts 6:1). Elements of their role in the church included prayer night and day, hospitality, even in menial tasks (washing "the feet of the saints"), helping those in need. (We have no idea how this role of widows differed from that of male and female deacons.)

            What is peculiar about Paul's description is the clearly hostile tone toward widows who should not be included in the special group of widows. These ineligible widows should be caring for their children or grandchildren. He feared that the youngest among them might even be "merry widows," indulging in sensual pleasures and desires that might outweigh their dedication to Christ, visiting and gossiping, seeking another husband, and thus breaking their lifelong commitment to their first husband. In the long run, therefore, Paul finds it better for young widows to remarry and have children than to be a source of scandal. "Some who have gone astray following Satan" (5:15).

      2. 1: 3-20 ; 3: 14 - 4: 10 ; 6: 3-5: Theme of false (and true) teaching

         False teaching is described in several places in 1 Tim, and we cannot be sure that the same danger is always in mind. As in the letter to Titus, there is much polemic in the description, which makes it difficult to know precisely what the fundamental error was. Paul (1:13-16) mentions that he himself was converted from being a blasphemer and persecutor by the merciful grace of Christ - an implicit encouragement that others, now opposed to sound doctrine, might be converted, for Christ came into the world to save sinners. Timothy, despite his youth, has received prophecies about himself, has followed sound doctrine and is able to be a good minister of Christ (1:18-19; 4:6) by thwarting the false teachers. In addition to an indication of the Jewish origin of the opponents who would be teachers of the Law (1:7), there is an unclear reference to their devotion to myths and genealogies (1:4; 4:7; cf. Titus 1:14; 3:9; 2 Tim 4:4). The condemnation of sins against the ten commandments (implicit in 1:8-10) measures teachers against a general standard of orthopraxy. But some of the points criticized are more specific: the opponents forbid people to marry and command them to abstain from certain foods (4:3). (More obscurely, moreover, as teachers [or perhaps religious gurus] they are very interested in making money: 6:5, 10). This leaves us with the same question raised in the treatment of Titus: Does the teaching reflect a background of Jewish apocrypha, or Jewish gnosticism ("falsely called knowledge" [gnōsis] : 6, 20), or a combination of both ? Some biblical scholars have argued that the likely object of the warning was Cynic philosophy. Individual Cynic philosophers spoke sarcastically and skeptically about God or the gods and traditional religious beliefs and praised those who did not marry and raise families; they were accused of being mercenary. The decision about the tone of the false teaching depends in part on our analysis of which members of the community these teachers most affected, which we will now address.

      3. 2: 1-15 ; 4: 11 - 5: 2 ; 5: 22b - 6: 2 ; 6: 6-19: Theme of community relations and belief

         This theme is more difficult to identify in 1 Tim than in Titus, since it is partly linked to the condemnation of false teaching, for example in 1:8-11. As in Titus 2:1-10, there is a household code, but in a scattered form. Thus, in 1 Tim 5:1-2 there are instructions on the relationship between older and younger members of the community, men and women; in 2:8-15 there are instructions for men and women on how to behave during worship; in 6:1-2 slaves are told not to show less respect to Christian masters than to non-Christian masters (again without any corresponding warning for the masters); in 2:1-2 prayer is inculcated on behalf of those in authority.

         The instructions for men and women in worship are disproportionately corrective for women. The emphasis on modesty and decency of dress leads to the requirement that women be quiet and submissive while learning (2:9-12). "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men" may refer primarily to a cultic context but probably goes further, as the reference to Eve suggests. Normally these verses are read as a general attitude towards women; and in today's context they will be understood as extreme in limiting women's roles, especially when combined with a reproachful attitude towards young widows in 5:11-15. Yet there has been recent support for another way of interpreting this passage in the context of the letter's attack on false teaching. That these were wealthy women is suggested by the warning against gold, pearls and costly clothing (2:9); and this may be related to the castigation of self-indulgent widows who have the leisure to go from house to house (5:6, 13); see also the attacks on wealth in 6:9, 17. If the false teachers made these women the target of their message, this would explain the accusation that the teachers were seeking monetary gain (6:5). Thus, it was not women in general, but those who became spokespersons for the error to which they had been drawn, who would have been prohibited from teaching and holding authority (2:12). By going from house to house, the women may have spread the error. The women giving this false teaching are compared to Eve who deceived Adam (2:13-14); and the salvation of women through childbearing (2:15,23 echoed in the exhortation of young widows to remarry and have children in 5:14) may have been an invocation of the authority of Gen 3:16 to contradict the teachers who forbade marriage (1 Tim 4:3). Such a scenario is not impossible in the context of the late first and early second centuries. Attention has been drawn to the apocryphal Acts composed in the second century which illustrates a teaching rejecting eating meat, drinking wine and participating in sexual intercourse. Acts also envisions a permanent Christian widowhood that offers independence from marriage and family life and at times presents Gnostic tendencies. Some consider that women played a role in the composition of these Acts and believe that the criticism of "ungodly and foolish myths" in 1 Tim 4:7 was directed against such traditions.

         Beyond the household code, there is a particular distrust of wealth in 6:5-10.17-19, including the famous "The love of money is the root of all evil" (6:10). A notable number of hymnal passages support the author's moral instructions, the most famous of which is 3:16, where, in six short poetic lines, the mystery of religion/piety is praised in terms of what happened to Christ. Hymnic elements have also been recognized in 6:7-8 and in the benediction of 6:15-16. The latter has a liturgical resonance in its lines: "The blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the only one who possesses immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen nor can see." This blessing would have been seen as giving Christ titles that could elsewhere be claimed by the emperor. Jesus became part of a monotheistic creedal statement of "truth" in 2:4-5, "There is one God; there is one mediator between God and human beings, the human Christ Jesus himself."

   3. Concluding Formula: 6, 20-21

      We do not find here the greetings that end most of the Pauline letters, including Titus and 2 Tim, but only a passionate appeal to Timothy. Just as some interpret the long opening formula of Titus as an introduction to the Three Pastorals, so some see the abrupt ending of 1 Tim as a preparation for 2 Tim already planned. Such collective planning will be challenged below.

3. Who Wrote Titus and I Timothy?

   We now have enough material to examine this question; and since 2 Tim is partly a different problem, let us leave it for the next chapter. Paul is the apparent writer, even to the point of providing details of his personal travels. Yet, for reasons that will be enumerated later, this has been disputed over the past 200 years. One suggested alternative is that of a close disciple of Paul carrying out the implied designs of the master, in other words the same solution as suggested for the other deutero-Pauline writings. Yet some scholars would place a greater distance between Paul and the author of the Pastorals. Some see them as written not by a disciple of Paul but by a sympathetic commentator on the Pauline heritage (including some information about Titus and Timothy that he incorporated into a fictional sequence) who wanted to strengthen the organization of the local church against the emerging Gnosticism. More radically, others will see it as a non-Pauline attempt to correct the apostle's legacy: at a time when Paul's memory was dangerously invoked by Marcion and the apocryphal Acts, the Pastorals would have been written to domesticate that memory and bring the apostle into the mainstream. Indeed, it has been suggested that the falsification was part of a plan to deceive readers. Part of the question is whether the content of the Pastorals can be attributed to Paul's life (i.e., to a "second career" in the period 63-66 after that recounted in Acts). Those who call the Pastorals pseudepigraphic place them in the 80-90s, in the early second century or in the last third of that century.

   1. The Pastorals' use of particles, conjunctions, and adverbs differs markedly from Paul's undisputed use. Moreover, about a quarter of the vocabulary of the Pastorals does not appear in the other Pauline letters, but this cumulative statistic does not do justice to the fact that the vocabulary of 2 Tim is not so alien to the Pauline heritage. Compared to the undisputed Pauline letters, the collective vocabulary of the Pastorals bears less of the traits of the Septuagint and is closer to that of the ethical directions of the popular Greek philosophers, and the style is less Hebraic and more colorless and monotonous (longer sentences, less varied use of particles, etc.). More specifically, for example, the epithets of Hellenistic piety are exuberantly attributed to God and Christ in a distinctive way: « Our great God and Savior » (Titus 2:13); « the blessed and unique sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords » (1 Tim 6:15). The value of the argument of vocabulary and style has been questioned because of Paul's possible use of scribes to whom he might have given a liberty that would have affected the statistical comparison. The subject matter of the Pastorals, especially that concerning the structure of the church, is different from that of the other Pauline letters - a factor that could explain some of the differences in vocabulary. In addition, Pauline vocabulary and style are strangely mixed with non-Pauline ones. Nevertheless, the statistics create doubt about Pauline writing, especially when combined with other arguments.

   2. In general, a similar relationship would be generated by a comparison of the theology and ethics of the Pastorals with those of the undisputed Pauline writings. Familiar Pauline terms (law, faith, justice) appear but with a slightly different nuance. On the whole, the same differences are found in the other Pauline letters, but not in such a concentrated way. In the Pastorals there is an unusual amount of polemics, often stereotyped.

   3. The data about Paul's ministry and whereabouts cannot be integrated with what we know about Paul's life before the Roman imprisonment of 61-63. If the material is historical and Paul did write these letters, they require us to hypothesize a second career in the mid-60s. Terminus a quo: Titus and 1 Tim could not have been written, therefore, before 64-66.

   4. Those who place the Pastorals at the end of the second century point out that they do not appear in Marcion's canon (c. 150); yet Tertullian (Adversus Marcion 5.21) maintains that Marcion knew of them and rejected them. Nor do they appear in Beatty Papyrus II (P⁴⁶; ca. 200); but this papyrus codex contains only Pauline letters to communities and does not claim to be a complete collection. The Rylands papyrus, P³², from about the same period, contained Titus. Some have argued that the Pastorals were written to correct the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (late 2nd century), which place great emphasis on the need to remain a virgin and in which a woman teaches the men; yet, in the opposite direction, we might see elements in the Pastorals that would later appear in full in the Acts of Thecla. Although these Acts share in part the characters and places mentioned in 2 Tim, their description of Paul's journey does not closely match the Pauline journeys reflected in the Pastorals; and if the details of the Pastorals are not historical, the most that can be said is that they and the Acts of Thecla show a similar tendency to develop Paul's career. By the end of the second century, the Muratori Fragment already accepts the Pastorals as authoritative. Polycarp's Philippians 4:1 is close to 1 Tim 6:10 and 6:7 and the widow motif of 5:3-6; and most judge that Polycarp's letter (120-130 AD) was influenced by the Pastorals and not the other way around. Terminus ante quem: Thus, the external evidence is slightly in favor of the writing of the Pastorals before the year 125.

   5. The false teaching that is criticized is often seen as a Judaizing Gnosticism that developed after Paul's lifetime. Although this identification has been supported by scholars, we have seen that the exact nature of what is being criticized in the Pastorals is difficult to discern. There is not enough evidence in the Pastorals to suggest that one of the major Gnostic systems of the second century was the target of criticism.

   6. Still on the subject of dating, some argue that the church structure envisioned in the Pastorals goes beyond Paul's lifetime. It is true that none of the undisputed Pauline letters mention presbyters; but the structure of the church is not the subject of these writings, so this silence could be accidental. Furthermore, there is an equivalence between those called presbyters and the bishop (overseer) or bishops; and Phil 1:1 mentions the latter. Therefore, we cannot know for sure when the presbyteral structure that was prevalent in the last third of the first century (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet 5:1-4; Jas 5:14) became common. Although Paul's imminent death is mentioned only in 2 Tim (not Titus or 1 Tim), one can imagine that his concern for the structure of the churches he was leaving behind increased as he became aware of his impending death. This concern would also be understandable shortly after Paul's death, when the newly orphaned churches were seeking reassurance.

   7. According to Titus, the main structure to be inaugurated in Crete by the appointment of Titus is that of presbyters/bishops; 1 Tim assumes the existence in Ephesus of presbyters/bishops (with some specialization of presbyters) and deacons. The bipartite structure is not far removed from that of the Didache 15:1 (c. 100?), which exhorts people to appoint bishops and deacons for themselves to take the place of the errant apostles and prophets, and that of 1 Clement 42:4,5; 44:4-5; 54:2 (c. 96), which refers to presbyters/bishops and deacons. It differs from the tripartite structure advocated by Ignatius in most of his letters (ca. 110), namely a bishop, presbyters and deacons. Therefore, if one were to postulate a linear progression (which is surely too simple a picture), the Pastorals would be placed in time before Ignatius' writings.

   8. As many have noted, in atmosphere and vocabulary, the Pastorals are very close to Luke's Acts, so much so that some have thought that the same person wrote them, or that one was written in partial dependence on the other. The reference in 2 Tim 3:11 to Paul's sufferings and what happened to him « at Antioch, Iconium and Lystra » echoes Paul's journey recorded only in Acts 13:14 - 14:20. The idea of presbyters in every city (Titus 1:5) is found in Acts 14:23. Presbyters who were bishops / overseers (Titus, 1 Tim) are attested in Acts 20:17.28. Elderly widows who refuse remarriage and spend night and day in prayer are attested in Tim 5:5, 9 and Luke 2:36-37. A farewell address by Paul in view of his upcoming departure is found both in 2 Tim 3:10 - 4:8 and in Acts 20:18-35; the farewell in 2 Tim is addressed through Timothy to the church in Ephesus and the farewell in Acts is addressed to the presbyter/bishops of Ephesus. The most plausible dating of Luke-Acts is in the 80s.

   9. 1 Tim implies the existence of some type of false teaching in Ephesus. If we accept this information as historical, we must take into account that the letter to the angel of the Ephesian church in Revelation 2:1-7 (probably written in the 90s) and Ignatius' Ephesians (ca. 110) do not describe a similar heresy. Was it eradicated by 1 Tim, which was written in Ephesus before these two letters, hence the praise in Rev 2:2 for putting the false apostles to the test, and in Ephesians 8:1 for not being deceived? Or did the heresy develop after these two letters, so that 1 Tim was written after them?

   10. More than the undisputed Pauline letters, the Pastorals contain a great deal of biographical material, especially recent missionary activities that are not otherwise attested: where Paul hopes to spend the winter, what happened to him at his first court hearing (in Judea or Rome), and the names and sometimes locations of some fifteen of Paul's friends and enemies who are not mentioned anywhere else in the NT. Did someone other than Paul invent such details and scatter them over three letters? Using the example of the pseudepigraphic writings attributed to Plato, some biblical scholars argue that personal details intended to impress the reader and give an appearance of authenticity are typical of ancient pseudepigraphy. It should not be forgotten, however, that many of these details play a role in the exhortatory thrust of the Pastorals; they point to aspects of Paul's life that should be emulated. Likewise, personal details are not unimportant for dating, especially if one includes those of 2 Tim. Such details would require knowledge of other Pauline letters and Acts, and would these works have been readily available before 100?

   11. If the Pastorals are the creations of a pseudepigrapher, why did he choose as a model letters addressed to individuals (of which there is only one undisputed Pauline example: Phlm) instead of the much more common model of letters addressed to communities? Why didn't he fashion letters from Paul to Crete and Ephesus instead of Titus and 1 Tim? If the Pastorals were written in the 2nd century and the biographical details reported in them are fictitious, why was their fate (acceptance into the biblical canon) so different from that of other fictitious compositions by or about Paul, e.g., 3 Corinthians, Letter to the Laodiceans, Acts of Paul, and Thecla, which have not been accepted?

   12. Those who do not believe in inspiration and those who do but without a literalist understanding of divine communication do not find the notion of pseudepigraphy to be an obstacle in itself when understood in terms of disciples continuing the Pauline tradition and assuming the mantle of the apostle to speak faithfully on his behalf to new issues facing a later generation. It is difficult, however, to see how a proposition that the author of the Pastorals was intentionally deceptive and consciously wished to thwart the authentic legacy of Paul can fit into any notion of inspiration, however sophisticated.

   In various ways, the factors we have just enumerated have contributed to a situation where about 80-90% of modern scholars agree that the Pastorals were written after Paul's life, and of these, the majority would accept the period between 80 and 100 as the most plausible context for their composition. The majority would also interpret them as having some continuity with Paul's ministry and thought, but not as close a continuity as is evident in Col and Eph and even 2 Thess.

4. Implications of Pseudepigraphy for the Pastoral Letters

   If pseudepigraphic authorship is accepted, virtually all questions about letters must be rethought. No one can claim to give definitive answers to the questions that now arise, but readers need to know the issues.

   1. Authority of the Pastorals?

      The authority of the historical Paul as an interpreter of Jesus Christ is based on the call of God and the revelation given to him, as well as on his response to God's grace through self-sacrificing faithfulness to the apostolic mission. The disciples of Paul who accompanied him and shared his apostolic mission acquired a shared authority. But for the disciples of the disciples, the lineage of authority inevitably begins to wane. If the author of the Pastorals is a disciple several times removed from the historical Paul, do his instructions have the same force as those of the historical Paul? The answer to this question may well reflect our acceptance of biblical inspiration and authority - if the Spirit gave all these writings to Christ's Church, then as Scripture the Pastorals have no less divine warrant than the undisputed Pauline letters.

   2. Composition as a Group?

      Did the pseudepigraphic author compose the letters separately as the problem arose in real places, for example Crete, Ephesus and Rome (where Paul died)? This would be the simplest solution, for if one assumes that there was a master plan from the beginning, why would the author have planned two letters to Timothy when he could have incorporated Paul's impending death into the first letter? One can also question the assumption that the writer began with a master plan for Paul's travels, which we can detect by treating the letters as a group, namely a Paul who is supposed to have left Crete (Titus) for Ephesus, from where he went to Macedonia (1 Tim) to winter in Nicopolis in Dalmatia (Illyricum), before being taken into captivity again in Rome (2 Tim).

   3. Historicity of the Travels?

      More radically, one must ask whether Paul's "second career" has any historicity. Of course, even if he wrote several decades later, the author may have known details about Paul's later years that have not been preserved elsewhere; and there is also the theory that some of the earlier Pauline fragments were incorporated into the Pastorals. Nevertheless, most who advance the pseudepigrapha hypothesis believe that it is a fictional embellishment, for imaginative settings are often part of the genre. By creating a plausibly realistic background from the type of apostolic ministry Paul once carried out, the writer would be appealing to Paul as the apostle par excellence.

   4. Historicity of the Geographical Addresses?

      We must ask whether the surface indications of the Pastorals (to Titus in Crete, to Timothy in Ephesus in 1 Tim, to Timothy probably in Asia Minor in 2 Tim) are authentic. Geographically, were Crete and Ephesus really the recipients (even if it was decades after Paul's death)? Would the recipients not have known that these letters could not be from Paul? Or were the letters intended for a wider audience, so that sites in the Pauline tradition were mentioned to illustrate types of Christian churches - Crete to illustrate newly formed churches, and Ephesus to illustrate long-standing churches?

   5. Historicity of the Personal Addressees?

      In one theory of pseudepigraphy, Paul has become the model apostle, prophet and teacher, instructing on church situations beyond his time - a voice that even speaks of dangers to come. What about the two disciples this Paul addresses? Were Titus and Timothy still active when the Pastorals were written, so that in some way, even if from beyond the grave, these letters supported their attempts to continue the Pauline legacy? Or were they dead and these letters were written to areas where they had worked in order to bless, support and develop the structures established by these followers of Paul? Or were the names simply selected from Pauline history and used paradigmatically to address leaders and churches in general decades later? Those who favor the latter solution actually see the Pastorals as doubly pseudonymous: historically, they were not written by Paul and are not addressed to Timothy and Titus.

   6. Historicity of Places of Composition?

      The letter to Titus does not specify the place from which it was written, but it is likely to be Ephesus or Macedonia; 1 Tim indicates Macedonia; 2 Tim indicates Rome. Are these places really representative of the origin of the Pastorals, or were places in Paul's life chosen to embellish the message? Around the year 96, the church in Rome wrote to the church in Corinth with advice and correction, drawing on the example of Peter and Paul who struggled to death, and citing elements of Paul's life beyond the career described in Acts (1 Clement 5:2-7). The similarities with the Pastorals are obvious, so that at least the Roman origin advanced by 2 Tim could be historical for the Pastorals - not Rome at the time Paul died, but Rome where he had died and was now revered as an apostle par excellence. One's opinion on this question will depend to some extent on the discussion in the next chapter, where we consider the possibility that Titus and 1 Tim were written in imitation of a 2 Tim closer to Paul.

5. Issues and Problems for Reflection
   1. Many questions and issues have been raised in the previous two paragraphs, and they are fundamental to understanding the Pastorals. But behind all these decisions lies a question that is fundamental to the meaning of the Pastorals today: are the instructions in the Pastorals concerning the structure and order of the Church a legitimate continuation of the Pauline tradition? This question can be asked even if one rejects the idea that the Pastorals are a deliberate falsification intended to impose non-Pauline ideas, for even a loyal and well-meaning disciple can unconsciously distort the legacy of a master. Sometimes because of the researchers' roots in churches without episcopacy, sometimes because of their own aversion to such a fixed structure, they have argued that the emphasis on structure in the Pastorals is a perversion of Paul's appreciation of the charisms - a prime example of the corrupting influence of early Catholicism. Others have noted that in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 Paul indicated that charisms could cause problems and that passages such as 1 Thessalonians 5:12 (those above you in the Lord), Philippians 1:1 (bishops and deacons), and Romans 12:8 (understood as referring to presidents or leaders) show that Paul was not opposed to authoritarian structures. They would argue that a more articulate structure like the Pastorals was necessary if the churches were to avoid disastrous divisions once the authoritative apostle had disappeared from the scene through death. Although sociological factors inevitably shape the growth of authority structures for a society to survive, in the classical theology of churches that accept the ancient tradition, the development of the presbyter/bishop and deacon structure was directed by God as normative. Indeed, even the post-Neotestamental development of a tripartite structure of bishop, presbyters, and deacons is regarded by many churches as normative and irreversible. Clearly, the position taken on this issue is of ecumenical importance.

   2. If one considers the structure that develops in the Pastorals as faithful to Paul's strains (or as authoritative, normative, even irreversible), does this mean that it is irreformable? This structure developed in a particular type of society (male dominated) under particular circumstances (acute danger of false teaching). To what extent have these particularities influenced the development, creating possibilities for deformation? Is a directive such as « I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man » (1 Tim 2:12) a permanent orientation for a church led by male presbyters/bishops, or is it simply the product of a time when most women did not have the same education as men? The maintenance of a received faith is opposed to the coming of false teaching (1:19; 4:1). Do such alternatives allow new and beneficial ideas to defy thoughtless repetition? Are they not one-sided in favoring the status quo? If the Pastorals have developed a more stable structure than that which depends on charisms, has 1 Corinthians 12 lost all relevance for such a structured church? Does it simply depict a bygone stage in the life of the early church? Or, to be faithful to the whole of the NT, must not a church structured by appointed leaders also make room for those who are unsystematically raised up by the gift of the Spirit? To what extent should those so gifted by the Spirit show obedience and respect to leaders who are part of a structure that has been created by the same Spirit? These are perennial questions in the Christian churches.