1
Authorship of 2 Timothy: Neglected Viewpoints on Genre and Dating
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
the degree of Bachelors of Arts with honors in Religious Studies from
Duke University
By
Justin Paley
Advisor: Dr. Mark Goodacre
Committee Members: Dr. Adam Hollowell, Dr. Susan Eastman
Duke University
April, 2017
2
Abstract
This thesis will explore the authorship, genre, and date of Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy.
2 Timothy, alongside 1 Timothy and Titus, constitute what scholars term the “Pastoral
Epistles”. The Pastoral Epistles identify themselves to be from the hand Paul. However,
since the early 19th century, a majority of scholars have questioned this claim and argued in
favor of a pseudonymous author who wrote in Paul’s name after his death. Consequently,
they are often dated sometime after the death of Paul (~62 CE) and taken to be a reflection
of late 1st century/2nd century Christianity. The differences between the Pastorals and
Paul’s other letters in areas such as vocabulary, style, and theology are often cited in
backing up this claim. This thesis first surveys what scholarship has to say about these
differences and possible solutions. Subsequently, the case will be made for 2 Timothy’s
uniqueness amongst the “Pastoral Epistles” and why the Pastoral Epistles should be
studied as three separate letters rather than as a group. The focus will then turn to the
consequences of grouping 2 Timothy with 1 Timothy and Titus and what consequences
reconsideration of 2 Timothy’s dating and genre can have for our understanding of its
nature and provenance.
3
Table of Contents
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................
Part One - The Pastoral Epistles and the Issue of Authorship
Chapter 1: Issues Concerning Authorship .......................................................................................
External Evidence ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Stylistic Differences ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
Theology................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Historical Setting ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Chapter 2: Proposed Solutions ............................................................................................................
Fragment Hypothesis ......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Secretary Hypothesis........................................................................................................................................................ 31
Pseudepigraphal ................................................................................................................................................................ 35
Pseudepigraphy and Dating ...................................................................................................................... 42
Part Two – An Evaluation of 2 Timothy: Dating, Genre and Provenance
Chapter 3: Shortcomings In Recent Scholarship ...........................................................................
The Historical Timothy ................................................................................................................................................... 45
Historical Figures of 2 Timothy .................................................................................................................................. 48
2 Timothy’s Place Amongst the Pastorals .............................................................................................................. 51
Women in 1 & 2 Timothy................................................................................................................................................ 53
4
Interrelationship Between the Pastorals................................................................................................................ 54
Chapter 4: Warranted Considerations in Dating and Genre
Non-Traditional Dating of 2 Timothy ....................................................................................................................... 60
The Role of Genre in Understanding 2 Timothy ................................................................................................. 67
Reconciling Date and Location ................................................................................................................................... 70
2 Timothy and Paul’s First Roman Imprisonment ............................................................................... 73
Timothy’s Location ...................................................................................................................................... 77
2 Timothy and the Acts of Paul ..................................................................................................................................... 79
Part Three – 2 Timothy the Pastoral Epistle or 2 Timothy the Pauline Epistle?
Chapter 5: Present and Future Scholarship on 2 Timothy
2 Timothy as a Pauline Text .......................................................................................................................................... 85
The Pauline Nature of 2 Timothy: Implications for Authorship ................................................................... 88
2 Timothy and Philippians: A Case Example .......................................................................................................... 92
Implications of New Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 95
Michael Prior and 2 Timothy: Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................. 99
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................
Bibliography
Appendix
5
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Pastoral Epistles and the Early Church .....................................................................................11
Figure 2: Words unique to the Pastoral Epistles .......................................................................................19
Figure 3: Occurrences of words in the PE that are found in other Pauline Epistles ......................59
Figure 4: Structure of 2 Timothy 4:1-8 .........................................................................................................62
Figure 5: The Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of Paul and Thecla.........................................................83
Figure 6: Proportion of Words in Each Letter Attributed to Paul Shared by Each PE .................88
Figure 7: Distribution of Words in 2 Timothy ............................................................................................89
Figure 8: Vocabulary of 2 Timothy and Philippians.................................................................................93
Figure 9: Michael Prior on 2 Timothy ........................................................................................................ 102
Appendix A: Figures Across the Pastoral and Prison Epistles ....................................................................
Appendix B: Textual Allusions in 2 Timothy ....................................................................................................
6
Introduction
The three letters attributed to Paul that comprise the so-called “Pastoral Epistles”,
namely 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, were never grouped together as such until the early 19th
century.1 At this time, critical scholarship concerning the Pastoral Epistles began to
materialize, starting with Friedrich Schleiermacher’s rejection of Pauline authorship for 1
Timothy in 1807.2 Since then, there has been an increasing sense of skepticism concerning
these letters; namely, that Paul may not have written them even though they claim to be so
in their respective greetings (1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Tit 1:1).
This skepticism is not without reason. In many ways, the Pastorals have their own
unique vocabulary, style, and content within the Pauline corpus, which some scholars
believe can only be explained by an author other than Paul. As scholarship has paid
increased attention to the Pastorals, many other aspects such as genre, dating, and
presumed historical situation have come into the fold.
While in many ways the PE (as they shall sometimes be referred to in the ensuing
discussion) have been marginalized in scholarship, the much warranted attention which
has revitalized their study is still unfortunately hampered by some blind assumptions and
unwarranted classifications. This thesis will specifically focus on 2 Timothy and how these
assumptions and classifications in scholarship have largely prevented 2 Timothy from
garnering the individual attention and consideration it deserves.
Patrick Rodgers, “The Pastoral Epistles as Deutero-Pauline,” Irish Theological Quarterly
45, no. 4 (1978): 248-260 (250).
1
Raymond F. Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and
Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1988), 89.
2
7
The following pages do not serve to definitively answer questions of authorship,
dating, or any aspect of the Pastorals, which scholars have debated for over a century.
However, after some review of the present scholarly discussion around 2 Timothy and the
Pastorals, this thesis will serve to stress the individuality of 2 Timothy. In doing so, an
attempt will be made to offer some alternate considerations and under-appreciated
positions regarding authorship, genre, and dating in hopes of severing this fascinating
letter from the often unquestioned classifications and assumptions which have
overshadowed it for much too long.
Part One will cover the main topic of debate surrounding the Pastoral Epistles,
namely their authorship, and the proposed solutions to this issue. Part Two will focus on
the genre, dating, and provenance of 2 Timothy specifically. This focus will attempt to
showcase 2 Timothy’s uniqueness compared to the Pastoral Epistles, while also
highlighting some under-appreciated aspects of scholarship that can be of use in
determining the provenance of 2 Timothy. Lastly, Part Three will address where 2 Timothy
currently stands in recent scholarship and offer some recommendations on where
scholarship should head in the future
8
Part One
The Pastoral Epistles and the Issue of
Authorship
9
Chapter 1: Issues Concerning Authorship
External Evidence
In tackling the question of authorship and the Pastoral Epistles, many scholars first
look at what external sources have to offer in hopes of establishing a baseline for dating
these letters and any early attestations to their author.3 Unlike Paul’s “undisputed” letters,
which most scholars believe were “widely known” in Christian circles starting “sometime in
the 90s [CE]”,4 external evidence for knowledge of the Pastoral Epistles prior to the end of
the 2nd century is questionable in strength.
However, there are some scholars who would push back on this proposal and argue
that the external evidence for the Pastorals and Pauline authorship is on par with any other
letter, with the exception of Romans and 1 Corinthians.5 This assessment is based on the
interpretation of textual allusions and similarities between the Pastorals and early
Christian writings. Since there is no explicit mention of the Pastoral Epistles or their author
until the late second century, these claims are based primarily on the identification by
some modern scholars of these parallels in phrasing and terminology.
The earliest of these potential parallels are from Clement of Rome. It is sometimes
argued that he echoes 1 and 2 Timothy throughout his writings, particularly 1 Clement,
Caroline Thayer Mead, The Pauline Epistles Classified According to the External Evidence
(Cambridge: Methodist Review, 1893), 1-6.
3
E.P. Sanders, Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2015), 149.
4
5
Gordon Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing, 1988), 23.
10
which is usually dated around 95 CE.6 For example, similar to the Pastorals 1 Clement puts
emphasis on the “Scriptures” which are regarded as true and divinely inspired (1 Clem
45:2) and on the “full assurance of the Holy Spirit” that was bestowed on the Apostles to
evangelize and appoint bishops and deacons (1 Clem 42:3-4).7
J.N.D. Kelly argues that the early 2nd century Church Fathers Ignatius (~110 CE) and
Polycarp (~120 CE) also display knowledge of the Pastorals.8 Often cited in support of this
claim is Polycarp’s statement in his letter to the Philippians that “the love of money is the
root of all evils” (Philippians 4:1) which echoes 1 Tim 6:7-109 and chapter three of
Ignatius’s Epistle to Polycarp, which states “Let not those who seem worthy of credit, but
teach strange doctrines, fill you with apprehension” and echoes 1 Tim 1:3 and 6:3. 10 Below
is a short table outlining these texts side by side in their Greek form.
George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1992), 13.
6
I. Howard Marshall, “The Holy Spirit in the Pastoral Epistles and the Apostolic Fathers,” in
The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins, ed. Graham Stanton, Bruce Longenecker and Stephen
Barton (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004), 257-269.
7
8
J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (London: A & C Black, 1986), 3-4.
Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers:
Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, trans. Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson (New York: Cosimo Classics, 2007), 31-36.
9
Ignatius, “Epistle to Polycarp,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of
the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (New York:
Cosimo Classics, 2007), 93-96.
10
11
Figure 1: Pastoral Epistles and the Early Church
Ἀρχὴ δὲ πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλαργυρία.
εἰδότες οὖν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἰσηνέγκαμεν εἰς τὸν
κόσμον, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἐξενεγκεῖν τι ἔχομεν
(Philippians 4:1)
Οἱ δοκοῦντες ἀξιόπιστοι εἶναι καὶ
ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες μή σὲ
καταπλησσέτωσαν
(Epistle to Polycarp 3:1)
ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ
φιλαργυρία ἡς τινες ὀρεγόμενοι
ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως καὶ
ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς
(1 Tim 6:10)
Καθὼς παρεκάλεσά σε προσμεῖναι ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν, ἵνα
παραγγείλῃς τισὶν μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν
(1 Tim 1:3)
εἴ τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται
ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις, τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τῇ κατ' εὐσέβειαν
διδασκαλίᾳ,
(1 Tim 6:3)
However, there is some question regarding these early attestations because none of
these authors explicitly says they are quoting from the Pastorals or that Paul is their
author.11 But those who argue in favor of their knowledge consider what they hold to be
the extensive nature of these textual similarities as sufficient evidence of an early
attestation.12
The first clear and explicit testimony to the Pastorals and their Pauline authorship is
from Irenaeus in his book entitled Adversus Haereses (~188 CE).13 In book three, chapter
Jack Barensten, Emerging Leadership in the Pauline Mission: A Social Identity Perspective
on Local Leadership Development in Corinth and Ephesus (Eugene: Pickwick Publications,
2011), 190.
11
Kenneth Berding, “Polycarp’s View of Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy,” Vigilae Christianae
53, no. 4 (1999): 349-306 (351).
12
Mark Harding, All Things to all Cultures: Paul Among Jews, Greeks, and Romans (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013), 328.
13
12
three, Irenaeus states, “of this Linus [who was the successor to Peter in the episcopate],
Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.”14 There is also evidence from the
Muratorian Canon, usually dated around the late 2nd century, which includes the Pastorals
and states Paul as their author.15 In consideration of this evidence, some scholars conclude
that these letters were in general circulation by the third decade of the second century at
the latest.16
This evaluation of the evidence, however, is by no means unchallenged. The
proposed evidence regarding Ignatius and Polycarp’s knowledge of the Pastorals does not
convince those, such as Jack Barensten, who argue against the validity of an early 2nd
century attestation.17 There are several pieces of evidence used in support of this
argument.
Perhaps most notably, the Pastorals are not included in Marcion’s canon, dated
around 140 CE.18 Many believe this was due to theological differences rather than
Marcion’s lack of knowledge of the Pastorals.19 But, the exact reasons are ultimately
unknown and inconclusive.20
Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of
the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (New York:
Cosimo Classics, 2007), 309-567.
14
Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990), 22.
15
16
Berding, “Polycarp’s View of Authorship”, 351.
17
Barensten, Emerging Leadership, 190-91.
Mark Harding, What Are They Saying About the Pastoral Epistles (Mahwah: Paulist Press,
2001), 9.
18
19
Rodgers, “The Pastoral Epistles as Deutero-Pauline”, 249.
13
Furthermore, codex P46, usually dated around 200 CE, does not include the
Pastorals, 2 Thessalonians, or Philemon. Stanley Porter argues that there is evidence from
research conducted on the structure and reconstructed length of Pauline manuscripts to
suggest that P46 may have included 2 Thessalonians and Philemon at one point in time, and
“possibly” the Pastoral Epistles as well.21 That being said, this argument is quite speculative
and Porter backs his argument by positing that we have “no manuscript evidence to prove
that the letters of Paul ever existed in an edition containing only some of the thirteen
letters.”22
In contrast, other scholars such as Howard Marshall and Philip Towner point out
that that the seven leaves missing at the end of P46 may not have been enough to fit all of
the letters in question.23 The majority of scholarship stands with this position and
alternative proposals such as Porters’ remain on the outskirts of discussions about P46 and
other ancient Pauline manuscripts. However just as with Marcion, the exact reasoning for
their exclusion in this case is unknown.24
Stanley Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 2016), 417.
20
21
Ibid.
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 170, quoting David Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection (Bolivar:
Quiet Waters Publications, 2001), 22.
22
I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, The Pastoral Epistles (New York: T&T Clark
International, 2004), 6.
23
24
Ibid.
14
There are also other papyri dated around the start of the third century that do
contain the Pastorals. One example is P32, which is a fragmentary copy of Titus.25 Though
only containing part of one letter, some scholars think that P32 contained multiple letters
because the remaining text begins with Titus 1:11 on the recto and “it is unlikely that a
codex containing a single text would begin on the verso.”26 Consequently, there is good
reason to think that other letters, possibly 1 and 2 Timothy, preceded Titus.27
As this brief survey has shown, there is a wealth of evidence when it comes to
evaluating external attestation of the Pastorals, much of which is subject to interpretation
or speculation. All of these factors have left opinions on the matter split. Consequently,
while external evidence is important to consider, it provides plausible evidence for use by
either side of the authorship debate.
Stylistic and Vocabulary Differences
P.N. Harrison conducted one of the first comprehensive studies concerning the
vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles in his 1921 book The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. In
his comparison of the Pastorals with the rest of the Pauline corpus, Harrison concluded
that there were a total of 906 words across the PE, 306 of which are not found in any of
Paul’s other letters.28 Specific to 2 Timothy, there are 60 words under this category.29
Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New
Testament Books (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 244-45.
25
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
P.N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1921), 26.
28
15
Harrison also observed a far greater proportion of hapax legomena, words that are
not found elsewhere in the New Testament, per page in the Pastorals than any other New
Testament text.30 His overall conclusion was that the vocabulary of the Pastorals was closer
to 2nd century writers than it was to Paul.31 This distinct set of vocabulary and unique style
led Harrison to definitively reject Pauline authorship.
The stylistic differences between the Pastorals and the undisputed Pauline epistles
are less statistical in nature. However, there are a few general observations often stated
when it comes to these differences. Patrick Rodgers argues that the Pastorals use lengthier
words, employ a smaller range of adjectives, and include long lists of moral qualities (see 1
Tim 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).32
Harrison also observed stylistic differences; mainly in the way the Pastorals are
written. He argues that the lack of vigor in the way ideas are expressed and the lack of
Pauline particles and prepositions all point to an author other than Paul.33 That being said,
identifying a core style is often difficult and the parameters to do so are anything but
agreed upon by scholars.34
29
Ibid.
30
Harrison, Problem, 68.
I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 60 citing Harrison, Problem, 79-84.
31
32
Rodgers, “The Pastoral Epistles as Deutero-Pauline”, 249-50.
33
Harrison, Problem, 36-37.
Mark Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy (London: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1989), 34.
34
16
Consequently, the rejection of Pauline authorship based on vocabulary and stylistic
differences has not gone unchallenged. In critiquing Harrison’s findings, Ceslaus Spicq
found a significant number of the hapax legomena in mid-first century Greek works. Thus,
he argues, there are first-century parallels contemporary to Paul that include the type of
language used in the Pastorals.35
Subsequent studies, such as those conducted by Ken Neumann, have also pushed
back against Harrison’s use of hapax legomena while attributing the other peculiarities in
vocabulary to circumstantial differences.36 Luke Timothy Johnson follows suit by arguing
that subject matter, audience, and physical circumstance must be taken into account when
evaluating the use of vocabulary and style.37
Statistical studies have also presented mixed results. In a study done by Anthony
Kenny, none of the letters attributed to Paul (with the exception of Titus) warranted a
pseudonymous attribution.38 In his study, Anthony Bird found the Pastorals to be
statistically in tandem with much of the Pauline corpus. Indeed, he found ninety-one
percent of the words in 2 Timothy in the other Paulines.39 Furthermore, Bird argues that
some of the undisputed epistles, such as Galatians, are markedly different in its use of
35
Ceslaus Spicq, Les Epitres Pastorales (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 198-200.
Kenneth Neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical
Analysis (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 8-10.
36
Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (London:
Bloomsbury Academic, 1996), 18-20.
37
Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986),
100.
38
Anthony Bird, “The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles – Quantifying Literary Style,”
Reformed Theological Review 56 (1997), 118-137 (123).
39
17
vocabulary than the rest of the Pauline corpus compared to the differences observed in the
Pastorals.40
The many other studies that have been conducted on these issues almost all come to
different conclusions using different methods.41 The lack of agreement on the part of these
studies is a testament to their non-conclusive nature and should warrant some pause when
considering its overall weight in discussions of authorship.
There is also a lack of agreement about what these differences mean for the
provenance of the Pastorals. As stated above, Harrison contends that the language of the
Pastorals is closer to second century apologists and Greco-Roman authors, thus he places
their composition at some point in the early second century.42 In contrast, despite also
observing significant differences, Anthony Kenny concludes that all twelve of the letters
attributed to Paul (with the exception of Titus) can reasonably be argued to be from a
single and versatile author.43
B.M. Metzger points out that all of these studies must acknowledge the principal
issue in their desired methodology; namely, the sheer brevity of the Pastorals.44 They are
40
Ibid.
See K. Grayston and G. Herdan, “The Authorship of the Pastorals in the Light of Statistical
Linguistics”, New Testament Studies 6 (1959): 1-15; Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of
the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986); Armin Baum, “Semantic Variation within the
Corpus Paulinum: Linguistic Considerations Concerning the Richer Vocabulary of the
Pastoral Epistles”, TynB 59 (2008): 271-92; Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics
and the Greek of the New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005), 88-99.
41
42
Harrison, Problem, 67-68.
43
Kenny, A Stylometric Study, 100.
B.M. Metzger, “A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship
of the Pastoral Epistles,” ExpTim 70 (1958): 91-101 (91-94).
44
18
simply not long enough to provide any sort of reliable or concrete data to work with.45 And
while it is true that some of Paul’s undisputed epistles, most notably Philemon, are “too
short for the most efficient computer to yield a significant analysis of its style and
vocabulary”, almost all scholars agree that there is not sufficient doubt to question
Philemon’s authenticity, especially in regard to its vocabulary and style.46
Furthermore, there is no consensus on what constitutes a valid sample size or which
factors should even be used in stylistic evaluation. Michael Prior is quick to show how the
presentation of the results in a statistical manner “gives the appearance of exactness.” But
upon closer examination, one quickly discovers that these studies are rather “crude” in
their methodology.47
So while there is very little doubt that the vocabulary and style of the Pastorals are
unique, the extent to which these factors influence discussions surrounding authorship and
dating should be tempered. In addition to the brevity of the letters and questionable
methodology, Donald Guthrie posits the lack of uniformity in the observed differences.
With all these factors considered, this evidence “cannot be held as conclusive” for or
against Pauline authorship.48 However, this does not mean that this information is useless
William Richards, Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity: An Epistolary
Analysis of the Pastorals (Oxford: Peter Lang Inc., 2002), 24.
45
F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1984), 191.
46
47
Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer, 34.
48
Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, 56.
19
but rather that examination of vocabulary and style should not be in and of itself the
decisive factor in placing the plausibility of one position on authorship over another.
Below are some tables, which outline a visual sample of some statistics regarding
vocabulary and style:
Figure 2: Words unique to the Pastoral Epistles49
Total vocabulary
Words not found
in the 12 other
letters in the
Pauline Corpus
Words not found
in the 12 other
letters including
repetitions
Words per page
(From Harrison)
1 Tim
529
127
147
20.1
2 Tim
413
81
84
17.4
Titus
293
45
47
16.9
1 Tim
Total
Words not
vocabulary found
elsewhere
in the New
Testament
(including
words
shared by
the PE)
Percent of
hapax
legomena
Words per
page
(From
Harrison)
Total
words
Words not found
elsewhere in the
New Testament
(including
repetitions)
529
14.2%
11.8
1586
86
75
From Mona Joy LaFosse, “Situating 2 Timothy in Early Christian History” (Ontario:
Wilfrid Laurier University, 2001), 77 and 83.
49
20
2 Tim
413
48
11.6%
10.3
1235
50
Titus
293
30
10.2%
11.25
663
30
For comparison, the other ten letters attributed to Paul have significantly less hapax
legomena per page: Romans (10.4%, 4 per page), 1 Corinthians (10.5%, 4.1 per page), 2
Corinthians (21.1%, 5.6 per page), Galatians (6.4%, 3.9 per page), Ephesians (7.6%, 4.6 per
page), Philippians (8.6%, 4.2 per page), Colossians (8.1%, 5.5 per page), 1 Thessalonians
(5.7%, 3.6 per page), 2 Thessalonians (4.1%, 3.3 per page), Philemon (3.9 %, 4 per page).50
Theology
Perhaps one of the most striking differences between the Pastorals and the other
Pauline epistles is their theology. None of the Pastorals use common Pauline titles such as
‘son’ (υἱός) for Christ or include major Pauline themes such as the cross, giving thanks,
boasting, or wisdom.51 Other major motifs found in Paul, such as the idea of Christ as a preeminent figure, an indication that the parousia is imminent, and being righteoused by faith,
are also markedly absent.52 In place of this ‘Pauline’ theology is, by and large, an emphasis
on civil virtues and correct teaching.53
50
LaFosse, Situating 2 Timothy, 83.
A.T. Hanson, The New Century Bible Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1982), 4-6.
51
52
David G. Horrell, Introduction to the Study of Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 133-135.
53
Ibid.
21
However, some scholars argue that the theology in the Pastorals is not as distinct as
it is often made to be. Stanley Porter points out that the Pastorals do include other typical
Pauline theological themes, such as affirmation of God’s mercy realized in Christ and the
dependence of salvation on the grace of God.54
Furthermore, passages such as 1 Cor. 15:1-3, indicate the importance of doctrine
and early tradition. These were handed on and entrusted to others, just as those that came
before him entrusted Paul with the Gospel. Thus, the discussion in the Pastorals of correct
teaching and who should be entrusted with it is not entirely unique.55
In opposition, James Aageson argues that while these concepts are present to some
degree in other letters, they are abnormally present in the Pastorals.56 Furthermore, they
are to be passed along to Timothy and carry a generational aspect to them in a way not
reflected in a letter like First Corinthians. In other words, the problem is not the emphasis
on the true nature or importance of the gospel but their narrow description as a “deposit”
of correct belief that is passed on and guarded by a select group of individuals.57
Curiously, 2 Timothy seems to indicate that Timothy would have been aware of all
these points. The opening of the letter states he had known the truth from a young age as it
was passed down to him from his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5). There is also a
presumption that Timothy was aware of the Scriptures (though the term in Greek, γραφὴ,
54
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 427.
55
Harding, What Are They Saying, 34.
James Aageson, Windows on Early Christianity: Uncommon Stories, Striking Images,
Critical Perspectives (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2016), 114.
56
57
Ibid.
22
is vague) “from childhood” and should now use them to instruct those who read and teach
(2 Tim 3:15-17).
It is this sort of presumed knowledge that actually makes the generational aspect
even more pronounced. As Abraham Malherbe puts it, “The addresses of Paul the writer
exemplify the letters’ generational interest… the Pastorals know of generations before the
young leaders they address and anticipate future generations to come after them.”58 It is
these young leaders and future generations to which the “deposit” is going to be given and
protected which make the Pastorals “unique” amongst the New Testament and give
scholars such as Aageson pause.59
With recognition of these differences and the validity within the proposed
questions, defenders of Pauline authorship offer a number of counter-points in response in
addition to those mentioned above. When it comes to the “abnormal” emphasis on doctrine
and correct teaching, the uniqueness of the situation Paul is addressing and the people he is
writing to can account for some of these discrepancies.60 The fact that all of the Pastorals
are addressed to individuals attests to their situational uniqueness and should be evaluated
with that in mind.61 In the case of 2 Timothy, Luke Timothy Johnson contends that the
Abraham J. Malherbe, Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity
(Leiden: Koninklijike Brill NV, 2014), 281.
58
59
Malherbe, Light from the Gentiles, 280.
60
Harding, What Are They Saying, 19-24.
61
Harrison, Problem, 54.
23
emphasis on doctrine and teaching could be a rhetorical strategy in this very personal
letter meant to bolster Paul’s exhortation to Timothy.62
In response to the matter of theology, a more apologetic tone is usually employed.
Paul Zehr observes that core theological aspects are absent from the undisputed epistles.
For example, references to the cross (σταυρός) do not appear in Romans, 2 Corinthians or
1 and 2 Thessalonians.63 Furthermore, as Lars Kierspel contends, the undisputed epistles
“never offer any systematic and complete theology of Paul” so “the prescience or absence of
certain [theological] themes in other letters does not argue against Pauline authorship.”64
Some scholars, such as Frank Matera, would push back against such an argument. It
is not so much the presence or absence of theological themes that are important but rather
the different ways in which the Pastorals use Pauline theology from the undisputed
epistles. For example, in the Pastorals the Spirit “no longer plays the same dynamic role
that it does in Paul’s correspondence” and the church “is no longer viewed as the body of
Christ or the temple of God…”65 It is the unusual use of some typical Pauline theological
themes and the inclusion of and renewed interest in civic concerns and theological themes
not found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus that push Matera and like-minded scholars to
favor theories of non-Pauline authorship.
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: Third Edition (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2010), 387.
62
Paul Zehr, Believers Church Bible Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Scottsdale: Herald
Press, 2010), 18.
63
Lars Kierspel, Charts of the Life, Letters, and Theology of Paul (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 2012), 136.
64
Frank J. Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul (Louisville: John
Knox Press, 1996), 229-47.
65
24
Historical Situation
There are two issues at play when considering the historical situation of 2 Timothy
and the Pastoral Epistles.66 One is how the biographical information in the Pastorals fits
into the framework of Acts and Paul’s other letters. Presumably, if there were explicit
contradictions between these texts, the details would certainly warrant further
examination and possible skepticism. Second is the historical situation that the author
assumes and portrays. If the author seems to be writing in a period indicative of the late
first/early second century, then this too would warrant further examination and be
problematic for those who argue in favor of Pauline authorship.67
Despite its emphasis by many scholars, the attempt to situate the Pastorals into the
frameworks of Acts and other Pauline epistles is problematic in and of itself.68 In the words
of Porter, “Neither Paul’s letters nor Acts gives a complete chronology of Paul’s life and
travels; hence, it is impossible to solve the chronological issues in the Pastoral Epistles.”69
Though an apologetic defense, even more liberal-minded scholars agree that it is important
to consider the vast number of unknowns when determining the effect these factors have
on the plausibility of one authorship proposal over another.70
Graham Simpson, The Pastoral Epistles – 1-2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Contextual
Commentary (Bengaluru: Primalogue Publishing, 2011), 2-4.
66
Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006),
65-68.
67
68
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, 15-16.
69
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 417.
Michael R. Cosby, Apostle on the Edge: An Inductive Approach to Paul (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 292-93.
70
25
The biggest problem, however, is that this an argument based primarily on silence.
There is nothing in the Pastorals, specifically 2 Timothy, which contradicts Acts. Thus the
argument is based on information that simply is not there.71 Johnson concurs that to argue
against the authenticity of the Pastorals because of biographical and other historical
information is untenable since we know that Acts is a selective history of sorts and omits
important events that we know from Paul’s own letters.72 Similar to its questionable status
in scholarly reconstructions of Paul, Acts should be used cautiously in comparison with
historical details regarding the Pastorals.73
It is also important to note that these details hold greater significance in the
discussion of the Pastorals than most scholars have noted. If, as David Meade argues,
pseudepigraphy were a tolerated practice,74 then it would seem to be unnecessary for the
writer to weave historical and personal details throughout the Pastorals to such an
extent.75 William Mounce concludes that if the writer was a pseudepigrapher, then they
were explicitly attempting to deceive their audience into thinking that Paul was actually the
William Mounce, Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
2000), xlviii.
71
72
Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1, 2 Timothy and Titus, 67-68.
73
Ibid.
D.G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation Into the Relationship of Authorship
and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition (Tübingen: Mohr Steinbeck, 1986),
17-33.
74
75
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, xlviii.
26
author through this extensive use of geographical and personal detail.76 But, this issue will
be addressed fully in the next section.
In terms of presumed historical situation, some scholars have argued that there is
evidence in the Pastorals to suggest Gnostic opponents.77 Generally speaking, these Gnostic
opponents are dated later than Paul’s lifetime.78 However, as Lewis Donelson argues, their
premise is not based on explicit evidence from 2 Timothy or Titus but rather an
interpretation of sections in 1 Timothy.79
1 Tim 6:20 states “Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is
falsely called knowledge” (τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον, ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους
κενοφωνίας καὶ ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως). This is usually the main source,
though not the only, for this conclusion. This, according to Porter, is an example of 2
Timothy and Titus getting roped in under a characterization of the “Pastoral Epistles”
despite little to no allusions to Gnostic thought.80
In 2 Timothy, Hymenaeus and Philetus are the only two opponents who are
specifically named (2:17). The author says they have “swerved from the truth by claiming
that the resurrection has already taken place.” To this point, there is evidence within other
76
Ibid.
Terry Wilder, “Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and the Pastoral Epistles”, In
Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas Köstenberger
and Terry Wilder (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 31.
77
78
Ibid.
Lewis R. Donelson, Colossians, Ephesians, First and Second Timothy, and Titus (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 117-120.
79
80
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 426-27.
27
Pauline epistles (Gal 2:4; 1 Thess 1:6-9; 2 Thess 1:4-5; 1 Cor 1:10-17; 2 Cor 2:15) that Paul
was constantly dealing with opponents to his teachings. Indeed, he faced a similar situation
in Corinth where there were competing viewpoints about the resurrection.81 Thus it is not
unusual that one finds this as a focus in 2 Timothy or, to some extent, the other Pastorals.
Before moving on to the proposed solutions to the issue of authorship, it would be
fruitful to give a brief summary of the discussion thus far. Generally speaking, there are
four main categories which scholars use in arguing for or against Pauline authorship of the
Pastorals: External Attestation, Vocabulary/Style, Theology, and Historical Detail/Setting.
Each of these categories has their own issues and difficulties, allowing plausible points to
be made by both sides of the authorship debate. On top of the differences and difficulties in
interpretation, the inconclusive and fallible nature of some modes of inquiry and analysis
within each category of evidence have kept discussions regarding authorship alive and
going for almost two centuries. Having given an overview of these issues, the next chapter
will explore some of the proposed solutions given in this larger debate surrounding
authorship and provenance.
Douglas Campbell, Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Erdmans Publishing, 2014), 295-300.
81
28
Chapter 2: Proposed Solutions
Fragment Hypothesis
The two earliest and chief proponents of the fragment hypothesis are P.N. Harrison
and S.G. Duncan. The fragment hypothesis contends that the author of the Pastorals was
someone other than Paul but incorporated genuine Pauline fragments into the letters.82
Harrison, who was the original proposer of the hypothesis, argued this was an explanation
of the personal aspects in the Pastorals, such as the long list of names and locations in 2
Timothy 4:9-15. These details, Harrison contends, cannot be mere fiction.83
However, as previously noted, Harrison concluded from his stylistic studies that a
large percentage of Pastorals were not from the hand of Paul. Thus, the fragment
hypothesis accounted for the distinct nature of the letters while also explaining the
seemingly more personal aspects. However, as scholarship on the matter has evolved, most
scholars have come to discredit this theory both because of its lack of credible evidence and
its tendency to raise more questions than it answers.84
That being said, some recent scholarship such as James Miller’s 1997 book The
Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents has sought to defend and refine the fragment
hypothesis. Miller likens the three Pastoral Epistles to a kind of “Hellenistic moral
P.N. Harrison, “The Pastoral Epistles and Duncan’s Ephesian Theory,” New Testament
Studies 2, no. 4 (1956): 250-261 (250).
82
83
Harding, What Are They Saying, 18. Cf. Harrison, Problem, 12.
Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1989), 425.
84
29
handbook” that was composed by a number of authors belonging to a Pauline “school”.85
These authors composed the Pastorals with the help of preformed material from Paul and
other early Christian tradition. Similar to Harrison, Miller’s proposal has been questioned
based on a lack of evidence.
Specifically, as Harding summarizes, Miller presents nothing concrete to indicate
that these kinds of “schools” had existed within Christian circles during the first and second
centuries.86 Miller bases his theory on an “analogy from the known organized teaching
practices within contemporary pagan circles and those of the Hellenistic synagogue” in
addition to his observation that the Pastorals read as composite documents.87 As Harding
contends, to many scholars this is not sufficient evidence for the widespread existence of
these schools amongst Christian circles in the first and second centuries.88
In Harrison’s case, several questions were left unexplained. Curiously, there are a
disproportionate number of these “authentic fragments” present in 2 Timothy. The
fragments that Harrison identified consisted of Titus 3:12-15; 2 Tim 1:16-18; 3:10-11; 4:1,
5b-8, 9-15, 20, 21a, 22b.89 Similar to the doubts raised by other scholars, Mark Prior
questions why a pseudonymous author who was attempting to incorporate these
James Miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997), 113.
85
86
Harding, What Are They Saying, 19.
87
Miller, Composite Documents, 142.
88
Harding, What Are They Saying, 19.
89
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 420.
30
fragments, presumably to give an air of authenticity, would not spread them out across all
three of the epistles.90
Furthermore, as Stanley Porter notes, the information contained in the identified
fragments do not provide a plausible framework or basis for a series of letters largely
concerned with church organization and teaching.91 This is the biggest issue for those that
argue against the deceptive nature of pseudepigraphy within Christian circles. While it can
be argued that the more personal details were incorporated without the intention to
deceive, one must also offer a reason as to why they were included in the first place since
they seem to offer very little to the major concerns of church and household order that are
addressed. In other words, Porter and like-minded scholars do not see the rationale behind
the author’s choice to use the information contained in the identified fragments for his
construction of three separate letters devoted to issues which have little to no relevance to
this said information.
These complications are responsible for the lack of popularity the fragment
hypothesis garners in current scholarship. Indeed, there is even a lack of consensus as to
what the genuine fragments are.92 Consequently, current scholarship has marginalized the
fragment hypothesis and offers limited recognition.93
90
Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer, 173.
91
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 420.
92
Craig Smith, 2 Timothy (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2016), 2.
93
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 421-22.
31
Secretary Hypothesis
In explaining the unique style of the Pastorals, some argue it is the result of a large
degree of secretarial influence not present in other Pauline letters.94 We know Paul made
use of secretaries in his letters (Tertius in Romans 16 as one example) and in some
instances would explicitly say he was the one writing at certain points in the letter, such as
in the sixth chapter of Galatians.95 What is less certain is the amount of influence that these
secretaries had on both the content and style of the letters that they were involved in
composing.96
There are various theories as to who could have been secretary in the case of 2
Timothy and/or the Pastoral Epistles as a whole. Some scholars, such as George Knight,
believe that it was Luke.97 Knight argues he is the only person present with Paul (see 2 Tim
4:11) and that there is similarity between the language and vocabulary of the Pastorals and
Luke-Acts.
From his calculations, there are 75 words that occur in the Pastorals and in LukeActs but not in the rest of the Pauline corpus.98 Furthermore, Knight argues that the words,
stylistic traits, and specific expressions in the Pastorals that are not found in the rest of the
Pauline corpus are “often those shared exclusively with Luke or shared with Luke and one
94
Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 25-27.
95
Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 25.
Arthur Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon
(Downers Groove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 76.
96
97
Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 48-49.
98
Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 50.
32
or two other NT writers ---- some 68 such items by my count.”99 Despite these observations
and other significant studies conducted by I. Howard Marshall and C.F.D Moule on the
relationship between these texts 100, the results are, to echo Knight’s new thoughts on the
proposal, “negative for Lukan authorship.”101
Though it is virtually impossible for us to know the details as to who could of served
as a secretary for 2 Timothy and/or the Pastorals, the comparative studies done in search
for answers show “how similar the Pastoral Epistles and the other Paulines really are.”102
This is, to again cite Knight’s scholarship, because it interrupts the “preoccupation with
differences” which “can put one’s perspective out of kilter so that the differences loom
larger than the similarities.”103 Indeed, the secretary hypothesis is often used in explaining
the peculiar dynamic between the Pastorals, the Pauline corpus, and other New Testament
texts.104
Furthermore, the difficulties in identifying the secretary have not prevented
scholars from further exploring the hypothesis as a whole. In broad terms, scholars operate
99
Ibid.
See I. Howard Marshall, “Review of Wilson’s Luke and the Pastoral Epistles,” Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 10, (1981) and C. F. D. Moule, “The Problem of the Pastoral
Epistles: A Reappraisal,” Bulletin of John Rylands Library 47 (1965).
100
101
Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 50.
102
Ibid.
103
Ibid.
104
Harding, What are They Saying, 21-24.
33
on the premise that the amount of influence that Paul exerted in the composition of a letter
is inversely correlated with the amount of stylistic freedom a scribe would have had.105
Some scholars argue that the conditions under which 2 Timothy was written may
give some important insight. 2 Timothy indicates that Paul is in jail (1:8; 2:9) and well
along in years (4:6-8). Hanson argues that these conditions could have hindered Paul’s
ability to write, meaning a scribe would have considerable influence over the style, and to
some extent the content, of epistles composed during this time.106
However, specifically in the case of 2 Timothy, the argument for the use or nonuse of
a secretary “should not be built from a proposed epistolary situation but from the letters
themselves.”107 In other words, it should not be assumed that Paul was or was not able to
compose a letter for situational reasons or otherwise because 2 Timothy provides no
explicit evidence to that point.
In his commentary on the Pastorals, A.T. Hanson concludes that, “there are grave
difficulties facing the secretary hypothesis.”108 This is chiefly because the Pastorals do not
name any co-senders or definitively indicate the use or absence of a scribe. This renders it
virtually impossible to know with any degree of certainty how to evaluate the influence of
Paul or another third party on the structure and/or contents of the letter.109 This does not
Lincoln H. Blumell, “Scribes and Ancient Letters: Implications for the Pauline Epistles,”
in How the New Testament Came to Be: The Thirty-fifth Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium
(Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 2006), 208-226.
105
106
Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 5-7.
107
Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, 193.
108
Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 10.
109
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 423.
34
automatically rule out the possibility of a secretary in the Pastorals, but it does negate any
significant degree of certainty in determining the use and degree of influence of a secretary
or lack thereof.110
Similar to the difficulties surrounding the identification of the secretary, the
uncertainty that comes in evaluating the plausibility for the use or absence of secretarial
influence in the Pastorals have not prevented scholars from putting forth proposals on the
subject. In addition to the more specified proposals of Knight, Moule and Hanson
mentioned above, there are numerous other scholars who place a significant degree of
plausibility in the secretary hypothesis as a whole.111
It is important to note that from knowledge of secretarial use in the Greco-Roman
world and within Paul’s mission, it is difficult to know how much of Paul’s “actual voice” we
even know.112 Indeed, within the undisputed letters of Paul there are a wide variety of
styles and tones. To this point, Stanley Porter argues that two of Paul’s most esteemed
letters, Romans and Galatians, are drastically different in their respective styles.113 How
much of this variance can be attributed to the use of secretaries or co-authorship? How
110
Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, 189.
See A. Strobel, “Schreiben des Lukas? Zum sprachlichen Problem der Pastoral-briefe”,
NTS 15 (1969): 191-210; H.A. Schott, Isagoge historico-critica in libros Novi Foederis sacros
(ena, 1830), 324-25; E. Earl Ellis, Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Eugene: Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 1963), 55-57; O. Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur
Lehre vom antiken Brief (BWANT, 58; Stuttgart, 1933).
111
David Capes, Rodney Reeves and E. Randolph Richards, Rediscovering Paul: An
Introduction to His World, Letters and Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007),
18-20.
112
113
Stanley Porter and Paul Yoon (eds.), Paul and Gnosis (Boston: Brill, 2016), 20.
35
influential is the situation and community being addressed in these matters? The answers
to these questions are unquantifiable. It is this ambiguity, Benjamin Edsall cautions, which
must be taken into account when considering the secretary hypothesis.114
Pseudepigraphal
In 1807, Friedrich Schleiermacher became one of the first scholars to critically
challenge Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, specifically First Timothy.115 Following suit,
J.G. Eichhorn challenged the authorship of Second Timothy and Titus in 1812.116
Interestingly, Schleiermacher primarily based his argument on linguistic and stylistic
differences while Eichhorn based his objections primarily on historical differences.117
Nonetheless, since the 19th century a majority of scholarship has tended to view the
Pastorals as a distinct group of pseudonymous works.118
A central issue to evaluating pseudonymity and its plausibility in the authorship
discussion is how the Pastoral Epistles made their way into the New Testament canon
Benjamin Edsall, Paul’s Witness to Formative Early Christian Instruction (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2014), 38-43.
114
Bart Ehrman, Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early
Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 192. See Friedrich Schleiermacher,
Über den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulos an den Timotheos: Ein Kritisches Sendschreiben
an J.C. Gass (Berlin: Realbunchhandlung, 1807).
115
See J.G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Weidmannischen
Buchhandlung, 1812).
116
117
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, 21.
Chiao Ek Ho, “Mission in the Pastoral Epistles,” In Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s
Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas Köstenberger and Terry Wilder, (Nashville:
B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 241.
118
36
together if Paul did not compose them.119 To this point, P.N. Harrison argues that early
Christians were not sophisticated enough in linguistics to recognize the key differences that
would indicate their pseudonymous nature.120 Others, such as Kurt Aland, contend that the
early Church was not against pseudonymous practices. Thus they would not have excluded
the Pastorals on suspicions of false attribution, if they indeed had any.121
In search for evidence, many have researched pseudonymous practices in the
ancient world and early Christianity. From this research, there is evidence suggesting the
early Church’s overall negative attitude toward such practices.122 Pseudonymous works
such as Paul’s third letter to the Corinthians and the Acts of Paul and Thecla were rejected
because of their false appeal to authority.123 Indeed, a clergy member who confessed to
writing pseudonymously in Paul’s name was disciplined and removed from his position.124
Pseudonymous practices are also addressed within the New Testament itself. In the
second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul (or whoever the author may be) writes in 2:17,
“This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write”. George Knight considers this
and similar statements from Paul about writing in his own hand (e.g. Gal 6:11; 1 Cor 16:21;
119
Harding, What are They Saying, 25.
120
Harrison, Problem, 58.
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, 46 citing Kurt Aland, “The Problem of Anonymity and
Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries,” in The Authorship and
Integrity of the New Testament, ed. Kurt Aland (London: SPCK, 1965), 1-13.
121
Vincent Pizzuto, A Cosmic Leap of Faith: An Authorial, Structural and Theological
Investigation of the Cosmic Christology in Col 1:15-20 (Dudley: Peeters, 2006), 76-79.
122
123
Harding, What are They Saying, 24-27.
Thomas Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group,
1992), 38.
124
37
Phlm 19) as ways “to authenticate his letters for their recipients.”125 The author of 2
Thessalonians even warns of “a letter as if from us” (2:2), further suggesting the negative
connotations associated with the practice of pseudonymity. In consideration of the
evidence, some scholars echo Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin’s sentiment that, “it seems
unlikely that the church would have knowingly accepted a pseudonymous writing” into the
canon.126
In his recent book, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters, Stanley Porter
lays out the main difficulties of the pseudonymous position from a conservative point of
view. Chief among these is the difficulty of speculation. Porter sees merit in arguments both
for and against Pauline authorship, but argues that the pseudonymous side has more issues
to answer for than it actually solves.127
One of these issues is the personal detail in the Pastorals, especially in the case of 2
Timothy. Generally speaking, these details can be seen as a deceptive device on the part of a
pseudonymous author or as genuine details that reflect a genuine set of circumstances.128
The pseudonymous side must reconcile both the moral difficulties of such a practice and
the reasons that would drive someone to fabricate or incorporate such things in the first
place.129
125
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, 47.
126
Lea and Griffin, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 39.
127
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 430.
128
Ibid.
129
Ibid.
38
Another issue is the poor attempt at Pauline imitation. If someone were trying to
imitate the most typical form of a Pauline letter, it is worth noting that the Pastorals are
addressed to individuals rather than churches. Along these lines, some scholars question
why the form and style of Paul’s other epistles were not followed more closely.130 If
someone went through the effort of weaving elaborate historical and biographical details
into the Pastorals, it is even more peculiar that they fell short of exhibiting a Pauline
character in the most crucial aspects of the letters.131
From a less apologetically based framework, Michael Prior shows how the Pastorals,
if pseudographic, do not resemble other known early Christian pseudographic letters. Prior
offers the only three texts of this sort that “offer the remotest points of contact with the
Pastorals”, namely the Letter to the Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians, and the Letter to the
Apostles.132 All of these examples have features that distinguish them from the Pastorals.
The Letter to the Laodiceans completely lacks personalia and forms a loose
compellation of Pauline phrases without any connection or clear objective. 3 Corinthians is
a “purely a doctrinal statement” which lacks features, such as a thanksgiving or salutation,
typical of a Pauline letter. Lastly, the Letter to the Apostles is a dialogue between Jesus and
his followers, which is vastly different in content and form compared to the Pastorals.133 In
consideration of this evidence, Prior concludes there is “little support to be found in
130
Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer, 23.
131
Harrison, Problem, 57-59.
132
Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer, 21.
133
Ibid.
39
Christian sources that pseudepigraphical letters were common, and the examples we have
are not at all like the Pastorals.”134
In his scholarship on Early Christian reconstructions of Paul, Richard Pervo
questions why the Pastorals consist of three letters. He contends that two letters, “one the
equivalent of 1 Timothy or Titus, the other tantamount to 2 Timothy”, would have
sufficed.135 However, for the sake of repetition to “reinforce various points” and further
support “that Paul delivered a similar message in all his letters”, three letters were “just
right”.136
From a different perspective, Raymond Collins thinks three epistles were needed
based on the existence of different kinds of church communities, each having unique issues
to be addressed. Specifically, Titus is concerned with Jewish-Christian congregations and 1
Timothy is concerned with Gentile-Christian congregations.137
To take the question one-step further, why two letters addressed to Timothy and
one to Titus? Timothy was one of Paul’s closest companions and well known to the many
churches that Paul ministered to. The letters where he is named as a co-contributor attests
to this (1 & 2 Thess 1:1; Col 1:1; Phil 1:1; Philemon 1). Thus Timothy would be a very
logical choice of addressee.
134
Ibid.
Richard Pervo, The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 84.
135
136
Ibid.
Raymond F. Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (Louisville: John Knox Press,
2002), 11.
137
40
However, as Collins argues in his commentary on the Pastorals, the choice to
address a letter to Titus at Crete “is more puzzling”.138 While Titus does appear in Galatians
(2:3) and 2 Corinthians (8:23), he plays a minor role in Paul’s ministry compared to
Timothy. Titus is not even mentioned in Acts while Timothy makes several appearances
(Acts 16-20). Furthermore, in terms of geography, there is no mention in the New
Testament of Paul ever visiting Crete, which is where Titus is said to be located in the
epistle addressed to him (see Titus 1:5).139 Collins suggests the decision on the part of the
author to include a “creative narrative element” rather than a historical element is why a
third letter is addressed to Titus in such a way.140
From the perspective of pseudonymity, if the author were using these letters to
address different kinds of congregations as Collins suggests, then some of these oddities
are not all that peculiar. The unique situations being addressed would naturally require
some imagination on the part of the author in order to adapt the Pauline narrative to postPauline circumstances.141
However, this does not adequately explain the author’s extensive use of personal
remarks and details. If the author had, as P.N. Harrison proposes, authentic Pauline
materials,142 then this becomes even more problematic. Timothy Swinson sees only one
possible conclusion if Harrison’s proposal is accepted, namely the Pastorals are
138
Ibid.
139
Ronald Brownrigg, Who’s Who in the New Testament (New York: Routledge, 2002), 328.
140
Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 11.
141
Harding, What Are They Saying, 24.
142
Harrison, Problem, 5-12.
41
“thoroughly un-Pauline pseudonymous letter[s] sprinkled with genuine Pauline personal
remarks”.143
For Swinson, this conclusion would mean that the author borrowed from genuine
Pauline material “in order to affect the Pauline feel of the personal remarks” but “was so
otherwise negligent that he did not think to borrow material for the rest of these letters.”
This reasoning has lead the majority of scholarship to follow Swinson in rejecting this
proposal.144 But for the majority of scholars who do not accept Harrison’s proposal, the
question of motive and acceptance in the early Church must still be accounted for.
Numerous scholars who reject Pauline authorship in favor of pseudonymity have
undertaken these two issues. In terms of motive, it is often argued that the Pastorals were
written in order to combat Gnosticism and establish some kind of hierarchy and order for a
Church in need of leadership in the post-apostolic era.145 How one dates the Pastorals has
an effect on the exact details of these motives, but generally speaking those who fall on this
side of the authorship question attribute the motives of composition to post-Pauline issues
and concerns.
In terms of acceptance in the early Church, Lewis Donelson contends that if a
document could be exposed as a forgery, it would undoubtedly be rejected. However, this
was rarely possible due to the large influx of pseudographic documents that “flooded” early
L. Timothy Swinson, What is Scripture?: Paul’s Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy
(Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2014), 29.
143
144
Ibid.
145
Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not Write, 88-94.
42
Christian circles due to the fight between orthodoxy and heresy.146 As a result, Hans
Campenhausen argues, doctrinal correctness became the main factor in determining the
authenticity of a given document.147 Therefore the Pastorals could have been accepted in
large part due to the orthodoxy of its contents, which was in opposition to the rise of
Gnosticism in the early Church.148 Regardless, the early Church had to deal with competing
versions of Christianity and to some scholars the Pastorals represent an attempt by one of
these versions to assert its claim to embody the valid legacy of apostolic teaching and
faith.149
Pseudepigraphy and Dating
In turning to a different topic, how does the theory of pseudepigraphy address the
question of dating? This question is more pertinent to the pseudepigraphy proposal since
the other authorship solutions, with the possible exception of the fragment hypothesis,
would warrant a date towards the end of Paul’s life (the exact dating of which is beyond the
scope of the present topic).
146
Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument, 17.
Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1972), 179-209.
147
148
Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument, 24-25.
M. Eugene Boring, An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 372-73.
149
43
The answer to this question depends largely on whom you ask. Those who argue the
Pastorals are a reflection of 2nd century Gnosticism date them later than those who see
them as a reflection of Church problems in the post-apostolic era of the late 1st century.150
There is also the issue of external attestation. Because there is no explicit evidence
to support knowledge of the Pastorals or their author until the late 2nd century by Irenaeus
in his book Adversus Haereses, those who attempt to date these letters are forced to
consider the merit of arguments for earlier allusions.151 However, even if one accepts those
arguments as convincing, early evidence of attestation to their author is still absent.
Malcolm Gill seeks to reconcile the pseudonymous position with evidence of an
earlier external attestation. If the Pastorals were composed very shortly after Paul’s death,
people writing in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries could certainly have known them.152
Building on this hypothesis, Ralph Martin proposes that a close companion and/or scribe,
such as Tertius or Luke, were ultimately responsible for the compilation and distribution of
the Pastorals.153 This scenario would explain how some early Christians could have known
the Pastorals by the time Clement, Polycarp, and other early 2nd century authors were
writing.
In summary, there are three major proposed solutions to the question of authorship
and the Pastoral Epistles for those that do not accept Pauline authorship: Fragment
150
Porter, Paul and Gnosis, 9-23.
151
Harding, All Things to all Cultures, 328.
Malcolm Gill, Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1-7 (New York:
International Academic Publishers, 2008), 75.
152
R.P. Martin, New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students (Grand Rapids:
William Eerdmans Publishing, 1978), 306-308.
153
44
Hypothesis, Secretary Hypothesis, and Pseudepigraphy. Generally speaking, the majority of
scholarship holds to the pseudepigraphy theory while the fragment hypothesis garners the
least scholarly support. Each of these proposals answer pertinent questions while also
giving rise to others, continuing the debate as to their respective merits. But now that some
of the proposed solutions to the authorship and prominence of the Pastorals have been
addressed in detail, let us now turn towards some considerations specifically regarding the
authorship, dating, and genre of 2 Timothy.
45
Part Two
An Evaluation of 2 Timothy:
Dating, Genre, and Provenance
46
Chapter 3: Shortcomings In Recent Scholarship
The Historical Timothy
In investigating the authorship and provenance of 2 Timothy, the portrayal of
Timothy himself is often overlooked. As previously noted, both Acts and the other Pauline
letters present Timothy as prominent figure in Paul’s ministry. Though there is
considerable question around the precise role that Timothy held, most agree that he had at
least some influence over the content and/or composition of the letters in which he is
named as co-contributor (1 and 2 Thess, 2 Cor, Col, Phil, Philemon).154 Regardless, these
texts provide some guidance in reconstructing the historical Timothy, which can then be
compared alongside his portrayal in 2 Timothy.
Timothy served in some capacity as both a letter writer and agent through which
Paul could follow-up with the Christian communities he established.155 Paul considered
him to be one of his most trusted companions and as a “son who is faithful in the Lord” (1
Cor 4:17). The communities in which he ministered along side Paul also held him in high
esteem (Phil 2:22). Throughout the Pauline corpus, Timothy is consistently depicted as
beloved and respected by both Paul and the communities in which he was involved.156
Graham Roberts, Paul and Timothy: Developing a Leader (Melbourne: Melbourne College
of Divinity, 2008), 69.
154
Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral
Care (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1987), 62-68.
155
Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistle to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 69.
156
47
There is a great deal of similarity between this depiction and the one found in 2
Timothy.157 The author addresses Timothy as a “beloved child” whom he remembers
constantly in his prayers night and day (1:2-3). Indeed, one of the main purposes of the
letter is to encourage Timothy to be strong in the face of opposition and follow the example
given to him (1:13).158 This is a way of ‘passing the torch’ to a faithful and trusted worker
who is to defend what he knows to be true. All of this is necessary if the gospel itself will
endure.159
Though debated, some scholars suggest Paul also had reservations about Timothy’s
disposition.160 In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul asks that Timothy “has nothing to
fear among you”, that “no one despise him”, and to “send him on his way in peace” (1 Cor
16:10). In light of 1 Cor. 16:10, the message in 2 Timothy can be seen as Paul’s attempt to
supply additional encouragement and advice. Similar to the situation in 1 Corinthians 16,
Paul may be worried that Timothy’s personality and character will make him more
vulnerable to the conflicts he is involved in.161
Christopher Hutson questions the accuracy of this assumption based on his
interpretation and understanding of what we know from other sources. In his recent article
“Was Timothy Timid? On the Rhetoric of Fearlessness and Cowardice”, Hutson argues that
157
Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 431-33.
158
Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 17.
159
Ibid.
John Phillips, Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 2002), 400-401.
160
161
Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 44-45.
48
the “profile of Timothy as naturally diffident and discouraged in his assignment is an
unwarranted projection onto 2 Timothy.”162 This projection is not accurate of the historical
Timothy or a ‘character type’ that resembles Timothy. 2 Timothy 1:6-14, the basis for
Timothy’s timid and diffident nature, “is a hortatory context, describing what Timothy (or
someone like him) should [or should not] be” in a given context, “not what he is.”163
Against this proposal, Jerome Murphy O’Connor argues that in 2 Timothy Paul is
clearly not pleased with Timothy’s demeanor or performance. This poor performance was
one of the reasons why Paul wrote this letter to Timothy in the first place.164 According to
O’Connor, once Paul realized it was not wise to keep Timothy in his current position
because “he had neither the skill nor authority” to combat the problems which plagued
him, he called Timothy back to Rome under “the pretext that it was for Paul’s benefit.”165
Because there is a degree of speculation needed to complete the picture of the
historical Timothy, there is a lack of concrete evidence needed to confidently consider one
characterization over another. However, this issue is far from limited to the historical
Timothy, as the following section will show.
Christopher Hutson, “Was Timothy Timid? On the Rhetoric of Fearlessness and
Cowardice” Biblical Research 42 (1997), 58-73 (58).
162
163
Hutson, “Was Timothy Timid?”, 68.
164
O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, 365.
165
O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, 366.
49
Historical Figures of 2 Timothy
Besides Timothy, there are a handful of other figures mentioned who make their
appearance elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, especially the “Prison Epistles”.166 These
figures include Demas, Titus, Mark, Tychicus, Trophimus and Luke.167 Luke Timothy
Johnson argues that these personnel and historical details “may give us important
information… in Paul’s career and captivity that the other sources do not.”168 Thus, their
examination is “of prime importance” in forming “a picture of the situation in which the
Pastorals were written” and possibly obtaining “a clue to their origin”.169
In 2 Tim 4:10, Demas is characterized as “in love with this present world” and
having deserted Paul to go to Thessalonica. There is little mention of him anywhere else in
the New Testament except for Colossians and Philemon. These texts mention him in
passing without much detail. Col. 4:14 simply states, “Luke, the beloved physician, and
Demas greet you” and Philem 24 similarly sends greetings from Demas and others.
Potentially, J.D. Kelly argues, this presentation of Demas “creates difficulties” since in both
Colossians and Philemon he assumes a role “as one of his [Paul’s] helpers” but has
abandoned Paul in 2 Timothy.170
166
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon.
167
Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument, 23-36.
168
Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 378.
169
Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 6.
170
Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 8.
50
For Titus, Trophimus, and Tychicus, 2 Timothy provides geographical information:
Titus has gone to Dalmatia, Tychicus to Ephesus, and Trophimus was left ill in Miletus.171
While Titus is mentioned in Galatians and 2 Corinthians and Trophimus does make an
appearance in Acts, Tychicus will be the focus of attention in this group.172
Tychicus is mentioned in both Ephesians and Colossians as a “beloved brother, a
faithful minister, and a fellow servant in the Lord” (Col 4:7; Eph 6:21). Many scholars
consider him to be tasked with communicating to recipients of the letters any additional
news about Paul and the mission.173 This would presumably mean he was also the carrier
of these letters.174 These depictions of Tychicus seem to be in complete agreement with his
role in 2 Timothy, where he is once again “sent” somewhere, in this case to Ephesus, on
behalf of Paul (2 Tim 4:12).175
Mark and Luke are both mentioned in Philemon and Colossians. In Philemon 23 and
24, both simply send greetings to Philemon’s household and are with Paul as “fellow
workers”. Colossians offers a bit more substance. Mark is included in the closing greetings
171
2 Tim 4:10, 12, 20.
This is chiefly because there is nothing besides geographical locations given for them in
2 Timothy. While this is also the case for Tychicus, he is the only one of the three to make
an appearance in other “prison epistles” which is a focus of comparison in the previous and
following sections. Indeed, while a case could be made for comparing their geographical
locations in 2 Tim with those in Acts and other epistles, one of the chief aims of this paper
is to put less emphasis on using a very incomplete and possibly not fully accurate picture of
Paul’s life and mission from Acts and other Pauline epistles as criteria for the authenticity
of 2 Timothy.
172
173
Paul Foster, Colossians BNTC (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 415.
174
Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, 70.
175
Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 292-97.
51
as “Mark the cousin of Barnabas” (Col 4:10) and Luke is deemed “the beloved physician”
(Col 4:14). The closings of these epistles confirm that Luke and Mark were with Paul during
his imprisonment where he wrote Philemon and were present, either with the historical
Paul or in the mind of an author writing in Paul’s name, during the composition of
Colossians.
As with the case of Demas, there are some contradictions between the different
portrayals of Mark. In 2 Timothy 4:11, he is said to be “of use” in Paul’s ministry, though it
is unclear how exactly he is of use. This is in stark contrast to Acts 15:36, where Paul
dismisses Mark as unreliable and severs his relationship with Barnabas over Mark’s
inclusion in future travels.176 However, as Daniel Harrington contends, his appearance in
Colossians, Philemon, and 2 Timothy could mean that Paul and Mark had reconciled their
differences after some time had passed since the disagreement detailed in Acts 15. 177
Through a more general lens, George Knight points out a consistent trend
throughout the writings of Paul that associate many of the figures mentioned in 2 Timothy
with Paul’s imprisonment(s) and Prison Epistles.178 As this short inquiry has shown, the
details in 2 Timothy should not to be written off as a “technique” the author used “to write
fiction” in an attempt to “cross the border between verisimilitude and teaching” for
prescriptive and paradigmatic purposes.179 Whoever the author was, they had a good deal
176
Wall and Steele, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, 285-86.
Benjamin Fore and Daniel Harrington, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second
Timothy, Titus (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 184-85.
177
178
Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 16-20.
179
Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument, 56-8.
52
of knowledge regarding the companions of the Pauline mission and the capacities in which
they served. Consequently, they should not be treated as negligible in examining the
provenance of the Pastorals. It is to this examination as it concerns 2 Timothy which the
rest of this section is devoted to.
2 Timothy’s Place Amongst the PE
While there is enough similarity across the Pastorals to plausibly suggest a common
author or at least some literary dependence between them,180 2 Timothy has some distinct
features that separate it from both 1 Timothy and Titus.181 Many of these features that
divide 2 Timothy from the Pastorals are those most often used in disputing Pauline
authorship.182 For example, Anthony Tyrrell Hanson argues that the Pastorals reflect a
church order and development not prevalent during Paul’s time.183 However, 2 Timothy
does not make any mention of church offices or positions like 1 Timothy and Titus do.184
There is also the argument of 2 Timothy’s polemic against false teachers. As a result
of treating the Pastorals as a group, it is sometimes argued that this general polemic
Phillip Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans
Publishing, 2006), 27.
180
181
Porter, The Pauline Canon, 10.
182
Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 424.
183
Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 155-56.
184
LaFosse, “Situating 2 Timothy”, 37.
53
reflects an early second century fight with Gnosticism. Others just see the polemic as
uncharacteristic for the time and place of Paul.185
However, as mentioned above, in examining the polemic encountered in 2 Timothy,
similar issues are found in undisputed Pauline epistles.186 Philip Towner and Paul Treblico
use the theology Paul opposes in 1 Corinthians as a point of comparison.187 The main focus
in 2 Timothy is on those who “have departed from the faith” and “say that the resurrection
has already taken place” (2:18). Towner argues that this over-realized eschatology is
similar to the problem in Corinth, where the focus “shifted from the future eschatological
completion of salvation to their present experience of the Spirit, and they seem to have
concluded that they had already “arrived”” (1 Cor 4:8).188 Hence, as in 1 Corinthians, “the
theology of the opponents [in the Pastorals] was a development from Pauline tradition”
and not from a post-Pauline theological development, such as that of the Gnostics.189
Furthermore, in Romans and Galatians, Paul puts particular emphasis on being
aware of those who teach in opposition to the truth (Rom 16:17) and lead some astray as a
result of their false teachings and convictions (Gal 6:7; 1 Cor 1:18). In short, to echo
Trebilco’s scholarship on Paul’s opponents, there is nothing in the polemics encountered in
185
Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 12.
186
Porter, The Pauline Canon, 12-13.
187
Towner, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, 32.
Paul Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2004), 221.
188
189
Ibid.
54
2 Timothy that is unique to late first century or early second century theological
developments.190
Women in the Pastorals
Another aspect often overlooked, especially in case of 1 and 2 Timothy, is the role of
women in the Pastorals. 1 Timothy’s portrayal of women is often labeled as non-Pauline for
multiple reasons: its prohibition against women “to teach or to assume authority over a
man” (1 Tim 2:12); its claim of salvation through childbearing and household duties (1 Tim
5:14); and the characterization of women “gadding about from house to house” (1 Tim
5:13) spreading old wives’ tales (4:7).191
These claims and characterizations are often seen as at odds with how Paul
addresses women in his other letters.192 In Romans, many scholars contend that Junia,
mentioned in 16:7, was a woman apostle.193 Paul writes that she and Andronicus were
“prominent among the apostles” and were even “in Christ” before he was (16:7).
Furthermore, in Romans 16:1, Paul writes of “our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at
Cenchreae.” This would seem to indicate that women were involved in Paul’s missionary
190
Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus, 225-26.
Mona Tokarek LaFosse, “Women’s Roles in the Letters to Timothy and Titus,” The Center
for Christian Ethics at Baylor University (2013), 30-32.
191
192
Ibid.
Ute Eisen, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 47-49.
193
55
work and even held leadership positions.194 This is a stark contrast to 1 Timothy’s charge
that women keep silent and relegate themselves to domestic duties.
In the case of 2 Timothy, the depiction of women is quite different in nature.
Timothy’s mother Eunice and grandmother Lois had the “faith” before he [Timothy] did
(1:5). In context with Acts 16, which implies that Timothy was a ‘believer’ before he met
Paul, this suggests Eunice and Lois were the first to introduce and teach Timothy ‘the
faith’.195 From this perspective, Eunice and Lois are granted a special position in teaching
and passing on the faith to others, a task that is at odds with 1 Timothy’s insistence that
women be quiet and learn from men.
Interrelationship between the Pastorals
In his assessment of the relationship between the Pastorals, Richard Bauckham
observes the more personal aspect of the letters to Timothy that separate them from the
letter to Titus.196 We learn a great deal about Timothy in both of the letters addressed to
him. Furthermore, the relationship between Paul and Timothy is one of affection and
familiarity. However, we learn very little about Titus and Paul’s relationship with him in
the letter that bears his name.197
Susan Smith, Women in Mission: From the New Testament to Today (Maryknoll: Orbis
Books, 2008), 9-11.
194
195
LaFosse, “Women’s Roles in the Letters to Timothy and Titus”, 33.
Richard Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107, no. 3
(1988): 469-494 (494).
196
197
Ibid.
56
This is connected to the bigger issue at hand of how related 1 and 2 Timothy and
Titus are to one another in their compositions, i.e. the relationship between their
chronology and authorship. As mentioned previously, the similarities in theology, style, and
vocabulary are too strong to outright deny any relation.198 However, it is unknown if one
person penned all three letters or if different authors were involved and used one or more
of the Pastorals as a reference. Scholars are certainly far from a consensus on the issue.
J.W. Aageson contends that a different author from 1 Timothy and Titus composed 2
Timothy.199 In terms of literary dependence and chronology, William Richards believes that
1 Timothy was a later piece dependent on 2 Timothy and Titus.200 He likens this to the
Synoptic problem surrounding Matthew, Mark, and Luke.201 From his research, Richards
concludes 2 Timothy and Titus were part of an established literary tradition that 1 Timothy
presumes. Thus 1 Timothy was the last epistle of the group to be written (and presumably
by a different author).202
In a similar vein, Jerome Murphy O’Connor and Michael Prior propose that 2
Timothy, which they consider to be from Paul’s own hand, was written first and served as a
template for the pseudonymous author that composed 1 Timothy and Titus at a later
date.203
198
Marshall and Towner, The Pastoral Epistles, 86.
199
Aageson, Paul and the Early Church, 4-5 citing Richards, Difference and Distance, 208-09.
200
Ibid
201
Ibid
202
Ibid
203
O’Connor, A Critical Life, 256-73; Prior, Letter-Writer, 61-89.
57
In contrast, F.C. Baur sees no reason to suspect multiple authors. Baur’s thesis set
the precedent to view the Pastorals as a homogenous product of a single author on which
the majority of current scholarship stands.204 This single author is not often identified as
Paul, but rather an unknown writer who composed these letters to fulfill a desired
objective, though there is little agreement on what exactly this objective was.205
As briefly outlined in previous sections, those who stand with Baur see them as a
full-fledged attack against Gnosticism. Others, such as I. Howard Marshall and Philip
Towner, see them as a group of works by a faithful follower of Paul addressing the
organizational issues of the post-apostolic era based on how they thought Paul would have
responded.206
But the approach to the interrelationship amongst the Pastorals also contains a
more statistical element. Numerous scholars have sought to identify the extent of the
statistical similarity in vocabulary between the Pastorals. One approach, taken by Mona
LaFosse, is to identify the words found in 2 Timothy and one or more of the other PE but
not anywhere else in the New Testament. Above all else, this approach highlights the
nature of 2 Tim compared to 1 Timothy and Titus. It gives some insight into 2 Timothy’s
J. Herzer, “Rearranging the ‘House of God’”, 549-50 in Empsychoi Logoi--Religious
Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem, Alberdina Houtman, Albert de
Jong, & Magdalena Wilhelmina Misset (eds.), (Leiden: Brill, 2008) citing F. C. Baur, Die
sogenannten Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulus aufs neue kritisch untersucht (Stuttgart:
Cotta, 1835).
204
205
Herzer, “Rearranging the ‘House of God”, 553.
206
Marshall and Towner, Pastoral Epistles, 23.
58
relationship with the other Pastorals as it concerns vocabulary in areas where it is least like
the other Pauline letters and New Testament texts.
In the thirteen words that fall under this category, 2 Timothy only shares three of
these with Titus but shares twelve with 1 Timothy.207 This would seem to indicate that the
vocabulary in 2 Timothy is quite similar, at least in the case of 1 Timothy, in the ways it is
least similar to other New Testament texts. That being said, LaFosse points out that “some
key words that are always identified as unifying the PE occur only once in 2 Timothy and
multiple times in the other PE…” but ultimately concludes that “there are undoubtedly too
many words that 2 Timothy has in common with the other Pastorals to nullify its
association with these letters.”208
From a different approach, LaFosse also looks at the vocabulary that each of the
Pastorals shares with the other Pauline Epistles. In her calculations, which are represented
visually below, the data shows that 1 Timothy and Titus tend to share more vocabulary
which occur only 1-5 times in rest of the Pauline corpus, whereas 2 Timothy has
significantly more words proportionately that occur six times or more in the other
Paulines.209 But, as explored in Part One, these results should be considered in light of the
brevity of the Pastorals and the lack of uniformity in the way that scholars interpret the
results of statistical studies concerning vocabulary and style in general.
207
LaFosse, “Situating 2 Timothy”, 85.
208
Ibid.
209
LaFosse, “Situating 2 Timothy”, 91.
59
Figure 3: Occurrences of words in the PE which are found in other Pauline Epistles210
Words 1
% of
% of total
2
are
Timothy words
vocabulary Timothy
found:
shared
in 1 Tim
between
1 Tim
and the
other
Paulines
% of
% of total
Titus % of
% of total
words
vocabulary
words
vocabulary
shared
in 2 Tim
shared
in Titus
between
between
2 Tim
Titus
and the
and the
other
other
Paulines
Paulines
One
time
in
other
letters
32
22.2
6
26
23.9
6.3
10
18.2
3.4
2-5
times
61
42.4
11.5
35
32.1
8.5
28
50.9
9.6
6-9
times
23
16
4.3
19
17.4
4.6
4
7.3
1.4
10 or
more
times
28
19.4
5.3
29
26.6
6.8
13
23.6
4.4
144
210
Ibid.
109
55
60
Raymond Collins argues that sometimes these similarities and differences in
vocabulary overshadow the distinct phraseology that differentiates 2 Timothy further from
1 Timothy and Titus.211 For example, some notable Pauline expressions, such as “in Christ
Jesus”, are used seven times in 2 Timothy (1:1, 9, 13; 2:1, 10; 3:12, 15) but only twice in 1
Timothy (1:14; 3:13) and not at all in Titus.212 On the other hand, the use of titles such as
“Savior”, which are unique to the Pastorals, are only used once in 2 Timothy (1:10) but
three times in 1 Timothy (1:1; 2:3; 4:10) and six times in Titus (1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6).213
In evaluating the relationship between the Pastorals, it is important to also consider
aspects beyond those of vocabulary and theology, which are often used as the linchpins in
these comparisons. It is to some of these aspects in relation to 2 Timothy that this chapter
has sought to highlight. The focus will now turn toward warranted considerations as it
pertains to 2 Timothy as an individual letter.
211
Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 177.
212
Ibid.
213
Ibid.
61
Chapter 4: Warranted Considerations
Non-Traditional Dating of 2 Timothy
This now brings us to the question of dating. Where one falls on this question can
have profound consequences for understanding the issues of authorship and genre for 2
Timothy.214 Most scholars argue that 2 Timothy was written (either in a fictitious setting in
the mind of an unknown author or historically during the life of Paul) right before Paul’s
death, usually placed in Rome.215 The following sections will show that this oftenunanimous assumption warrants further examination.
Though the exact genre is debated, many scholars view 2 Timothy as a kind of ‘last
testament’ that Paul wrote to his dear friend and co-worker shortly before his death.216
However, as William Richards notes, it is not clear that Paul is about to die.217 Instead,
Richards classifies 2 Timothy as a ‘Literary Deliberate Letter’ in which Paul, as a prisoner, is
writing to a friend that is facing some threats of his own. This deliberative letter is meant to
advise and console a wider audience on these issues; though this wider audience does not
automatically mean the letter is pseudepigraphical.218
Craig Smith has sought to take a semantic approach to the issue of genre. In arguing
that verses 4:1-8, commonly used to support Paul’s impending death, do not conform in
structure to the evidence we have of the patterns of a farewell speech or testament, Smith
214
Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 433-34.
215
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 60.
216
Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 183-88.
217
Richards, Difference and Distance, 171-174.
218
Richards, Difference and Distance, 244.
62
offers a different way of reading and understanding the letter.219 Rather than reflecting
Paul’s death, these verses take the form of a charge designed to issue a command to
Timothy that expects compliance. In this context, the charge is expressing Paul’s parousia
through which Timothy can experience his presence and will be more inclined to accept the
request within the charge.220 Smith lays out the chiastic structure of this charge in 4:1-8 as
such:221
Figure 4: Structure of 2 Timothy 4:1-8
Charge Verb and Authority Phrase 4:1
Content of the Charge 4:2
A
Reason for the Charge 4:3-4
Content of the Charge 4:5
B chiasm
A
Paul’s Autobiographical Comments 4:6-7
Implications of the Charge 4:8
Smith understands this approach to take into account content and structure rather than
being fully reliant on the former as he claims many scholars tend to do.222
Craig Smith, Timothy’s Task, Paul’s Prospect: A New Reading of 2 Timothy (Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006), 141.
219
220
Ibid.
221
Smith, 2 Timothy, 142-43.
222
Smith, 2 Timothy, 141-42.
63
Smith further defends his position through a process of textual analysis. He argues the
Greek word σπένδομαι, used 2 Tim 4:6 and usually translated as “to pour out wine”, does
not represent blood or a metaphor for death.223 Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible or the New
Testament is this verb used to represent the pouring out of blood. Rather, it is often used as
an image of devotion or commitment to someone or something. Consequently, Smith
suggests that the drink offering represents Paul’s devotion during his “defense trial where
he stood alone with only the Lord beside him.”224
The later part of verse 4:6, usually translated as ‘’the time of my release is at hand’’, is
often taken to also be a euphemism for death. However, according to Smith, it is likely that
Paul would have used a different verb that means ‘to die’225 or would have written
something more along the lines of ‘the release of my body is at hand’.226 Smith takes this
choice of wording as indicative of Paul’s expectation to be released from jail in the future
rather than released from his body i.e. death.227
Perhaps one of Smith’s most compelling points is based on a fairly simple observation:
If 4:6 refers to Paul’s death then why does he say later in 4:17 that he has been rescued
from the lion’s mouth?228 With these factors taken into consideration, Smith concludes that
223
Smith, 2 Timothy, 142.
224
Ibid.
225
For example, ἀποθνῄσκω.
226
Ibid.
227
Smith, 2 Timothy, 144.
228
Ibid.
64
the classification of 2 Timothy as a last will and testament does not seem as intuitive as
many have often taken it to be.
Peter Walker, another recent voice on the genre and dating of 2 Timothy, believes that
an alternative dating for 2 Tim has been given little attention because of the reference to
Paul’s ‘first defense’ in 4:16.229 However, Walker argues there is nothing in the text to
suggest that this ‘first defense’ was anything more than an initial hearing of sorts. It is not
far-fetched to think the Romans had to determine the details as to Paul’s imprisonment and
brought him in for a meeting or “first defense” when he first arrived in Rome.230
According to Walker, there are three main options pertaining to the dating and
authorship of 2 Timothy:231
1. Written by Paul (possibly with secretarial influence) sometime before his death
circa 62 CE
a. Possibly as something he wrote during his 1st Roman imprisonment in
anticipation of release
b. Possibly as a ‘last testament’ shortly before his death
2. Written by Paul (possibly with secretarial influence) sometime after the narrative of
Acts ends and a possible second Roman imprisonment circa 62-67 CE
3. Written by an unknown author after Paul’s death
Peter Walker, “Revisiting the Pastoral Epistles – Part 2,” European Journal of Theology
21, no. 2 (2012), 120-132 (122-24).
229
230
Ibid.
231
Ibid
.
65
In his commentary on the Pastorals, Robert Wall classifies 2 Timothy as a letter of
succession. Paul is portrayed, either historically or fictitiously, as someone well along in
years and aware that he has limited time to establish and instruct those who will carry on
his mission and message.232 Wall argues that this sense of urgency and exhortation is not a
reflection of Paul’s imminent death but his older age and troubled ministry.
One of the most recent opponents of an alternate dating theory based on a rejection of
Paul’s imminent death is Alexander Kirk. In his work entitled, The Departure of an Apostle:
Paul’s Death Anticipated and Remembered, Kirk argues that verses 4:1-8 do in fact refer to
an impending death and any theories of alternative dating carry the burden of explanation.
Kirk’s argument hinges on his critique of Craig Smith’s methodology for concluding that
verses 4:1-8 refer to, “Paul’s costly preaching and witness during his trial” rather than
Paul’s nostalgia in reflecting back on his life and subsequent expectation of death.233
The main issue for Kirk is how Smith translates verse 4:6a, Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι, as
‘I have been poured out like a drink offering’. Kirk goes on to point out that, “In this citation
Smith has substituted the perfect tense for the present tense. By interpreting σπένδω as
referring to Paul’s preaching in the past, he cannot explain why the present tense is
employed.”234 Moreover, Kirk argues that it is unclear how Paul’s preaching would have
232
Wall, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 7-9.
Alexander Kirk, Departure of an Apostle: Paul’s Death Anticipated and Remembered
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 224.
233
234
Ibid.
66
been “costly”, and consequently, Smith “strips σπένδω of any sacrificial (in the sense of
suffering) overtones whatsoever.”235
Kirk takes similar issue with how Smith interprets 4:6b, “the time of my departure has
drawn near” (καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἀναλύσεώς μου ἐφέστηκεν). Smith understands this
“departure” as referring to Paul’s expectation to be released from prison.236 In contrast,
Kirk sees this as a reference to Paul’s imminent death.237 According to Kirk, “everything in
this clause hinges upon the meaning and referent of the noun ἀναλύσεώς”, which is one of
the fundamental differences between these two scholars in their respective
interpretations.238
To put the conflict in more condensed terms, Smith sees 4:1-8 as a way to use God’s
authority embodied by Paul and his mission to command Timothy to fulfill his ministry and
continue alongside Paul in this ministry once he is released from prison. By doing this, Paul
partially conveys his vision for the future and offers his conduct and faithfulness through
his trial and subsequent preaching as an example for Timothy and his current situation.239
On the other hand, Kirk understands 4:1-8 through the imagery used in 4:6 of a
drink offering, which he takes to be a metaphor for death. While in agreement with Smith
on his point about Paul using himself and his mission as an example for Timothy, Kirk
disagrees about the nature of Paul’s future. He sees a similar message in the drink offering
235
Ibid.
236
Smith, 2 Timothy, 144.
237
Kirk, Departure of an Apostle, 225.
238
Ibid.
239
Smith, 2 Timothy, 143.
67
imagery used in Phil 2:17 i.e. “Paul’s apostolic suffering in the present puts him on the road
to Calvary; his suffering was of one piece with, and would culminate in, his inevitable
death.”240
More generally speaking, most scholars who have written on the matter side with
Kirk.241 The disagreement has less to do with Smith’s argument that 2 Tim 4:1-8 takes the
form of a charge than it does his interpretation of what the verses are referring to. Indeed,
Kirk himself states, “I do not see how the identification of 2 Tim 4:1-8 as a “charge”
excludes the possibility that it was given in view of Paul’s imminent death.”242
In addition to agreeing with Kirk’s interpretation of verse 4:6 as laid out above, the
majority of scholars side with Kirk’s understanding of 4:1-8 for multiple reasons, two of
which will be touched on in the present discussion. First and foremost is the legal setting of
the letter. As Towner argues in his commentary on 2 Timothy, since Paul is still in chains
after his first defense when he is writing this letter, it is only reasonable to conclude that
the first trial found sufficient grounds to hold Paul and continue trial proceedings at a
future time.243 This comes into direct conflict if one interprets 2 Tim 4 to reflect Paul’s
expectation to be released from prison.
Furthermore, the arguments of scholars such as Prior and Smith who hold to Paul’s
expectation to continue his ministry do not consider alternative ways in which this
continued ministry could occur. In other words, they consider Paul’s release from prison as
240
Kirk, Departure of an Apostle, 224.
241
See Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 264-76.
242
Kirk, Departure of an Apostle, 223.
243
Towner, Pastoral Epistles, 159; c.f. Kirk, Departure of an Apostle, 221.
68
the only possible scenario in which his ministry could continue. However, as Paul’s prison
epistles and imprisonment narrated in Acts 28 shows, it was possible for Paul to continue
his ministry from jail through writing letters and sending delegates.244 Thus Paul’s desire
for Timothy to bring Mark with him because he is “helpful in my ministry” (4:11) and
similar requests which would seem to reflect Paul’s expectation to continue his ministry do
not necessarily require a release from prison in order to make sense.245
As the above section illustrates, how one interprets and understands certain verses
can have a profound effect on determining the genre and provenance of 2 Timothy. Thus
the majority of the focus in the ensuing discussion will be on how these different
interpretations of the verses rather than its overall grammatical structure and other lexical
features affects ones understanding of 2 Timothy.
The Role of Genre in Understanding 2 Timothy
Before delving into the role of genre in understanding 2 Timothy, it would be of use
to quickly recap the two main sides in the discussion of 2 Timothy’s genre. One side is
defined by its rejection of 2 Tim as a farewell testament, chiefly because there is no
consensus within this group on what 2 Tim should be classified as instead. Based on his
argument of a 4:1-8 as a literary charge, Smith understands the second clause in 4:6, “the
time of my departure has drawn near”, to refer to Paul’s release from prison rather than his
244
Porter, Paul and Pseudepigraphy, 81.
245
Kirk, Departure of an Apostle, 226.
69
death.246 Thus the purpose of 2 Tim is to exhort Timothy to be faithful and strong in the
face of conflict while also requesting Timothy’s help in Paul’s future ministry.247
On the other hand, scholars such as Kirk, who understand 2 Timothy to be a farewell
testament, see the letter as a typical pseudepigraphical piece.248 As Raymond Collins
suggests, the testament genre of 2 Timothy serves to “militate against its possible Pauline
authorship” since this kind of literary genre was largely utilized by “authors writing about
their heroes” and “are in no way verbatim reports of those who are about to depart this
life.”249
That being said, it is important to note that there are other scholars who argue in
favor of Pauline authorship and a farewell testament genre for 2 Timothy.250 For those that
do argue for the authenticity of 2 Tim, this is the majority opinion. Furthermore, even for
those who argue against Pauline authorship for 2 Tim, the majority opinion on genre
stands with the farewell testament attribution.
However, though understood by most to generally conform to that of a farewell
discourse and last testament, 2 Timothy is not rigid in this conformity to any one genre. To
again use the words of Raymond Collins, the testament genre “is not well defined” since it
246
Smith, 2 Timothy, 155-57.
247
Smith, 2 Timothy, 16.
Though Kirk himself does not definitively state his stance on authorship. However, the
majority of those who take Kirk’s stance on 2 Timothy’s genre see the letter as such.
248
249
Collins, 1 & II Timothy and Titus, 185-86
E.g. Gordon Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988), 283-300;
Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (Downers Groove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 137-198;
Jerome Murphy O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 356368.
250
70
“often incorporates other types of material, such as paraenetic, apocalyptic, and
midrashic.”251 So while it can be argued that 2 Timothy has features of the testamentary
genre and may be labeled as such (as many scholars in the above discussion do), the
question of genre and its implications for understanding the letter as a whole go beyond
just one label.252
Michael Prior suggests this mentality in his examination of 2 Timothy’s genre and
purpose in his book Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy. Prior, an
opponent of those claiming 2 Timothy as a farewell testament, acknowledges the elements
of a testament but only because “one would expect several of those elements to appear in
any personal correspondence.”253 Indeed, “what encourages scholars to regard this letter
as a testament” is not those elements but “the common interpretation of 2 Tim 4:6-8.”254
Particularly worthy of note is the dichotomy Prior draws between the tone of 2 Timothy
4:6-8 and 4:9-21.255
Almost all commentators who subscribe to the last testament classification
recognize the tension between the grim tone of death implied in 4:6-8 and the more
positive tone implied in 4:9-21.256 As Prior notes, these commentators have tried to explain
this tension in a handful of ways.
251
Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 182.
252
Ibid.
253
Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer, 92.
254
Ibid.
255
Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer, 111.
256
Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer, 107.
71
Those who hold to the authenticity of the epistle “play down the difficulty posed by
the normal reading” of the text. Those who hold to pseudepigraphy consider these verses
to pose less of a problem because they are part of the author’s paraenesis “rather than just
history.”257 However, Prior argues that none of these explanations “go any distance in
solving the apparent contradiction of the ‘funeral’ mood” followed by the more optimistic
tone of the remaining parts of the letter.258
According to Prior, there is essentially only one solution that adequately reconciles
this tension. That is, 4:6-8 does not refer to Paul’s death but are a reflection of Paul’s
anticipation to be released and continue his ministry as embodied in 4:9-21.259 With this as
his working hypothesis, Prior places 2 Timothy within Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome. It
is to this topic of integrating genre, date, and location that the focus now turns.
Reconciling Date and Location
2 Timothy does not explicitly indicate where Paul is located. However, most
conclude that it was or claims to be written from Rome because of 1:16-17 which states,
“May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me
and was not ashamed of my chain; when he arrived in Rome, he eagerly searched for me
and found me.”260
257
Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer, 105.
258
Ibid.
259
Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer, 91-112.
260
Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 215.
72
There is only one Roman imprisonment known from the New Testament as
narrated in Acts 26-28. Some argue that there was a later second imprisonment in Rome,
which occurred after the events accounted for in Acts.261 The idea of a second
imprisonment is based on early Church tradition and is fairly well attested by the early
Church fathers. Chief among these witnesses is the late 3rd/early 4th century Church
historian Eusebius. In his work Ecclesiastical History, he states “Paul’s martyrdom did not
take place at the time of that Roman sojourn which Luke records [Acts 28]” but when “upon
coming to the same city a second time [he] wrote his second epistle to Timothy, in which he
mentions his first defense and his impending death.”262
That being said, in discussing the dating of 2 Timothy and its relationship to the
location of composition, a second imprisonment is not required. Some scholars, such as Bo
Reicke, even venture to argue against Rome as the location for composition. Instead, he
considers a Caesarean imprisonment to be just as viable, if not more so.263 For those such
as Mona LaFosse, Mark Prior, and Peter Walker who favor a Roman setting but are not
reliant on a second imprisonment, placing 2 Timothy in Paul’s first Roman imprisonment is
the most viable, if not the only, option.264
However, both of these alternate options i.e. a Caesarean or first Roman
imprisonment bring with them a number of issues. Before continuing on to these issues, it
261
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, liv.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book II, 22 in Eusebius: The Church History, trans. Paul L.
Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 80.
262
263
Bo Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2001), 85-91.
Douglas Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 41-43.
264
73
would be fruitful to pause and have a brief look at Pauline chronology, specifically Paul’s
imprisonments and the Prison Epistles, in order to put some of the location and dating
theories in a better context.
Though there is little consensus regarding Paul’s location during the composition of
the Prison Epistles (including 2 Timothy), three options are considered possible by most
scholars: Caesarea (Acts 24:27), Ephesus (not accounted for in Acts), and Rome (Acts
28).265 According to Harold Hoehner, a Caesarean or Ephesian imprisonment would
warrant a dating around the mid 50’s while a Roman imprisonment would warrant a dating
in the early 60’s.266 The Prison Epistles could also be placed in different imprisonments
from one another, further complicating the matter.267
For 2 Timothy’s location, Rome seems to be the most likely place of composition
(see 2 Tim 1:17). If placed shortly before Paul’s death, the letter would date around the
early 60’s. Consequently, this means it was composed after all of the (authentic) Prison
Epistles. In order to reconcile many of the major objections to dating 2 Timothy during
Paul’s first Roman imprisonment to be examined below, Philippians and to some extent
Philemon (and possibly Colossians, although arguments placing it in a Roman
265
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 61-68.
Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2002), 94-96.
266
Craig Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts Through Revelation
(Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2006,), 271-73.
267
74
imprisonment are considered far more problematic than for Philippians and Philemon)268
must also be placed in Rome.
The sheer number of different plausible locations and dates surrounding Pauline
chronology make any discussion of a given epistle’s provenance impossible unless some
assumptions are granted.269 Rome will be the assumed location for Philippians and
Philemon. This is because an Ephesian imprisonment is not mentioned anywhere in the
New Testament and nowhere in Acts or Paul’s letters is there any indication of significant
missionary activity during an imprisonment in Colossae.270 These are only some of the
many reasons why scholarship prefers a Roman imprisonment for the composition of these
letters and serve as the rationale for the assumption in regard to the current discussion.271
This assumption will, above all else, serve a practical purpose for the topic at hand.
Placing the Prison Epistles in Rome, at least partially, will allow certain dating proposals to
be evaluated for their plausibility. This can be done without diverting focus to other issues,
which are only significant to the topic at hand if the premise of an early dating is
determined to be plausible in the first place. It is in light of this overview that the following
proposals and objections will now be undertaken.
268
31.
Robert Wilson, Colossians and Philemon (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 28-
269
Ian Boxall, Books of the New Testament (London: Canterbury Press, 2007), 53-54.
270
Porter, Paul: His Life, Letters and Thought, 61-67.
271
Ibid.
75
2 Timothy and Paul’s First Roman Imprisonment
Phillip Towner claims that assigning 2 Timothy to the same Roman imprisonment
that produces the “more optimistic” letters of Philippians and Philemon is problematic.
Along with a change in tone, Timothy is with Paul when he writes the other Prison Epistles
(Col. 1:1; Phil 1:1; Philemon 1) but he is not with Paul in the writing of 2 Timothy.272
However, these objections have been reasonably explained.
If 2 Timothy were one of the first or last things that Paul wrote after arriving in
Rome, one would expect that the tone might not be so optimistic. In addition to being jailed,
some of his most loyal companions have left him (3:16). In Philippians, Paul is reunited
with Timothy (Phil 1:1) and rejoices in the gifts that the Philippians have provided him
(4:10). Thus the letter would be more optimistic in tone compared to lonely and grim
circumstances surrounding 2 Timothy.
If we put aside the idea of 2 Timothy as farewell testament, the letter can be seen as
an invitation for Timothy to join Paul. He wants Timothy to come to him as soon as possible
(4:9), and his appearance in the other Prison Epistles is evidence that he in fact accepted
this invitation (see Col. 1:1; Phil 1:1; Philemon 1).273 Mark is also mentioned in Philemon
and Colossians with Paul, indicating that Timothy carried out Paul’s wish to bring Mark
with him (4:11).274
272
Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 14.
D. Edmond Hiebert, An Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 2: The Pauline Epistles
(Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 353-54.
273
274
Walker, “Revisiting the Pastoral Epistles”, 123.
76
These observations alone do not warrant any conclusions since there are still
several issues to address. Chief among these is, if Paul is in Rome and was writing Timothy
to come to him, why are the contents of the letter full of commands and appeals to right
teaching and behavior? There are several responses offered to explain this.
Paul’s mission does not seem to be in the best position at the time he is writing the
letter. He has been officially charged and at least partially tried for these charges by the
Roman authorities (4:16). To make matters even worse, many of his trusted companions
have deserted him. If this is the case, it makes sense that Paul would want Timothy to be as
strong as ever in order to keep the mission going.275 Paul may even think that he will perish
soon due to the uncertain nature of his future (4:6), which would make Timothy’s place in
the mission all the more important.
There is no doubt that Paul faced constant opposition to him and his movement.
Several times throughout the epistle, Paul reminds Timothy of the persecutions he endured
and how the Lord rescued him from these dangers (3:11; 4:18). Timothy may very well be
facing similar challenges and thus Paul extols Timothy to keep the faith like he did, even in
the most dire circumstances.276
Though small in number, some scholars have argued that 2 Timothy may have been
written from a Caesarean imprisonment.277 Johnson notes the similarities in the names
275
Aida Besancon Spencer, 2 Timothy and Titus (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2014), 75-78.
276
Ibid.
277
Stanley Porter, Paul and Pseudepigraphy (Leiden: Koninklijike Brill NV, 2013), 68.
77
between 2 Timothy, Colossians, and Philemon278; letters which some have plausibly argued
were written from a Caesarean or Ephesian prison.279 Further, he argues that Paul’s future
was still in doubt because of a recent assassination attempt against him in Jerusalem as
recounted in Acts 23. This would explain the grim and uncertain tone of 2 Timothy.280
However, proposals that see 2 Timothy as a product of either a Caesarean/Ephesian
imprisonment or Paul’s first Roman imprisonment in Acts 28 do not constitute a majority.
A theory of a second Roman imprisonment is still favored amongst those who argue 2
Timothy was written during Paul’s lifetime.281
Stanley Porter notes that while early dating theories do have their merit and can
plausibly account for some of the objections raised against them, they ultimately fail to
adequately address others.282 The chief difficulty faced is incorporating 2 Timothy into the
chronology of Paul’s life we know from his other letters and Acts. Porter argues there are
simply too many unknowns to plausibly argue for an early dating of 2 Timothy in the
context of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment without resorting to reconstructions based on
non-explicit information and educated guesses.283 Indeed, it is the tension in all of these
details that prompt many scholars to place 2 Timothy within a later period of Paul’s life.
Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (New York: Random
House, 2001), 319-20.
278
Richard Melick Jr., Philippian, Colossians, Philemon (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group,
1991), 168-69.
279
280
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 425 citing Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 377-79.
281
LaFosse, “Situating 2 Timothy in Early Christian History”, 44-45.
282
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 425.
283
Porter, Paul and Pseudepigraphy, 76-77.
78
That being said, some argue that to put 2 Timothy within a second Roman
imprisonment may be reliant on more reconstruction than placing it within Paul’s first
Roman imprisonment. Jakob van Bruggen and Luke Timothy Johnson, who both place 2
Timothy within the Acts 28 Roman imprisonment, adopt this mode of thinking. In support,
it is noted how the conditions of the Acts imprisonment are similar to the conditions in 2
Timothy. Paul has visitors, is still active in correspondence, and has had his first defense
but has yet to be released.284
This would also mean that 2 Timothy was composed during the same imprisonment
in which Philippians, Philemon, and possibly Colossians were written. To reconcile the
dichotomy between the tones in 2 Timothy and the rest of the Prison Epistles (if they were
indeed composed in Rome, which a majority of scholars contend they are) and the absence
of Timothy during the composition of 2 Timothy, scholars who hold to this position are
pressed to offer an explanation.285
Johnson argues that the Prison Epistles could have been written during an earlier
period of the imprisonment where the outlook was more promising than it was during the
time 2 Timothy was written.286 Consequently, Timothy would have left in the period
between these two time intervals of composition.
Although not widely proposed by present scholarship, another explanation put forth
by this discussion is the possibility that 2 Timothy was written early in Paul’s first
Porter, Paul and Pseudepigraphy, 81 citing Johnson, First and Second Letters to Timothy,
319-20
284
285
Ibid.
286
Johnson, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 319-20.
79
imprisonment. Out of the scholars that argue in favor of 2 Timothy being written during
Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, only Peter Walker puts forth a proposal that contends 2
Tim was written at the start of this imprisonment.287
The tone of the letter is rather grim because Paul is in jail and has very few people
there to comfort him since they traveled to different places after he was incarcerated.
Timothy’s presence in the other Prison Epistles, which would have been written later in the
imprisonment in this instance, can be understood through the request in 4:9-11 for
Timothy to come to him and bring Mark. Both Timothy and Mark are present during the
other Prison Epistles, indicating that Timothy carried out these wishes.
Nonetheless, regardless of the position taken, reconciling the date and location of 2
Timothy is paramount in understanding the provenance of the letter. The tendency by
defenders of Pauline authorship to place 2 Timothy in a second Roman imprisonment
presents, in many ways, more complications than placement within Paul’s first
imprisonment. Indeed, if 2 Timothy is considered apart from 1 Timothy and Titus, “it would
be relatively clear that this would be a first imprisonment, because there would be no
requirement to create a second one. This necessity is created, at least in some peoples
minds, more by 1 Timothy and Titus.”288
See Peter Walker, “Revisiting the Pastoral Epistles – Part 2,” European Journal of
Theology 21, no. 2 (2012), 120-132. However, Walker’s argument hinges largely on his
reconstruction of Paul’s mission (including those that assist Paul i.e. Timothy, Titus, etc.)
and life during his time spent in Rome. This reconstruction is based largely on guesswork
rather than plausible evidence from primary or secondary texts. Thus, while Walker’s
proposal is intriguing, this discussion seeks to consider its base premise apart from his
style of argument (though Walker does advocate for evaluating 2 Timothy as an individual
letter and judging its historical/geographical details apart from information given in 1
Timothy and Titus).
287
288
Porter, Paul and Pseudepigraphy, 88.
80
Timothy’s Location
The discussion around Paul’s location gives rise to yet another question: Where was
Timothy during this time? His location, whether historical or implied by an unknown
author, has a place in determining the date, and to some extent the location, of 2 Timothy’s
composition. Furthermore, if 2 Timothy was meant to be read and heard by a wider
audience as Marshall and Towner contend, then Timothy’s location would also determine
the location of this wider audience.289
The question of Timothy’s location is often overlooked because it is frequently
assumed that he was located in Ephesus at the time.290 There are several reasons given in
support of this conclusion. Many scholars, such as J.D. Kelly, take 2 Timothy 4:12, “I have
sent Tychicus to Ephesus” to mean that Paul sent Tychicus to replace Timothy. Thus, Kelly
argues, it is clear that Timothy was located in Ephesus and Tychicus was the carrier of the
letter.291
Marshall and Towner also argue that Ephesus is the “most reasonable” location to
associate with 2 Timothy and the Pastorals because of the type of opponents and issues
Paul faced during his lifetime in Ephesus and Asia Minor. These issues are the most
analogous to those found in the Pastorals.292
289
Marshall and Towner, The Pastoral Epistles, 85.
290
Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus, 206.
291
Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 214.
292
Marshall and Towner, The Pastoral Epistles, 85-86.
81
Since the Pastorals are often treated as a group, Timothy’s location in Ephesus is
considered in light of the geographical information given in 1 Timothy (1 Tim 1:3; 3:14)
and Titus (3:12). Gordon Fee does so in his reconstruction of the historical situation across
the Pastorals. He posits Ephesus as a convenient location for Timothy based on Paul’s
movements in 1 Timothy and Titus and Timothy’s movement during the assumed time
period in which 2 Timothy was written.293
Jerome Murphy O’Connor argues against an Ephesian location in his book Paul: A
Critical Life.294 In considering the location of Timothy apart from the information given in
the other Pastorals, he asks, “If Tychicus had been dispatched before the letter was sent,
why does Paul tell Timothy in Ephesus something he must have known already? If Tychicus
was the bearer of the letter, why should Paul stress the obvious?”295 Rather, O’Connor
argues that Galatia is a more suitable choice. But, as the majority of scholars contend,
Ephesus is still the preferred location and counterarguments have done little to provide
additional insight to convincingly suggest otherwise.
2 Timothy and the Acts of Paul
Though the similarities between 2 Timothy and the second century Acts of Paul have
been noted by a sizable number of scholars, few have devoted ample time to examining
their implications for the provenance of the Pastorals.296 As noted by Glenn Snyder in his
293
Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 4-6.
294
O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, 364.
295
Ibid.
296
Harding, What Are They Saying, 42-44.
82
recent book on the Acts of Paul, the cross-references between the figures in 2 Timothy and
the Acts of Paul are both “remarkable from an historical perspective” and worthy of note.297
If the Pastorals are taken to be pseudonymous, then they represent only one school
of thought in the “tremendous diversity of ways the early church remembered the
apostle”.298 Similar to the Acts of Paul, the Pastorals seem to be just one interpretation of
the Pauline legacy rather than established historical fact.299
Regardless of who wrote the Pastorals, the author of the Acts of Paul uses some
historical details found in the Pastorals but writes in opposition to many of the Pastorals’
teachings.300 In this case, the date and dependence of these texts becomes all the more
important. This is because if the Acts of Paul can be plausibly dated to the first half of the
second century, then there is more evidence to suggest that the Pastorals were in
circulation by this time. Furthermore, at least in the case of 2 Timothy, the contents of the
letter were considered, at least by the early Church, to be ‘accurate’ details of the historical
Paul as compared to those found in the Acts of Paul.301
Before proceeding further, it would be of value to pause and highlight these specific
similarities. Below is a table outlining such details:
Glenn Snyder, Acts of Paul: The Formation of a Pauline Corpus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2013), 116-17.
297
Dennis MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), 15.
298
299
Harding, What Are They Saying, 42-44.
300
Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church, 1-15.
Peter Wallace Dunn, “The Acts of Paul and the Pauline Legacy in the Second Century,”
(Ph.D. Dissertation, Queens’ College: 1996), iii.
301
83
Figure 5: The Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of Paul and Thecla
Name
Appearance in the Pastorals
Appearance in the Acts of
Paul and Thecla
Alexander
1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy
4:14
3:26-26
Described as a coppersmith
in opposition to Paul and a
potential threat
Described as a local official
from Antioch in opposition
to Paul because of his love
for Thecla
3:13
Hermogenes and Demas
2 Timothy 1:15; 4:9
Described as having
abandoned Paul
Onesiphorus
2 Timothy 1:16
Described as preaching that
the resurrection occurs in
one’s progeny
3:1-17
Eubulus
Described as finding and
assisting Paul when he came
to Rome
2 Timothy 4:21
Described as hosting Paul
and allowing him to preach
sermons in his house
8:1
Sends greetings to Timothy
Described as a Corinthian
presbyter who joined with
others in writing a letter to
Paul
11:1
Titus and Luke
2 Timothy 4:10, 21
Titus has left for Dalmatia
but Luke was the only
person who remains with
Paul
Both Titus, who is located in
Galatia, and Luke, who is
located in Gaul, are waiting
for Paul just before his
imprisonment
The tensions between these similarities in personnel and blatant conflicts in
message have been explained in several different ways. Dennis MacDonald argues that the
author of the Acts of Paul, who was writing against the more “socially conservative”
84
message found in the Pastorals, drew from a common oral tradition without any specific
knowledge of the Pastorals.302 Consequently, the author of the Pastorals was not writing to
directly refute the Acts of Paul or visa versa but, rather, its “oral antecedents”.
On the other hand, Richard Bauckham argues that the author of the Acts of Paul
drew directly from 2 Timothy in addition to 1 and 2 Corinthians to write a sequel to the
Acts of the Apostles based on their understanding of Paul’s final years.303 The tension exists
because the author rejected 1 Timothy but used 2 Timothy and Titus without issue.304
Apart from the specifics of each proposal, their implications for understanding the
Pastorals are worthy of note. If the general premise of Bauckham’s proposal is accepted,
then the date of the Acts of Paul becomes more pertinent in understanding the provenance
of the Pastorals. If the author of the Acts of Paul worked directly with 2 Timothy in addition
to 1 and 2 Corinthians, then the Pastorals, or at least 2 Timothy, must be dated before its
composition.
Though a late second century date for the Acts of Paul is generally accepted, Peter
Dunn argues that there is good reason to reexamine this premise.305 Dunn claims that the
external attestation for the Acts of Paul by the start of the third century suggests a midsecond century dating.306 This present discussion cannot treat all the details of this
302
MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle, 19-21.
Richard Bauckham, “The Acts of Paul as a Sequel of Acts,” in The Book of Acts in its
Ancient Literary Setting, ed. Bruce Winter and Andrew Clarke (Grand Rapids: Wm. B
Eerdmans, 1993), 105-152.
303
304
Ibid.
305
Dunn, “The Acts of Paul,” 8.
306
Dunn, “The Acts of Paul,” 10-11.
85
complicated topic, to which Dunn devotes over two hundred pages. However, it should be
noted that the date of the Acts of Paul does effect how we understand the provenance of the
Pastorals.
However, as Jeremy Barrier cautions, we should not inflate this relationship. Barrier
contends that the similarities in personnel and geography are “hardly sufficient evidence to
suggest a direct relationship from either a literary dependence or through oral
tradition.”307 Rather, he believes it likely that the similarities reflect more general
remembrances of Pauline legends and facts.308
Regardless of its date or textual relationship, the Acts of Paul should be given its due
attention in discussions around the provenance of the Pastorals. Curiously, the Pastorals
made their way into the canon and were accepted as authoritative while the Acts of Paul
was not. So regardless of their relationship and dependence, it is interesting to note that
the tradition as told in the Pastorals was ultimately considered authoritative by the early
Church while the teachings in the Acts of Paul were condemned.
Jeremy Barrier, The Acts of Paul and Thecla: A Critical Introduction and Commentary
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 42.
307
308
Ibid.
86
Part Three
2 Timothy the Pastoral Epistle
or
2 Timothy the Pauline Epistle?
87
Chapter 5: Present and Future Scholarship on 2 Timothy
2 Timothy as a Pauline text
Scholars on all sides of the authorship debate note the Pauline nature of 2 Timothy,
especially in comparison to 1 Timothy and Titus.309 P.N. Harrison was one of the first
scholars to point out this distinctiveness through analysis of vocabulary and style.
Harrison, a proponent of the fragment hypothesis, concluded that 2 Timothy was closer to
the authentic Pauline letters than 1 Timothy and Titus based on what he identified as the
large number of authentic fragments present in 2 Timothy.310
However, as discussed in Part One, the various methods used in order to analyze the
vocabulary and style of 2 Timothy and the Pastorals have proven to be problematic. There
is no consensus as to what factors should be considered or what constitutes a valid sample
size. Below are a few selected graphics showcasing some comprehensive results regarding
the amount of vocabulary each Pastoral Epistle shares with the rest of the Pauline canon:
Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John (Downers Groove: InterVaristy Press,
2006), 75.
309
310
Harrison, Problem, 48-50.
88
Figure 6: Proportion of words in each letter attributed to Paul that are shared by each PE311
1
Timothy
Percentage of
shared
vocabulary
2
Timothy
Percentage of
shared
vocabulary
Titus Percentage of
shared
vocabulary
Romans
75
7.6
75
7.6
32
3.2
1
76
8.1
59
7.6
29
3.1
61
7.8
51
6.7
21
2.8
Galatians
39
7.8
33
6.6
13
2.6
Ephesians
38
7.3
33
6.3
20
3.8
Philippians
34
7.9
33
7.7
15
3.5
Colossians
27
6.6
29
7.1
11
2.7
1 Thess.
28
7.9
27
7.6
10
2.8
2 Thess.
22
9.1
18
7.4
6
2.5
Philemon
9
7
9
7
2
1.6
Corinthians
2
Corinthians
These numbers suggest a consistency across the Pastorals. Interestingly, despite
their differences, the proportions for 1 and 2 Timothy are very similar. However, the nature
of “the Pauline vocabulary used in 2 Timothy is certainly quite different from the Pauline
vocabulary used” in the other Pastorals.312 In other words, 2 Timothy is still quantitatively
311
From La Fosse, “Situating 2 Timothy in Early Christian History”, 93.
312
LaFosse, “Situating 2 Timothy”, 95.
89
the most Pauline because it has the fewest non-Pauline words and uses Pauline vocabulary
in more complex ways compared to 1 Timothy and Titus (see discussion below).313 The
graph below gives some more detail on the vocabulary in 2 Timothy:
Figure 7: Distribution of Words in 2 Timothy314
Distribution of Words in 2 Tim
Hapax Legomena
5%
NT Words
4%
Pauline
Fragments
31%
Pauline Words
39%
Pauline Phrases
21%
This chart indicates that 91% of the words found in 2 Timothy are found elsewhere
in the other ten Pauline epistles. 315 The data that Bird used to reach these results (see note
313
LaFosse, “Situating 2 Timothy”, 94.
From Anthony Bird, “The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles – Quantifying Literary
Style,” Reformed Theological Review 71 no. 2, (1997): 77-89.
314
1,234 total words, 262 found in Pauline phrases, 384 found in Pauline fragments as
identified by Harrison, 51 New Testament words, and 56 hapax legomena. Pauline words
are those found in one or more of Paul’s other letters. The “Pauline fragments” are based on
Harrison’s identification of “authentic” fragments that were used in his proposed fragment
hypothesis. “Pauline phrases” are not clearly defined by Bird nor are the criteria used in
determining them. “NT words” are those not found in Paul’s letters but found in other New
Testament texts. Hapax legomena, as previously discussed, are words found in 2 Tim but
not anywhere else in the New Testament, including Paul’s letters.
315
90
315 below) comes from his compilation of Harrison’s results, which he then used to
construct this chart “to highlight the correspondence with Pauline vocabulary.”316 This
statistic is a bit misleading however since the very common words γάρ and ἐν account for
24% of that total.317 But approximately 52% of these shared words “belong to [a] higher
order of language” composed of “structural combinations of words” which “are joined
together to form phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and so on.” This ends up
producing a kind of “stylistic expression… that is more difficult to emulate just because it is
more complex.”318
There is no consensus on how scholars have interpreted the comparative nature of
2 Timothy in light of these studies. Some have chosen to consider the Pastoral Epistles as
three separate letters due to their respective differences to avoid “overshadowing the
particular characteristics of each letter.”319 Others continue the traditional approach of
treating the Pastorals as a group.320 But it is with recognition of 2 Timothy’s uniqueness
that the following discussion of authorship and its implications will be undertaken.
316
Bird, “Authorship”, 123.
317
Bird, “Authorship”,123-24.
318
Bird, “Authorship”,124.
319
LaFosse, “Situating 2 Timothy”, 95.
320
Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, 4.
91
The Pauline Nature of 2 Timothy: Implications For Authorship
The authorship question in recent scholarship as it concerns 2 Timothy has gone in
various directions. Starting in the mid-twentieth century, C.F.D. Moule helped popularize
the secretary hypothesis and proposed that Luke actually wrote the Pastorals during Paul’s
lifetime with Paul’s limited dictation and direction. Paul’s limited influence, Moule argues,
can account for the presence of both Pauline and un-Pauline characteristics.321 However, as
scholarship has paid increased attention to 2 Timothy as an individual letter, attempts to
explain the presence of both Pauline and un-Pauline characteristics have become narrower
in focus.
One stream of scholarship comes from the proposals of Jerome Murphy O’Connor.
O’Connor argues that 2 Timothy was the only Pastoral Epistle written during Paul’s
lifetime, which then served as the model for the pseudonymous texts of 1 Timothy and
Titus.322 Hence, 2 Timothy’s authenticity would explain its Pauline nature and can possibly
account for the acceptance of the Pastoral Epistles in the early Church.
The most pertinent question raised in response to O’Connor’s defense of 2
Timothy’s authenticity is two-fold. If 2 Timothy is the only authentic Pastoral Epistle, how
did 1 Timothy and Titus get paired with it? And how did they make their way into the
canon together?
In response, O’Connor argues that if 2 Timothy had previously been known in early
Christian circles and then 1 Timothy and Titus, which resembled some of the general
C.F.D. Moule, “The Problem of the PE: A Reappraisal,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
47 (1965): 430-452 (434-436).
321
322
O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, 358.
92
patterns of 2 Timothy, were “discovered” at a later date, this would explain how the three
letters were accepted as a group.323 It is the authenticity of 2 Timothy that satisfies,
according to O’Connor, the “only scenario capable of explaining the acceptance of the
Pastorals” since it is improbable that the early Church knowingly ‘accepted’ pseudonymous
texts.324
In conversation with O’Connor’s defense of 2 Timothy, scholars such as Luke
Timothy Johnson325 have noted the similarities between 2 Timothy and Philippians.326
These similarities include their subject matter, theme of suffering, and jail setting. This link
between the two letters, and to some extent the other Prison Epistles such as Colossians
and Philemon, are considered by some to be the key in understanding the provenance of 2
Timothy.327 Indeed, Johnson argues that 2 Timothy’s “otherness” compared to the larger
Pauline corpus would be severely diminished if it were only read with the other captivity
letters.328
From his research on the secretary in the letters of Paul, E. Randolph Richards
concluded that Philippians contains no evidence of a secretary.329 In keeping with the
323
O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, 357.
324
Ibid.
It should be noted that although Johnson himself argues for the individuality and
authenticity of 2 Timothy, he also considers 1 Timothy and Titus to be authentically Pauline
while O’Connor considers these two letters to be pseudepigraphic.
325
326
Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 242.
327
LaFosse, “Situating 2 Timothy”, 117.
328
Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 376.
329
Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, 189.
93
comparison of 2 Timothy and Philippians, it is argued by some that the similarity between
these two letters could be because they were both penned by Paul’s own hand.330
There are several factors used in determining how similar 2 Timothy and
Philippians really are. The similarities in theme and imagery will be touched on in the
following section, but for now only the aspect of vocabulary will be addressed. Below is a
table with some data from Robert Morgenthaler’s study on the vocabulary that, out of the
Pastorals, only 2 Timothy shares with Philippians.331
Figure 8: Vocabulary of 2 Timothy and Philippians
Word
Times found in
2 Timothy
Times found in
Philippians
Times found in
other ten
Pauline epistles
ἀνάστασις
ἀπολογία
ἀσθενέω
γινώσκω
δεσμός
δύναμις
ἐγείρω
ἐπιποθέω
ἐπουράνιος
εὑρίσκω
ζητέω
θάνατος
καρπός
κλῆσις
λατρεύω
λογίζομαι
μἐν
νεκρός
οἵος
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
5
4
1
1
2
1
2
1
6
3
1
1
1
6
1
1
7
4
15
47
7
45
40
6
10
16
19
43
10
8
3
31
60
41
8
330
Total number of
times found in
the New
Testament
42
8
33
221
18
118
143
9
18
176
117
120
66
11
21
41
181
128
14
Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church, 5.
Robert Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Worschatzes (Zurich: GotthelfVerlag, 1958), 67-157.
331
94
οὕτως
πάθημα
πάντοτε
παρά
πάσχω
πείθω
πλείων, -ον
πληρόω
πολλάκις
σπένδομαι
στέφανος
σωτηρία
τρόπος
χαρά
1
1
1
5
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
6
1
4
1
1
1
3
1
5
73
8
26
35
6
15
7
21
7
1
3
16
4
21
208
616
41
191
40
52
55
87
17
2
18
45
13
59
2 Timothy and Philippians: A Case Example
A comparison of 2 Timothy and Philippians in their similarities of theme, imagery,
and content will illustrate how, in evaluating the provenance of some Pauline epistles,
certain considerations are selectively applied. In the case of 2 Timothy, this leads to
inaccurate or unjustifiable classifications that are not enjoined to the “undisputed” letters
of Paul.
The most striking of these similarities is Paul’s fixation on suffering and death. He
writes in Philippians that even though he is “being poured out as a libation over the
sacrifice and the offering” of their faith, he is “glad and [rejoices] with” all of them (Phil
2:17-18). This has a close parallel in 2 Tim 4:6 where Paul writes to Timothy that he is
“already bring poured out as a libation” for the good of the faith.
95
Most scholars do not see Paul’s use of being “poured out as a libation” in Philippians
as being indicative of a farewell testament genre.332 Rather, in conjunction with the rest of
the letter, Paul seems to be in a position where a death sentence is possible.333 Even so, he
is still very active in sending and receiving people, including hopes of sending Timothy
back to the Philippians so that he may be cheered up by their recent news (Phil 2:19).
The authenticity of Philippians is not questioned due these seemingly different
attitudes. But when it comes to the case of 2 Timothy, scholars see a considerable tension
between Paul’s supposed near-death mentality and his desire that Timothy come to him
soon with Mark and some of his other possessions he had left elsewhere (4:9).334
Another similarity between the two letters is their use of pre-formed tradition. In
Philippians, there is the “Christ hymn” in chapter two that is widely acknowledged to be a
tradition that did not originate with Paul.335 Very few scholars question the authorship of
the letter on these grounds.
However, the use of “The saying is sure” creed-like formulations which appear once
in 2 Tim 1:11-13, several times in 1 Timothy (1:15; 3:1; 4:9), and once in Titus (3:8) are
often use in the case against Pauline authorship.336 If we look at 2 Timothy in isolation,
A.E. Harvey, A Companion to the New Testament (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2004), 631.
332
333
Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, 78.
334
John Calvin, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1998), 165.
I. Howard Marshall, “The Christ-Hymn in Philippians 2:5-11,” Tyndale Bulletin 19,
(1968): 104-127.
335
David deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry
Foundation (Downers Groove: IVP Academic, 2004), 736-37.
336
96
there is nothing particularly questionable about a one-time use of this saying. Even if one
argues that the saying is not Pauline in character, they must also consider the Philippian
Christ hymn and its unique nature.337 While “The saying is sure” formulations are generic
in form, especially compared to the Christ hymn, it is the haste with which many scholars
reach the conclusion of its post-Pauline origins which reflects the lack of due diligence in
postulating other potential scenarios regarding its provenance.338
Lastly, there are a few minor similarities between the two epistles that often go
unrecognized. These are primarily the focus on false teachers/opponents and the use of
biographical details. In both Phil 1:15-18 and 3:2-4, Paul urges that the believers beware of
false teachers who “proclaim Christ from envy and rivalry” and intend to increase his
suffering during his imprisonment. There is not much explanatory detail given about the
opponents besides this broad denunciation. Thus as addressed in Part One, the mention
and general condemnation of opponents who “oppose the truth” (3:8) in 2 Timothy should
not be used as a cornerstone in arguing against its Pauline nature.339
Those that question Paul’s use of biographical information in 2 Timothy see no
reason why he should have to include something that Timothy already knows.340 However,
this objection stands on very weak ground. One does not have to limit counter-examples to
Philippians, but for the sake of focus, this discussion will.
337
Porter, The Apostle Paul, 333.
See Hanson, Studies, 46; Daniel J. Harrington, The Church According to the New
Testament: What the Wisdom and Witness of Early Christianity Teach Us Today (New York:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001), 31-34.
338
339
Porter, Paul and His Opponents, 42-43.
340
Murphy O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, 364-66.
97
Paul states in Philippians 3:5 that he was “circumcised on the eight day, a member of
the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, A Hebrew born of Hebrews; [and] as to the
law, a Pharisee.” These are details that, at least partially, the Philippian church would have
been aware of.341 But Paul is not including them just to say something they already know.
Rather, in context they contribute to a larger point i.e. that righteousness does not come
from the law but from faith.342
The same principle can rightly be applied to 2 Timothy. For example, Paul reminds
Timothy of how he learned and formed his faith through his mother and grandmother and
then finally from Paul himself (1:5). According to O’Connor, this is to give Timothy
encouragement in what seems to be times of persecution from the Roman state and
disagreements within the Christian community itself.343
While this can be viewed as a tactic by a pseudonymous author to push a certain
agenda, it can also equally be viewed as a practice Paul utilized in many of his letters to
make a point to their respective recipients.344 The next section will consider what
implications these viewpoints mentioned have for understanding 2 Timothy and what it
can contribute to current and future scholarship as a whole.
G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 2009), 317-18.
341
342
Anthony Ash, Philippians, Colossians & Philemon (Joplin: College Press Publishing, 1994),
79.
343
O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, 364-66.
344
Ibid.
98
Implications of New Considerations
As scholarship on the Pastorals has increased in recent decades, more scholars have
ventured to push back on the traditional scholarly contention that these letters should be
grouped together and considered as similar works written by a common author. There is
something to be said about the potential impact these challenges and new proposals have
on our contemporary understanding of the Pastoral Epistles, especially 2 Timothy.
One such impact is the heightened awareness of what these letters can tell us about
Christianity and its beginning stages of development.345 Regardless of where one stands on
the question of authorship, there is no denying that the Pastorals represent, to some
degree, a development in Pauline thought and church structure not seen in Paul’s other
letters.346As scholarship has continued to analyze different aspects of the Pastorals, a
clearer picture of how early Christians sought to understand and interpret Paul has
emerged.347
The issues surrounding the prominence of 2 Timothy can also provide insights into
the development of early Christianity which 1 Timothy and Titus cannot. Chief among these
are insights into the practice of pseudepigraphy and the formation of the Pauline canon.
Many scholars conflate the personal nature of 2 Timothy and its extensive list of
people and biographical elements with intentionality on the part of the author (if not Paul)
to deceive.348 If this is indeed the case, then the implications for understanding the practice
345
Harding, What Are They Saying, 95-120.
346
Harding, What Are They Saying, 3-7.
347
Harding, What Are They Saying, 95.
348
Wall and Steele, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, 5-7.
99
and acceptance(?) of pseudepigraphy are quite substantial. Furthermore, for some it may
even prompt a question as to the nature and understanding of Scripture itself.349
There is also a link between the formation of the Pauline cannon and the question of
2 Timothy’s genre. Two points of focus will serve as examples of this link: the mention of
books and “parchments” that Paul asks Timothy to bring in 4:13 and the way in which 2
Timothy encapsulates Paul as a memory.
In his recent book on the New Testament canon, Michael Kruger addresses the
significance of the books and parchments alluded to in 2 Timothy 4:13. He notes that few
doubt the word translated as books, (τὰ βιβλία), is a reference to the Hebrew Bible.350
However, there is more uncertainty around what the word translated as parchments (τὰς
μεμβράνας) refers to.
Kruger posits that there are a number of possibilities. They could be excerpts of
Jesus’ teachings, notes regarding oral traditions, or copies of Paul’s own letters and
notes.351 Of these possibilities, Paul’s own letters and notes have gained the most traction
in scholarship.352 If 2 Timothy is from the historical Paul, then this could be an indication of
the start of a collection for Paul’s letters. Furthermore, if 2 Timothy is indeed a last
testament, it could also mean that after Paul’s death this collection was left in the hands of
349
Harding, What Are They Saying, 4 and 107-109.
Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament
Debate (Downers Groove: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 93-94.
350
351
Ibid.
352
Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 282-83.
100
Luke (4:11).353 This would clearly have profound implications for understanding the
origins of the Pauline canon, the likes of which are beyond the scope of this study.
From the perspective of pseudonymity, 2 Timothy’s presentation of Paul’s last
testament is a portal into how the earliest interpreters of Paul understood his life and
legacy.354 Martinus de Boer understands the Pastorals, particularly 2 Timothy, as
presenting a more developed picture of Paul than the other Deutero-Paulines.355 Paul is the
highest regarded apostle whose example of suffering and true preaching of the gospel
serves as the pattern by which the audience of 2 Timothy should model itself.356 This
depiction of Paul could mean his memory and message were, for one reason or another, in
danger of being contaminated. According to the author of 2 Timothy, it is the current and
latter generations of Christians who must “guard” this legacy.357
This awareness has also prompted Graham Roberts to raise an intriguing question:
Would 2 Timothy have found more acceptance in modern scholarship if 1 Timothy or Titus
were never included in the New Testament canon?358 The most fitting answer to this
question seems to be yes. As discussed earlier, even those who hold very firmly to
Jerome Murphy O’Connor, Paul the Letter-writer: His World, His Options, His Skills
(Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1995), 36-37.
353
354
Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 181-86.
Martinus de Boer, “Images of Paul in the Post-Apostolic Period”, Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 42 (1980): 359-380.
355
356
Ibid.
David Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1987), 123-137.
357
358
Roberts, Paul and Timothy: Developing a Leader, 171.
101
pseudonymity admit that 2 Timothy is the most Pauline of the group.359 Johnson posits that
one cannot help but think that if only 2 Timothy had made its way into the canon, many of
the un-Pauline traits only present in 1 Timothy and Titus would not have been projected
blindly onto 2 Timothy.360
As scholarship continues to advocate and defend diverse opinions, the potential of
these letters to contribute to a wider range of scholarly fields will no doubt continue to rise.
It is with recognition of the Pastorals’ place in current and future scholarship that this
discussion will offer some concluding thoughts.
Michael Prior and 2 Timothy: Closing Thoughts
Though written in 1989, Michael Prior’s book, Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second
Letter to Timothy, has yet to fully be considered in current scholarship despite being cited
quite frequently in both past and current discussions of the Pastorals. Though it may be
said that Prior’s case for authenticity is unpersuasive, recent scholarship continues to
present proponents of Pauline authorship in ways that do not reflect Prior’s perspective.
This discussion does not stand to affirm or deny the accuracy of his theory. Rather, despite
already touching on some aspects, it stands to fully consider Prior’s ideas as a way of
further reflecting on both current and future scholarship.
Unlike the scholarship of those who defend Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy such as
Jerome Murphy O’Connor and Gordon Fee, Prior does not situate 2 Timothy within a
second Roman imprisonment. Rather, he argues that 2 Timothy was written from the
359
Porter, The Pauline Canon, 12.
360
Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 7-8.
102
imprisonment narrated in Acts 28 and is a reflection of Paul’s anticipation to be released
and continue his ministry.361 Strictly within the bounds of textual evidence and without any
speculative reconstructions or assumptions, Prior is one of the few scholars, if not the only,
to propose an explanation to the major questions posed against 2 Timothy. Again, this is
not a claim of who is right or wrong but a claim of recognition which scholarship has
neglected to fully offer.
Rather than reiterate points covered in previous sections or expand on new ones, a
chart that summarizes these points followed by some concluding thoughts will suffice.
Figure 9: Michael Prior on 2 Timothy
Issue
Vocabulary/Style
Prior’s Proposed Explanation
Harrison’s statistics regarding the vocabulary of the Pastorals have been
critiqued and sufficiently shown to be faulty in methodology.362 More
recent studies have proved to be inconclusive.363These studies also do not
take into account the influence of co-authorship and/or secretaries,
though these are almost impossible to quantify or determine. Three
features that are unique to 2 Timothy (and the Pastorals), namely the
private nature of the correspondence, the lack of indication of a secretary,
Though Walker and Smith (and to a lesser extent, Johnson) also adopt this point of view,
Prior defends his position in different ways, primarily in not frequently resorting to
historical and situational reconstruction.
361
See W. Michaelis, “Pastoralbriefe und Wortstatistik,” ZNW 29 (1929): 71-74; F.J.
Badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their Historical Setting
(London: S.P.C.K., 1937), 115-33; F.R.M. Hitchcock, “Philo and the Pastorals”, Hermathena
56 (1940): 113-35.
362
A.Q. Morton and J. McLeman, Paul, the Man and the Myth (London: Harper & Row, 1966),
63-96 concluded that Galatians, Romans and 1 & 2 Corinthians were written by one person
and Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians by another; Grayston and Herdan, “The
Authorship of the Pastorals in the Light of Statistical Linguistis,” NTS 6 (1960): 10-15
demonstrated a different ‘style’ (though it is unclear what exactly this constitutes) in the
Pastorals but their methodology has subsequently been criticized because they only take
into account vocabulary; Anthony Kenny concluded that 2 Timothy was as close as 2
Corinthians to the center of the constellation of Paul’s style.
363
103
Genre
Date
Theology
Opponents
Historical
Situation/Detail
and the fact they are addressed to individuals, can account for “at least
some of the differences between these letters and the other
Paulines.”364This is apart from the influence of a unique situation and
subject matter, which may also account for some of the uniqueness,
especially in vocabulary.
2 Timothy is not a farewell or last testament. Apart from 4:6-8, there is
nothing in the letter to suggest Paul’s death. An examination of these
verses, specifically the words σπένδομαι and ἀναλύσεώς, shows that
there is no case in the New Testament, Hebrew Bible, or any other Greek
text we have, in which these words are used in relation to someone’s
death.365 Once the idea of a farewell testament is set aside, the letter can
be seen as an exhortation to Timothy and a request for him to come to
Rome to help Paul continue his ministry upon his release. With this in
mind, many of the inconsistencies of the letter, which are often used in
support of pseudonymity, are dispelled. These include:
 The contradiction in tone and message between 4:6-8 and 4:9-21
 Paul’s request for Timothy to bring Mark and his parchments
 Paul’s exhortations toward Timothy to stay strong and follow the
right path
 The urgency with which Paul seems to convey these exhortations
and requests
 Issues concerning details between 2 Timothy and Acts/Paul’s other
letters
Though there is no consensus on the dating of Paul’s life, the composition
of 2 Timothy would fall somewhere around Paul’s Roman imprisonment
in Acts 28 (approximately 61-62 CE). The letter can be placed in this
imprisonment because of Paul’s expectation of release and plans to
preach the Gospel to “all the Gentiles” (4:17).
Due to the nature and purpose of the letter, there is very little distinct
theology present in 2 Timothy. The exclusion of certain Pauline themes,
such as the cross, do not stand on solid ground as an argument. The
appeals to Timothy to safeguard the “deposit” and emphasis on correct
teaching can be attributed to the letter’s purpose.
There is no element of anti-Jewish polemic or Gnostic elements present in
2 Timothy that are not seen in other Pauline letters.366
There are many unknowns when trying to figure out the details of Paul’s
final years. In the case of 2 Timothy, the historical situation can plausibly
be placed in Paul’s imprisonment (likely in Rome). His expectation of
364
Prior, Letter-Writer, 59.
365
Prior, Letter-Writer, 92-103.
366
Prior, Letter-Writer, 64.
104
Purpose
release and plans for future missionary activity further reflect the details
we have of Paul’s Roman imprisonment and subsequent activity. In terms
of the vast number of names and locations included, there is simply very
little evidence we can use to determine the plausibility of this information
due to lack of detail we have regarding this time period in Paul’s life.367
The purpose of the letter, much like the other Paulines, is reveled in the
thanksgiving, specifically 1:3-5. These purposes/themes are twofold:
Paul’s longing to see Timothy (1:4), and his concern for Timothy’s faith
(1:5).368These two main themes lend themselves to the primary purpose
of the letter, namely to exhort Timothy to come to him soon. This
exhortation is prompted by two factors: Paul’s fear that “Timothy would,
like so many of his erstwhile trusted co-workers, succumb to the
temptation to abandon Paul and the faith”369, and Paul’s desire to
assemble a missionary team for when he is released.
When laying out the positions of those who defend Pauline authorship, a full
consideration of Prior’s (and like minded scholars) contribution should be employed in
future scholarship on 2 Timothy and the Pastorals. The recent traction gained by
arguments in favor of 2 Timothy’s Pauline nature amongst the Pastorals is a step towards
treating the Pastorals as three separate letters. However, this individual attention has not
translated over to theories of their provenance. In discussions of authorship, genre, and
dating future scholarship should be cautious in assuming certain positions as being
unanimously held by all “defenders” of Pauline authorship, especially in the case of 2
Timothy. These include, but are not limited to: 2 Timothy as a farewell testament, a product
of Paul’s second Roman imprisonment, and inextricably linked to 1 Timothy and Titus in its
geographical and other historical details.
367
Prior, Letter-Writer, 90.
368
Prior, Letter-Writer, 62.
369
Prior, Letter-Writer, 64.
105
Conclusion
As noted by Jens Herzer in a recent article on the Pastoral Epistles, the sheer
number of commentaries and other texts which have been written on the Pastorals over
the last forty to fifty years is quite impressive.370 That being said, the marginal standing of
the Pastorals in scholarship must still be noted. This thesis has sought to outline the
significant work of other scholars, especially in regard to the authorship, dating, and genre
of 2 Timothy, while also showing that many aspects remain overlooked or unfairly
assumed.
The works of Jerome Murphy O’Connor, Mark Prior and many others have stressed
the importance of treating the Pastorals as three separate and distinct letters. These recent
trends have served to question many of the assumptions that have stayed relatively
unchallenged for over a century. While this has reinvigorated discussions surrounding the
Pastorals, there are still vast amounts of progress to be made.
In particular, the authorship and genre of 2 Timothy warrants future consideration.
The often blind grouping of 2 Timothy with 1 Timothy and Titus has led to many aspects of
this letter to either be overlooked or assumed. There is enough evidence that has been
presented in recent scholarship to convince those who, in one form or another have
already written off the Pastorals, to give them a second look. This is not to say that there is
definitive evidence to overthrow the majority consensus of pseudonymity, but rather that
the Pastorals, and especially 2 Timothy, are dynamic pieces of work that have unfairly been
marginalized by past scholarship and warrant further consideration.
370
Herzer, “Rearranging the ‘House of God”, 147-48.
106
While there are valid reasons to consider 2 Timothy’s style to be that of a farewell
testament, there are also valid reasons to give other views concerning genre their due
consideration. This statement may seem like a fairly obvious one, especially those who
stress the individuality of each PE. However, it is often not reflected in scholarship and
there remains only a small group of scholars who can be classified as treating the Pastorals
as separate entities.371
So while some aspects of the above discussion may seem intuitive, it is precisely that
mindset which has directed recent scholarship of the PE, especially in the case of 2
Timothy, to project certain “assumed” characteristics and classifications that call for
greater pause. Furthermore, as the above comparison between 2 Timothy and Philippians
shows, some of the criticisms often used to marginalize 2 Timothy and the PE are not
universally applied across the Pauline corpus and lead to inaccurate classifications which
can sometimes skew our vision of both the historical and canonical Paul.
371
E.g. Mark Prior, Jerome Murphy O’Connor, Luke Timothy Johnson, Mark Harding.
107
Chapter 6: Where is the Burden of Proof?
As cited by many scholars on the Pastoral Epistles, early Church Fathers clearly
thought that Paul wrote the Pastorals and, when the official Canon was being put together,
these letters were included with little to no resistance. Indeed, there was no doubt as to the
authorship of the letters until the early 19th century, meaning the Pastorals had essentially
gone through almost two thousand years without being questioned. With this in mind,
some scholars bring up the concept of the burden of proof, i.e. the burden is on modern
skeptics to disprove Pauline authorship rather than the other way around.
However, this proclamation is a weak one and has been used rather frivolously as a
kind of ‘last-word’ argumentative point. The point must be conceded to defenders of
Pauline authorship that the burden of proof does, to some extent, fall on those who
challenge the claim that the letters themselves and over a millennium of tradition attest to.
But, this is not the same thing as saying that a skeptic’s argument should be evaluated on
whether it objectively has enough ‘evidence’ to “over throw” said claims.
108
Bibliography
Aageson, James W. Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church (Library of Pauline
Studies). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007.
Adams, Sean A. "The Relationships of Paul and Luke: Luke, Paul’s Letters, and the “We”
Passages of Acts." Paul and His Social Relations 7 (2012): 125-42.
Arichea, Daniel C., and Howard A. Hatton. Paul's Letters to Timothy and Titus. New York, NY:
United Bible Societies, 1995.
Ash, Anthony. Philippians, Colossians & Philemon. Joplin: College Press Publishing, 1994.
Barensten, Jack. Emerging Leadership in the Pauline Mission: A Social Identity Perspective on
Local Leadership Development in Corinth and Ephesus. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications,
2011.
Barrier, Jeremy. The Acts of Paul and Thecla: A Critical Introduction and Commentary.
Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Bassler, Jouette M. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.
Nashville, TN: Abington Press, 1996.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Acts of Paul as a Sequel of Acts,” in The Book of Acts in its Ancient
Literary Setting, ed. Bruce Winter and Andrew Clarke. Grand Rapids: Wm. B Eerdmans,
1993.
Bauckham, Richard. "Pseudo-Apostolic Letters." Journal of Biblical Literature 107, no. 3
(September 1988): 469-94.
Berding, Kenneth. Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological
Relationship. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Bligh, Malcolm. "Seventeen Verses Written for Timothy (2 Tim 4:6-22)." Journal of
Educational Theology & Society 109 (1998): 364-69.
Blomberg, Craig. From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts Through Revelation.
Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2006.
Boer, Martinus de. “Images of Paul in the Post-Apostolic Period.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly
42 (1980): 359-380.
Boxall, Ian. Books of the New Testament. London: Canterbury Press, 2007.
Brooks, E. Bruce. "Paul’s Editors and the Deutero-Pauline Epistles." Society of Biblical
Literature, 2015. https://www.umass.edu/wsp/forum/ne2015/2015ne-editorss-paper.pdf
109
Brownrigg, Ronald. Who’s Who in the New Testament. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1984.
Calvin, John. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1998.
Campbell, Douglas A. Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 2014.
Campenhausen, Hans von. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1972.
Carter, Brandon. The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. Master's thesis, Liberty University,
2007.
Capes, David and Reeves, Rodney and Richards, Randolph E. Rediscovering Paul: An
Introduction to His World, Letters and Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007.
Collins, Raymond F. Letters That Paul Did Not Write. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 1988.
Collins, Raymond F. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
Cosby, Michael R. Apostle on the Edge: An Inductive Approach to Paul. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.
Davies, Margaret. The Pastoral Epistles: I and II Timothy and Titus. Epworth Commentary
Series. Epworth Press, 1997.
DelHousaye, John. "2 Timothy: Translation and Notes." Academia.edu.
https://www.academia.edu/4192235/2_Timothy_Translation_and_Notes.
deSilva, David. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry
Foundation. Downers Groove: IVP Academic, 2004.
Donaldson, James and Roberts, Alexander. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the
Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. New York: Cosimo Classics, 2007.
Donelson, Lewis R. Colossians, Ephesians, First and Second Timothy, Titus. Louisville,
Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Donelson, Lewis R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Tübingen,
Germany: J.C.B. Mohr, 1986.
110
Dulk, Matthijs Den. "I Permit No Woman to Teach Except for Thecla: The Curious Case of
the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of Paul Reconsidered." Novum Testamentum 54, no. 2
(2012): 176-203.
Dunn, Peter Wallace. “The Acts of Paul and the Pauline Legacy in the Second Century.” 1996.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Queens’ College.
Edsall, Benjamin A. Paul’s Witness to Formative Early Christian Instruction. Tübingen,
Germany: Mohr Seibeck, 2014.
Eichhorn, J.G. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig: Weidmannischen Buchhandlung,
1812.
Elliot, J.K. "Using an Author’s Consistency of Usage and Conjectures as Criteria to Resolve
Textual Variation in the Greek New Testament." New Testament Studies 62 (2016): 122-35.
Everett, Gary H. The Epistle of 2 Timothy. Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures. Logos Bible
Software, 2016.
Fee, Gordon. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. Vol. 13. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1989.
Fewster, Gregory P. ""Can I Have Your Autograph?" On Thinking about Pauline Authorship
and Pseudepigraphy." Bulletin for the Study of Religion 43, no. 3 (July 2, 2014): 30-39.
Fore, Benjamin and Harrington, Daniel. The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy,
Titus. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007.
Foster, Paul. Colossians BNTC. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016.
Gill, Malcolm. Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1-7. New York:
International Academic Publishers, 2008.
Gloer, W. Hulitt. 1 & 2 Timothy-Titus. Vol. 29a. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Smyth &
Helwy, 2010.
Grayston, K., and Gerald Herdan. "The Authorship of the Pastorals in the Light of Statistical
Linguistics." New Testament Studies 6, no. 1 (October 1959): 1-15.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul.” The Tyndale New Testament
Lecture, 1955. London: The Tyndale Press, 1956.
Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles: an Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1990.
111
Hagner, Donald. The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012.
Hansen, Walter G. The Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 2009.
Hanson, Anthony T. New Century Bible Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles. New Century
Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 1982.
Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. Studies in the Pastoral Epistles. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 1968.
Harding, Mark. What Are They Saying about the Pastoral Epistles? Mahwah, New Jersey:
Paulist Press, 2001.
Harrington, Daniel J. The Church According to the New Testament: What the Wisdom and
Witness of Early Christianity Teach Us Today. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
2001.
Harrison, P. N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. London, United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press, 1921.
Harrison, P.N. "The Pastoral Epistles and Duncan's Ephesian Theory." Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 2 (1956): 250-61.
Hiebert, Edmond D. An Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 2: The Pauline Epistles.
Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002.
Hicks, E.Y. "The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles." Journal of Biblical Literature16 (1897):
94-117.
Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2002.
Horrell, David. An Introduction to the Study of Paul. T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical
Studies. Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2006.
Hu, Wei. "Study of Pauline Epistles in the New Testament Using Machine
Learning." Sociology Mind 3, no. 2 (April 2013): 193-203.
Ieraci, Laura. "2 Timothy: A Pauline Text." Concordia University Undergraduate Journal of
Theological Studies, 2012. Accessed from:
https://www.academia.edu/2481070/2_Timothy_A_Pauline_Text.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The New Testament: A Very Short Introduction. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2010.
112
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: Third Edition. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2010.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. New York:
Bloomsbury Academic, 1996.
Jowers, Dennis. "Observations on the Authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles." WRS Journal 12,
no. 2 (August 2005): 7-11.
Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. London: A & C Black, 1963.
Kierspel, Lars. Charts on the Life, Letters, and Theology of Paul. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Kregel Publishers, 2012.
Kim, Donald H. "Entrusted with Tradition: A Socio-Historical Study of Entrustment
Language and the Metaphor of Management in the Pastoral Letters." Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 2014,
http://proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1654575483?a
ccountid=10598 (accessed October 20, 2016).
Kirk, Alexander N. The Departure of an Apostle: Paul’s Death Anticipated and Remembered.
Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
Klerck, Myriam Klinker-De. "The Pastoral Epistles: Authentic Pauline Writings." European
Journal of Theology 17, no. 2 (2008): 101-08.
Knight, George W. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. "Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the
Pastoral Epistles.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 7, no. 3 (2003): 4-17.
Kruger, Michael. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New
Testament Books. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Kruger, Michael. The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament
Debate. Downers Groove: InterVarsity Press, 2013.
Lafosse, Mona Joy. “Situating 2 Timothy in Early Christian History.” Master's thesis, Wilfrid
Laurier University, 2001.
Lafosse, Mona Joy. “Women’s Roles in the Letters to Timothy and Titus.” The Center for
Christian Ethics at Baylor University, (2013): 30-39.
113
Lam, Alvin. "The Authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles." Accessed from:
http://www.myntbc.org/home/140000552/140000552/docs/pastoral.real.pdf?.
Lea, Thomas, and Hayne P. Griffin. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Theological
Exposition of Holy Scripture. Vol. 34. New American Commentary. B&H Publishing Group,
1992.
Levine, Amy-Jill, and Marc Z. Brettler, eds. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford
University Press, 2011.
Libby, James. “The Pauline Canon Sung in a Linguistic Key: Visualizing New Testament Text
Proximity by Linguistic Structure, System, and Strata.” Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics
5, (2016): 122-201.
Lundmark, Jeremy. "Did Paul Write the Pastoral Epistles?" Theology Mix. April 27, 2016.
Macdonald, Alex. "Paul and His Epistolary Collaborators." Academia.edu.
https://www.academia.edu/14498550/Paul_and_his_Epistolary_Collaborators.
Maier, Paul L. Eusebius: The Church History. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.
Malherbe, Abraham J. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral
Care. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1987.
Malina, Bruce. Timothy: Paul's Closest Associate. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press,
2008.
Marshall, I. Howard. "Recent Studies of the Pastoral Epistles." Themelios 23, no. 1 (1997): 530.
Marshall, I. Howard. “The Christ-Hymn in Philippians 2:5-11,” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968):
104-127.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Pastoral Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. New York,
New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
Marshall, Taylor. "The Secretaries of Peter, Paul and John." January 30, 2015.
http://taylormarshall.com/2015/01/secretaries-peter-paul.html.
Martin, Sean Charles. 2 Timothy and the Last Words of Moses. Vol. 18. Tesi Gregoriana.
Gregorian & Biblical Press, 1997.
Mascord, Keith. Faith Without Fear: Risky Choices Facing Contemporary Christians. Eugene,
Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2016.
114
Mayne, John. "Pastoral Epistles: Authorship." Academia.edu. August 2016.
https://www.academia.edu/15837625/Pastoral_Epistles_Authorship.
Mead, Thayer Caroline. The Pauline Epistles Classified According to the External Evidence
Cambridge: Methodist Review, 1893,
Meade, David. Pseudonymity and Canon. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1987.
Melick, Richard Jr. Philippian, Colossians, Philemon. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1991.
Mills, Donna Eudora. “Authorship Attribution Applied to the Bible.” Master's thesis, Texas
Tech University, 2003.
Morgenthaler, Robert. Statistik des neutestamentlichen Worschatzes. Zurich: GotthelfVerlag, 1958.
Moon, Jongyoon. “Mark As Contributive Amanuensis Of 1 Peter? An Inquiry Into Mark’s
Involvement in Light of First-Century Letter Writing.” Doctorate thesis, University of
Pretoria, 2008.
Moo, Douglas. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.
Moule, C.F.D. "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal." Lecture, The Manson
Memorial Lecture, University of Manchester, October 30, 1964.
Mounce, William. World Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles. Vol. 46. World Biblical
Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000.
Mulryan, John, and Tyler Grudi. "Shrinking the New Testament Canon: A Review of Forgery
and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics." Cithara 55, no.
2 (May 2016): 46-53.
Munro, Winsome. Authority in Paul and Peter. Society for New Testament Studies
Monograph Series. Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Nes, Jermo Van. "On the Origin of the Pastorals' Authenticity Criticism: A ‘New’
Perspective." New Testament Studies 62, no. 2 (February 2016): 315-20.
Neste, Ray Van. Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles. Vol. 280. The Library of New
Testament Studies. Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004.
O'Connor, Jerome Murphy. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford University Press, 1998.
115
O’Connor, Jerome Murphy. Paul the Letter-writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. The
Liturgical Press, 1995.
Oden, Thomas. First and Second Timothy and Titus: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for
Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989.
Oney, Mike. "2 Timothy: Mentoring an Experiential Learner." Regent University. 2007.
Oropeza, B. J. Jews, Gentiles, and the Opponents of Paul. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books,
2012.
Parry, Reginald John. The Pastoral Epistles with Introduction, Text and Commentary.
Cambridge University Press, 1920.
Patzia, Arthur. The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon. Downers
Groove: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Pervo, Richard I. The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010.
Phillips, John. Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary. Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 2002.
Pizzuto, Vincent. A Cosmic Leap of Faith: An Authorial, Structural, and Theological
Investigation of the Cosmic Christology in Col 1:15-20. Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2006.
Porter, Stanley E. "Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for
Canon." Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995): 105-23.
Porter, Stanley E. The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans, 2016.
Porter, Stanley E., and Gregory P. Fewster. Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Vol. 8. Pauline Studies.
Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2013.
Porter, Stanley E., and Sean A. Adams. Pauline Studies: Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Vol.
6. Pauline Studies. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2010.
Powell, Mark Allan. "Authorship of the Pastoral Letters." In Introducing the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.
Price, Robert M. "Schleiermacher’s Dormant Discovery." Journal of Higher Criticism 9, no. 2
(2002): 203-16.
Price, Robert M. "The Evolution of the Pauline Canon." Hervormde Teologiese Studies 53
(1997): 36-67.
116
Quinn, Jerome D., and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New
Translation with Notes and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.
Prior, Michael. Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1989.
Richards, E. Randolph. "The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul's Letters. “Bulletin for
Biblical Research, no. 8 (1998): 151-66.
Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Vol. 42. J.C.B. Mohr, 1991.
Richards, William. Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity. Vol. 44. Studies in
Biblical Literature. Peter Lang, International Academic Publishers, 2002.
Roberts, Graham. Paul and Timothy: Developing a Leader. Melbourne College of Divinity,
2008.
Rodgers, Patrick. "The Pastoral Epistles as Deutero -Pauline." Irish Theological Quarterly 45,
no. 4 (December 1978): 248-60.
Sanders, E.P. Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress
Press, 2015.
Schellenberg, Ryan S. "The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul's Itinerary in the Letters and in
Acts." Journal of Biblical Literature 134, no. 1 (2015): 193-213.
Scott, John R.W. The Message of 2 Timothy. The New Testament Series. Downers Groove,
Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Simpson, Graham. The Pastoral Epistles – 1-2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Contextual
Commentary. India Commentary on the New Testament. Primalogue Publishing, 2011.
Smith, Craig A. 2 Timothy. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2016.
Smith, Craig. Timothy's Task, Paul's Prospect: A New Reading of 2 Timothy. Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006.
Snyder, Glenn E. Acts of Paul: The Formation of a Pauline Corpus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2013.
Spencer, Aida Besancon. 2 Timothy and Titus. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2014.
Spicq, Ceslaus. Les Epitres Pastorales. Paris: Gabalda, 1969.
117
Stanford, Robert Lee. 2015. "The Ecclesiological Grounding of Pauline Language of
Leadership in 1 and 2 Timothy." The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
http://proxy.lib.duke.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722047463?a
ccountid=10598.
Sumney, Jerry. “Studying Paul’s Opponents: Advances and Challenges.” In Paul and His
Opponents 2005, edited by Stanley Porter, 7-58. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005.
Swindoll, Charles. Insights on 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,
2010.
Swinson, L. Timothy. What Is Scripture?: Paul's Use of Graphe in the Letters to Timothy.
Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2014.
Torres, Milton. "Pauline Vicissitudes and 2 Tim 3:11." Hermenêutica 2 (2002): 45-49.
Towner, Philip H. "The Portrait of Paul and the Theology of 2 Timothy: The Closing Chapter
of the Pauline Story." Horizons in Biblical Theology 21, no. 2 (1999): 151-70.
Towner, Philip H. 1-2 Timothy & Titus. Vol. 14. IVP New Testament Commentary Series.
Downers Groove, Illinois: InterVaristy Press, 1994.
Trebilco, Paul. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William Eerdmans Publishing, 2004.
Verhoef, Eduard. "Pseudepigraphic Paulines in the New Testament" Reading, SBL
International Meeting at the University of Cambridge, University of Cambridge, July 23,
2003.
Walker, Paul. "Revisiting the Pastoral Epistles - Part 2." European Journal of Theology 21,
no. 2 (October 1, 2012): 120-32.
Wall, Robert W., and Richard B. Steele. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans, 2012.
Weiser, Alfons. Der zweite Brief an Timotheus. Düsseldorf: Benziger Verlag, 2003.
Wilder, Terry L. "Philippians Is Just as Pseudonymous as the Pastorals." Reading, ETS
Annual Meeting, Georgia, Atlanta, November 21, 2003.
Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John. Vol. 1. Downers Groove, Illinois:
InterVaristy Press, 2006.
Zehr, Paul. Believers Church Bible Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. Believers Church
Bible Commentary. Herald Press, 2009.
118
Appendix A: Figures Across the Pastoral and Prison Epistles
Prison and Pastoral Epistles
People Mentioned in Opening/Closing
Greetings
Ephesians
Colossians
Tychicus
Timothy, Tychicus, Aristarchus, Mark, Justus,
Epaphras, Luke, Demas, Nympha, Archippus
Philippians
Philemon
Timothy, Epaphroditus
Timothy, Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas,
Luke
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
None
Demas, Crescens, Titus, Luke, Tychicus, Mark,
Prisca, Aquilla, Onesiphorus (his household),
Erastus, Trophimus, Eubulus, Prudens, Linus,
Claudia
Titus
Artemas, Tychicus, Zenas the lawyer, Apollos
Appendix B: Textual Allusions in 2 Timothy372
Passage in 2 Timothy
Other Pauline passage which seems to be edited
1:3-4
Romans 1:8-11
1:6-8
Romans 8:12-17
1:8-9
Romans 1:16-17
1:9-10
Ephesians 2:4-8
2:1-13
1 Cor. 9:1-27
2:8-13
Philippians 1:12-28
2:20-21
Romans 9:19-24
3:2-4
Romans 1:29-31
3:16-17
Romans 15:4-6
Adapted from Alfons Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus (Düsseldorf: Benziger
Verlag, 2003), 66.
372
119
4:6-8
Philippians 2:16-17
4:8
Philippians 3:12-14
4:11
Philemon 11