All italicized text below was extracted from the link above each one.
- Did Paul Write the Pastoral Epistles?
- What can be said is that the Pastorals do not appear to have received the same early, widespread acceptance within the early church that the uncontested Pauline epistles did. As such, caution is warranted.
- Did Paul Write The Pastoral Epistles? Part II
- Norman Perrin explains the data as follows: … [O]f 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters.
- To accept the Pastoral epistles as authentically Pauline, one must accept that Paul’s style, vocabulary and syntax all underwent a discernible change at some point in his letter-writing career. That’s not impossible. But a pseudonymous author is a far simple explanation.
- Did Paul Write the Pastoral Epistles? Part III
- The important point is that the Pastorals reflect a degree of institutionalized church structure unknown in Paul’s day.
- Did Paul Write the Pastoral Epistles? Part IV
- Scholars have noted that the Pastorals’ teachings on the role of women in church life seems at variance with Paul’s view. Would the Paul who provided instructions on how women should pray and prophecy in I Corinthians (11:4-6) also tell Timothy that women must learn in silence (1 Tim. 2:11-14)? Would the Paul, who frequently commended prominent women in the church (eg. Phoebe, Priscilla, Chloe) and who described Junia (a female name) as “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7), now forbid women from teaching or exercising authority over men?
- There are several clues throughout the Pastorals that the author is motivated by a desire to reduce tensions with those outside the church, such that Christians might enjoy “peaceful and quiet lives” (1 Tim. 2:1-3). We know from ancient sources that the early church was criticized for the prominent role afforded to women and for teachings that were seen as disruptive to the household.
Why 1 Timothy is a Forgery
Below is the Claude.ai enumeration of the pros and cons cited by C.J. Cornthwaite. The transcript is in his directory in DroBox. Prompt: Prepared a summary of the attached Transcript enumerating the arguments for and against with concise “talking point” style context.
Summary: “I Preached 1 Timothy for Years – It’s a Forgery” (C.J. Cornthwaite)
Thesis: Cornthwaite argues the Pastorals (1–2 Timothy, Titus) are later pseudonymous writings, probably from the late 1st or the 2nd century. He concedes that no single point is a smoking gun and that the case is cumulative.
I [Claude.ai] added the scholarly citations from my own background reading. They are not in the video, so check them before you rely on them.
I. Arguments FOR Forgery (as presented)
1. Late and thin external attestation
- First clear use is Irenaeus (c. 180 CE), who quotes 1 Tim 6:20 and calls it Paul’s letter to Timothy (Haer. 2.14.7).
- Talking point: there is roughly a 120-year gap between Paul and the first firm witness.
- The apparent echoes in 1 Clement and Polycarp (Phil. 4.1 ∥ 1 Tim 6:7, 10) are generic and could run in either direction. Von Campenhausen (1951) even argued Polycarp wrote the Pastorals.
2. Marcion’s silence
- Marcion’s Pauline collection (c. 140s) omits all three, though it keeps the short, personal Philemon.
- Tertullian (Marc. 5.21) treats this as Marcion cutting them out, but he is only guessing at motive.
- Talking point: the simpler explanation is that Marcion never knew them.
- Jerome also reports that some groups rejected them.
3. The manuscripts don’t settle it
- P32 (Titus) is dated anywhere from 100 to 300.
- P46 lacks the Pastorals, but the codex is broken off at the end. Page-count estimates are unreliable (Duff 1998).
- Talking point: Cornthwaite throws P46 out as evidence either way.
4. Distinctive theological vocabulary (the video’s strongest section)
- “The faith” (a body of belief) versus Paul’s pistis as relational trust. The first parallel in the Fathers is Irenaeus.
- Eusebia (piety or godliness) is a Hellenistic virtue. It appears nowhere in the undisputed letters, but it does appear in 2 Peter.
- “Sound/healthy doctrine.” The concern is with correct teaching, not Paul’s personal authority.
- Paratheke (the “deposit” to be guarded) treats tradition as a fixed trust.
- Also noted: a muted parousia, Stoic “self-control” language, and “God our Savior.”
5. Church order
- The Pastorals have overseers, elders, deacons, an enrolled order of widows (1 Tim 5:9–16) and lists of qualifications.
- Cornthwaite contrasts this with the fluid, charismatic communities of the undisputed letters.
- He calls this a “slam dunk.”
6. Different opponents
- Paul’s rivals are itinerant apostles (the “super-apostles”). The Pastorals fight rival doctrines: ascetics who forbid marriage, a claim that the resurrection has already occurred, and “falsely called knowledge” (gnosis).
- Talking point: this fits the 2nd-century landscape of Marcionites and Gnostics. The Didache supports his picture of wandering teachers earlier on.
7. The “personal details” are neutral
- Names and travel notes would be included by an author or by a forger, so they prove nothing.
II. Arguments AGAINST Forgery (as presented, plus the standard rebuttals)
1. Self-attribution and personal detail
- The letters claim Paul as author. Cornthwaite dismisses the details as non-evidence.
2. The amanuensis hypothesis (the one defense he addresses)
- A secretary could explain the stylistic differences (Rom 16:22; Richards 2004; Mounce 2000).
- His reply: a secretary can change the Greek, but not the whole conceptual framework.
3. Late-in-life development
- The letters might reflect Paul’s last years.
- His reply: a decade is too short for such a change.
4. Rebuttals the video doesn’t develop
- Church order has Pauline precedent.
- Phil 1:1 greets “the bishops and deacons” (NRSV), and Rom 16:1 calls Phoebe a deacon.
- Defenders also cite Acts 14:23 and 1 Clement 42 and 44 (Marshall 1999; Towner 2006).
- “The faith” appears in Paul. Gal 1:23 says that the former persecutor “is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy” (NRSV). That weakens the claim that pistis is always relational in Paul.
- Vocabulary statistics are contested. Harrison (1921) built the classic case. Metzger (1958) and others challenged the method. Genre, topic and an unknown secretary all confound it.
- Marcion is an argument from silence. He may have rejected the letters because they conflicted with his theology, or because they were addressed to individuals. Some have even read the “contradictions” (antitheseis) in 1 Tim 6:20 as aimed at him. That would date the letters later, though, not make them authentic.
- Fragment hypotheses. These propose that genuine Pauline notes were later embedded in a pseudonymous frame. Harrison argued this for 2 Timothy and Titus.
- Modern defenders. Johnson (2001), Fee (1988), Marshall (1999) and Towner (2006) argue for Pauline authorship or substantial Pauline involvement.
III. Critical Notes on the Video
- Overstatements. “Always” in the claim about pistis, and “slam dunk” on church order, go beyond the evidence (see Phil 1:1 and Gal 1:23 above).
- Argument from silence. The attestation case relies heavily on it. He admits that few Christian writings survive from before 180.
- Muratorian Fragment. He rightly notes the date range, which runs from the late 2nd to the 4th century (Sundberg 1973; Hahneman 1992).
- Cumulative-case logic. Each point alone is weak. The force comes from the points converging on a post-Pauline context.
- Honest framing. He says outright that the video is “mostly for” forgery, and he invites counter-evidence.
- Related scholarship on pseudepigraphy. For the ethics and conventions of the practice, see Donelson (1986) and Ehrman (2012). The latter is the most accessible full-length statement of the forgery position.
Bottom Line
The majority critical position holds that the Pastorals are post-Pauline. The video gives a clear, accessible tour of the lines of evidence for that view, but it largely sets aside the best conservative responses. The two worth pressing are the Pauline precedents for church office and the unreliability of stylistic statistics.
Sources cited (from background knowledge, not verified in this session):
- Duff, J. 1998. “P46 and the Pastorals: A Misleading Consensus?” NTS 44.
- Harrison, P. N. 1921. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles.
- Von Campenhausen, H. 1951. “Polykarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe.”
- Metzger, B. M. 1958. “A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.” ExpTim 70.
- Donelson, L. 1986. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles.
- Fee, G. 1988. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus.
- Marshall, I. H. 1999. The Pastoral Epistles (ICC).
- Mounce, W. 2000. Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46).
- Johnson, L. T. 2001. The First and Second Letters to Timothy (AB 35A).
- Richards, E. R. 2004. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing.
- Towner, P. 2006. The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT).
- Ehrman, B. 2012. Forgery and Counterforgery.
- Sundberg, A. 1973. “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List.” HTR 66.
- Hahneman, G. 1992. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon.
- Primary texts: Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.21; Irenaeus, Haer. 2.14.7; Polycarp, Phil. 4.1.
