The Pastoral Epistles is the name given to 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Each of these letters explicitly claims to be the work of the Apostle Paul, but the higher critical school has concluded that these letters were written by a disciple of Paul's, sometime in the early second century, and that his name was affixed to them to lend them authority. This is so ingrained in liberal scholarship that it is taken for granted the letters are not from Paul. Let's examine the evidence and see what conclusions we can draw.
The linguistic argument
. The Pastoral epistles contain a great many words that are not used in the other Pauline epistles. This, combined with a lower occurrence of particles (Greek parts of speech) as compared to other Pauline writings have led many to conclude that the letters are not from Paul. Early studies had attempted to prove the "non-Pauline" words used in these epistles were second century words; however, there is clear evidence from other sources that they were all in use by the middle of the first century. What could account for the high number of unique words and differences in the use of the particles in these letters, as compared to the other Pauline writings? There are several plausible explanations;1. The use of statistical sampling of writings is questionable at best. We have a fairly small sample of Paul's writings from a statistical standpoint.
2. Other Pauline epistles show variation in word and particle usage as well, depending upon the circumstances and subject matter addressed. For example, the Thessalonian Epistles also show a low occurrence of particles.
3. The Pastoral Epistles were written to personal friends of Paul rather than to congregations. This fact alone could account for a significant variation in style; compare for example, your personal letters with your business letters.
4. Paul was writing in his old age in these letters; it is possible that this accounts for some variation in style, especially since he had spent many years traveling through various parts of the Greek speaking world.
On the whole, the linguistic arguments no not provide support for non-Pauline authorship.
The ecclesiastical problem
. The Pastoral Epistles refer to church structure and make reference to deacons and elders. It is argued that this church structure represents a form of church government that did not exist in the time of Paul, and that Paul nowhere else takes any interest in church structure. The former argument does not have the weight of historical evidence. Acts 14:23 makes reference to Paul appointing elders. The reference in Ephesians to "pastors and teachers" may also be an allusion to the elder system of church government. Nothing in the Pastorals requires the existence of the hierarchal episcopal system that would develop in the second century. As he was nearing the end of his life, Paul would have recognized the need to establish a means of continuing church government, apart from the apostles.The heresies addressed in the epistle
. It has long been held that the heresies combatted in the epistle are those of second century Gnosticism. If this is indeed the case, then they could not have been addressed by the apostle Paul. Spong seems to make reference to this when he says the issues addressed in these letter were not abroad in time of Paul. Modern historical evidence has challenged this conclusion; there is evidence that an incipient form of Gnosticism was present in the first century.It is also questionable whether the heresies alluded to by Paul were even related to Gnosticism. While some of the ascetic tendencies noted in the letters were present in some forms of developed Gnosticism, they have also been present in other forms of religion. There were many Jewish characteristics in the heretic's teaching as seen from the references in 1 Tim 1:7 and Titus 1: 10, 14; 3:9. The only error directly addressed by Paul is that of Hymaenaeus and Philetus, who were teaching that the resurrection of believers had already occurred (2 Tim 2:17 ff). Thus, it is at least questionable whether Paul is addressing any organized form of heretical teaching, or several individual teachings that were being purported by various individuals.
The doctrinal problem
. Critics of Pauline authorship point to many traits of Pauline doctrine which they claim are absent from the Pastorals. These include the doctrines of: the Fatherhood of God, the mystic union of the believer with Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Critics also point to the use of such terms as "the faith," "the deposit," and "the sound teaching" as evidence that a fixed tradition existed. Their point is that in the time of Paul there would not have been such a fixed tradition.While God is specifically called "Father" only in the introductions to the letters, there is no lack of Fatherly characteristics mentioned in the Pastorals. Such themes as His saving work, His desire to see all men come to a knowledge of the truth, His grace, His bestowal of gifts upon mankind, and His provision of a revelation regarding Him, are all included in the Pastorals.
As far as the union with Christ, Paul uses the phrase "in Christ" nine times in the Pastorals. While some have argued that because the phrase is applied to qualities rather than persons, it is not speaking of the union with Christ. However, these qualities exist because we have union with Christ; the slight differences seen by critics in the meaning of the terms really do not argue against the Pauline doctrine.
The lack of references to the Holy Spirit cannot be used as evidence that the letters are not from Paul. Both Colossians and 2 Thessalonians contain few references to the Holy Spirit, yet are recognized by almost all Biblical scholars, both conservative and liberal, as being truly Pauline.
The Pastoral's use of such terms as "the faith" is also an inadequate argument against Pauline authorship. This can be seen by referring to Philippians 1:27, Colossians 2:7, and Ephesians 4:5. In Romans 1:2-4, Philippians 2:5ff and Colossians 1:15 ff Paul cites current statements of doctrine. This confirms that early in the history of the church there was an established body of doctrinal truth which could be, and was, cited.
The Pastoral Epistles were accepted as the work of Paul from the early days of the church until the last century, when the higher critics began to question them. Many people think that they were known by Clement of Rome as early as A.D. 95. The early church, which was in a much better position to determine authorship than we are, accepted the Pastorals as the work of Paul. There is no sound reason not to accept the traditional view of Pauline authorship.