With scores of volumes having been written on various aspects
of the Pastoral Epistles, it may appear somewhat presumptuous to
present this study with the claim that there is anything new to
contribute. This work is presented, however, in the belief that
there is a need to evaluate extensively the decisions of scholarship regarding the origin, literary character, historical and
religious significance of the Pastoral Epistles. The present work
is not a commentary nor an introduction. It does not seek to
prove or disprove the authenticity of the Epistles. The investigation is limited to the reappraisal of once settled issues and attempts to cast new light upon persistent problems surrounding the
Epistles. This writer is aware of certain considerations which
have been handled far too briefly; while still others were
regrettably omitted altogether (e.g. a discussion of worship).
Because of the limitations of space an attempt has been made to
confine the discussion to those issues which have been most under
dispute.The following general
conclusions have been made:1. Literary Relationships. Because of their acknowledged
use by Polycarp, universal acceptance by A.D. 180, and Version
status by mid-second century, any date within the second century for their composition would appear to be out of question.
The extensive use of these Epistles by the early Church writers
seemingly carries the authorship back into the first century,
a time when any mistake as to authorship is unlikely. The
author, moreover, was found to be steeped in the canonical and
non-canonical writings of Judaism; while any Hellenistic
affinities may be explained through other associations.
2. Literary Character. A re-examination of the vocabulary
and style of the Epistles reveals that it is extremely hazardous
to attempt to determine mathematically what the Apostle could or
could not have said and how he would have said it in every year
of his life. Arithmetic cannot allow for the component influences exerting their own proportion of impact upon an author's
literary habits. If the Epistles were written late, under unknown conditions which prohibit exposition along the traditional
lines, peculiarities would naturally arise which would provide
critical problems.
3. Origin. Each theory of origin is seen to have its own
particular set of problems. It would appear to be far more
difficult to frame a rational historical picture of the Pastorals' origin in terms of the unparalleled literary procedure
demanded by the pseudepigraphical and fragmentary theories, than
it is to grant the plausibility of a release and second imprisonment of the Apostle.
4. Ecclesiastical Organization. The frequently alleged
advanced ecclesiastical organization actually requires no
ministry of women, and only the distinct possibility of a threefold differentiation of an undifferentiated ministry of men as
paralleled in the NT. The revealed Church-order fails to conform to that which is known to exist in the second century. If
it can be granted that the withholding of the parousia and the
impending death of the Apostles would have hastened the transition from a relative spontaneity of action to the consolidation
disclosed within the Pastorals, then these Epistles must be
placed within the framework of the Apostolic Church-order.
5. Religious Significance. Both the formalized and the
false religious expression disclosed in the Pastorals are found
to be in keeping with an early rather than a late date. Formalizations are found to be prevalent within the primitive
Church, and are evidenced within the writings of the Apostle.
The error involved is probably a form of the Jewish-Gnostic-Christian syncretism revealed in the first century.
It is freely admitted that there are some remarkable peculiarities in these Epistles; yet the main objective arguments
against their authenticity can "be fairly met. Whether it is
possible to take the further step and assert unqualifiedly that
they are the work of Paul will inevitably depend not upon objective criticism but subjective acumen. If the situation has
been shown to be conceivable, and if the Apostle may have spoken
as indicated in the Letters, then it is the 'ring' of the
Epistles alone which will be the determining factor.
Although there are difficulties regarding the Pastorals'
apostolic authorship, their apostolic authority is vindicated
by the potent dynamics of the content. The Epistles' true significance is to be determined not by the erection of tests - but by
their use. Down through the centuries they have exercised a more
practical influence on Church-life than have the genuine Letters
of Paul. The religious realities contained provided a spiritual
treasure for men; a vade mecum for the 'good soldier' of every
age; the missionary's manual. It is urged, therefore, that the
contents be practised - not proved. They are, and will remain,
within the authentic canon of the Church. To this author, in
spite of all that can be said to the contrary, the more deeply
he delves into the spirit of their contents, the more the
Epistles' own account of authorship appears to be vindicated
