Authorship of the pastoral epistles

Hi all, I hope you are well as July calls our names. 

For the sake of clarity, let's have a separate, retitled thread for this important and fascinating topic. The original thread will remain open of course. Readers can find the subject at a later date if the title is more concise. An unaltered copy of the original  is just below.

Dear Timothy, you just relocated - and not from a short distance. Moving is one of the most stressful events in a persons's life, they say. And you have some other major projects you are also working on.

So, a special thank you for posting your carefully considered views on this subject. Yes, we are glad you "brought it up." This subject which extends into so many other areas. The subjects of hoaxes, forgeries, and higher criticism should indeed hold our attention. Because the truth, like a torch, the more it is shaken - the brighter it will shine. And whatever is not true, it should be exposed even if beloved traditions are affected.

Let's pray for more discernment and love as we enter the future together. And just as the Master told his disciples that they would do greater things - let us also learn greater things than before. Becoming doers of the words - not mere hearers, deceiving  ourselves.   ~~~   D Anderson, serving as forum administrator. 

Begin quoted portion. Anyone can reply below:

     Dear Brothers and Sisters: 


I have been studying the language of the New Testament and its linguistic Pragmatics for over 50 years.  I am as confident about my salvation as I am in what I am going to say to you on this subject.    

1 Timothy and Titus are the products of an insidious, surreptitious, ruthless, purely Machiavellian  forger.   There is no scribe helping Paul here.   This is one part:
1 Timothy 6:11,
Σὺ δέ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε [a]θεοῦ, ταῦτα φεῦγε· δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην, εὐσέβειαν, πίστιν, ἀγάπην, ὑπομονήν, [b]πραϋπαθίαν.
 Look what this servant of the d….. sandwiches between “Righteousness” and “faith,” δικαιοσύνην, εὐσέβειαν, πίστιν, and then he finishes his clause with “endurance” and finally, with “gentleness.”  Who would argue with "righteousness" or “gentleness”?  Never mind what has been slipped in the middle.


 The human brain hears the first word in a sentence LOUDER than words in the middle, and the word at the end is the word the brain hears last and the LOUDEST.

Have you every had a teen-aged son?  Ever hear something like this?
 “Dad, mom asked me to go to the store for her to get some milk, cheese, butter, and bread, so can I have the keys to the car?”  

We need milk and bread, right?

Watch this:

“Dad, mom asked me to go to the store for her to get some milk, cheese, and butter.   I have to stop at my girlfriend’s house for mom for just a second, but her house is next to the bakery.  We are out of bread.  Can I have the keys to the car?”
 It is still really all about “milk and bread,” right?  Or, did we add something slippery in the middle?


 Look what this snake added between “righteousness” and “faith,” or δικαιοσύνην, εὐσέβειαν, πίστιν.

The author slipped in the word εὐσέβειa, or eusebia, between righteousness and faith, two great things if you are a Christian.   Sir, he hid it, and masterfully disguised something that he was taken from paganism.  
 Eusebia in the Greco-Roman world was city-state sponsored, city-state priest controlled, passed on from their ancestors, ritual-prayer-animal sacrifices.  It was the “ritual hoky-poky” of the Greco-Roman temples, and these rituals were law, and attending them was law.  

Do you want the bulls to grow strong?  Well, you have to get the right guy, on the right day, in the right temple, with the right incense, to the right god, with the right cut of the right knife, with the moon just right, and the right stars, to get the bulls next year to grow strong.  Eusebia was the metaphysics of the ancient world.  

Do you want the wheat to grow?  Well, there was a correct ritual with specific steps for that, and only the priests of that temple owned the ritual.  You had to pay him to get the hoky-pokey.  That was Greco-Roman "piety."  

Somewhere between 20% and 50% of all women in the Greco-Roman world died in childbirth.  That isn’t good, right?  Well, if you don’t want that to happen you have to pay the right temple, and the right priest, to do the right “eusebia.”  There is nothing you can do to get it right because only the temple-church-priest owns the ritual.  
Ever hear of a guy named Socrates? People think that he was put to death because he “corrupted the youth of Athens.” That isn’t true. Read Plato’s Apology. He was acquitted of that charge. He was put to death because he was “a-eusebia,” he wouldn’t do his city-state’s sacrifices. He refused to do them. That put the entire city into danger because those ordained rites, city-state rites, city-state mandated rituals kept the people, city, and even the world safe. A-Eusebia was in every sense of the word treason.


Take a second look at Mark 1:1.
“Begins the Good News of Jesus the Messiah.” The oldest versions of Mark do not even say “Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.” It doesn’t say that. The real Mark 1:1, Begins the Good News of Jesus the Messiah, lines up with Mark 8:29, and Mark 8:29 is exactly the same as Revelations 1:1-10. The entire emphasis is on Messiah. Why?
Ever notice that they had to ask Jesus, “Teach us to pray!” Hold it! These are Jews. Why doesn’t anybody know how to pray to God on their OWN? Did you notice where Jesus says "Go into your house, go into your closet, and pray, God will see you"? Remember that? What is the big deal? Well, in the ancient world your prayers had to be out in the open. Sunday, right? What time? 11 to 12PM, right? Okay, what hour is Apollo Hour? Ever notice that a lot of Baptist Churches look like a Greek temple with a wide white starcase in front?
The metaphysics of the ancient world was called "eusebia." It was step-by-step, priest controlled, priest dictated, as old as the stones, priest-owned correct rites. There was one for every day, every week, every Apollo Day (Sunday), every New Star, every harvest, you name it. And they had to be led and out in the open. See your Illiad chapter 4. Remember Menelaus challenges Paris to go man to man. But, only with a god-certified ritual-rite contract in the OPEN with the sacrifices of King Priam. The sacrifice had to be outside under the sky.
Okay, let's say the author of 1 Timothy meant it in a “New Testament” way. Excuse me, but Jesus died on the Cross to get rid of it. Eusebia is the “correct rite,” and that cost money, lots and lots and lots of money, money for everything in your life. It was the core of Greco-Roman religious life. There was absolutely no such thing as “theology.” There was only “Orthopraxy,” the right rite, and the right rite was a patternistic ritual controlled by the temple, which no one could go into, by the appointed priest. The word is nowhere to be found in the Gospels, ever. Reason? It isn’t Christian. It is in fact the very opposition of Christianity. Go ahead. Look for the word in the Gospels or in Romans. Good luck with that.
That is what the author of 1 Timothyis slipping into Christianity. Jesus’ lesson on the matter, however, was that nobody, absolutely owned the keys to Christian Fellowship. Nobody owned the keys to prayer, nobody. There are a handful of things that Jesus absolutely demanded that we do not do. In the Greek language, the strongest direct order to never, ever, under any circumstances, ever title yourself as a priest, rabbi, minister, pastor, Doctor of Theology, professor of Jesus, absolutely none of it. Banned. Matthew 23 contains the strongest direct order from Jesus. Start to finish, read Matthew and Mark again and look for where Jesus gives direct orders not to do something.
Those were the words from Jesus’ mouth, so they didn't have anything in the Gospels or an athentic letter to build it. So, they did what they had to do, they dressed themselves up as Paul, although the author of 1 Timothy is very, very careful not to lie, ie., the author ever says, “This is Paul writing to you from X.” All the author says is “Paul the Apostle.” The implication is only in the mind of the reader. The only evidence in the text of 1 Timothy that Paul wrote it is that the early 4th century "church" said so.
Without 1 Timothy and Titus, Constantine the 1st had NOTHING in the New Testament to put himself on top of a worldly church organization, and he needed money for walls, lots of walls. Moreover, when King James wanted a new Bible for England, did he invite a single Greek speaking person to sit on his panel? No, he did not. Without 1 Timothy and Titus King James had no New Testament scripture from the Gospels to build a state-run church. Most of the scholars on his board read Latin.
When they burnt Jon of Arc at the stake, guess which book in the New Testament they threw in her face? She was not convicted of witchcraft. She was acquited of that. Read her trial and then read Titus again. Look for this, “Let nobody, anyone, scoff at your authority,” or perhaps, “Let nobody belittle your authority.” How about, “Let no one challenge your authority.” The Greek is really difficult to put exactly into English because we do not live in a vertically bolted world, while the Greco-Roman world was bolted rock solid top to bottom. For example, by around 1000 AD, 1 out of 10 men in Constantinople was a eunuch. What relevancy is that? Well, think of all the rapists we have. Why don't we just ... them or shoot them? Ultimately, we don't live in a ancient society were the entire culture is vertically bolted. According to Arrian, a servant once sat in Alexander's throne. He cut off his head.
Some versions translate “eusebia” as “piety,” but since when is paying a priest to slash a bull’s throat before a god correctly in any way part of Jesus’ “Good News”?
What eusebia did do, however, was put salvation, the gods’ favor, correct worship, solely into the hands of a city-state-controlled temple. Eusebia was legally mandated, mandatory city-state rituals. Ever have that feeling that you "Have to go to church at 11AM on Apollo Day? When you walk out it is about 12PM. Question: what is the Sun at 12-1PM?
It wasn’t just the word “church” that they twisted. Worse than that, they twisted who is in charge of your walk with Jesus, while Jesus died on the Cross so you would have your own direct dial, Holy Spirit HotSpot connection. In 312 AD, that had to go, and so Constantine made it illegal not to go to "Church."
1 Timothy and Titus are the greatest hoaxes to ever be inflicted on humanity. Wallace in Texas might still put 1 Timothy and Titus into the 1st century. But how does 4th century early Byzantine state-temple controlled Christianity suddenly jump back to the 1st century? Answer: The people who did it wanted paganism slipped into Christianity because they wanted to use it to make money. In paganism you had to go to the priest/pastor/minister, whatever word floats your trireme, for a direct connection to God.  Money, it cost money.

One of Eusebius of Caesarea’s biggest lies was that Constantine was a Christian. That myth is still taught, and it is a lie. Read what Gibbon says about Eusebius of Caesarea as a "historian." He calls him the outright biggest liar of any historian. For example, after Constantine’s so-called conversion, he later cut off his son’s head, as a "Christian," and then after that boiled his wife alive.  Notice that Constantine refused baptism all the way up until two or three days before he died.  He knew he was dying.  My cat is more Christian that Constantine the 1st.
Whoever wrote 1 Timothy 6:11 was one of Eusebius of Caesarea’s pals. Jesus didn’t give Christians any power, station, or authority over anyone, not ever apostle over apostle.
 So they did what they had to do to get control over it.  

 They forged them, and they are masterpieces.  1 Timothy and Titus are absolute masterpieces of forgery.  1 Timothy and Titus are faker than a 3-dollar denarius.
1 Timothy and Titus haven’t been listed as 1st century documents by almost all archivists in real universities with programs in Greek papyrology since the 19th century.
Matthew 23: 8-11, If you look, you will see all the words available to the author in the 1st century AD to cover the concepts of teacher, pastor, minister, rabbi, and invent any word you want, but the only ordination Jesus himself granted was brother. No, not friends, brother. Well he didn't say High, Holy, Sacred Hippo. That is right. He didn't because he adamantly covered the entire concept.
Do I trust the words of Jesus, or, do I push Jesus aside because “The Church” said Paul wrote 1 Timothy and Titus and that is the only evidence that there is?  

Friends, Eusebius of Caesarea is not my savior.
Although there are some hold outs, but they are not just "scholars"; people who put them in the 1st century are also paid "preachers," I am nevertheless required to say this because Evangelical Christians will not recognize that these letters are not identified as 1st century documents by the overwhelming majority or Critical Texual New Testament Scholars.  

I will not bring this up again.  I am required to say this just once so that you have at least heard this once. 

  • 8988
  • More
Replies (8)
    • The big picture - what is it? Is the good news that there is a perfect Saviour of the World or is the Gospel the good news of a perfect book about the matter?

      If the latter is your view then it might be helpful to look more closely. As I have had to do myself in my own journey. There actually are variations in the documents and fragments which remain. Most do not remain. The vast majority of these discrepancies, imo, are minor. Thankfully. But there are thousands of them.

      We cannot deny these facts. If we do, the latest skeptic or textual critic will declare: Ahh haa, silly Christian - I got you! I got you now! Your whole belief system in God and in the Bible fall to the ground... Game OVER.

      Another issue which must be approached: Can we believe that the church fathers compiled the real canon (the group of authentic books in scripture) correctly... when they often held to other views which were erroneous?

      The Almighty surely saw down through history and was aware of these things. He could have easily engraved the titles of real books of the Bible on a stone tablet or "golden plates". (Lucky Mormons...)

      We also must remember that those "who turned the world upside down" were not carrying under their arms what most today believe to be a complete copy of the Scripture. Still, their success was huge!

      Back to my question? What is the good news and why is it dependent upon a perfect book in order to be valid? God has already revealed Himself through creation, fallen though it be. And his laws are already written on our hearts. Yet we suppress them, Him, and are unthankful. Just as Romans chapter 1 reveals:

      The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

      These are interesting facts. They suggest to me that God does not "let people off the hook" merely because they might find problems in the written forms of his revelation which are available today. The good news is that He is a personal loving God, each day making friends of his former enemies. Causing his sun to shine on the just and unjust.

      These facts alone from the mighty letter to the Romans do not solve the riddle of church structure, I admit. Just trying to get the big picture rather than going straight to the details. The details are many.

      •      Hi all. Hi Timothy.

        Let's continue to leisurely explore this interesting and important subject. All truth comes from the Almighty and his Son. Therefore we are always eager to learn new things. Or to see confirmation of the old.

        Timothy, can you further clarify your position? In other NT letters, 1 Peter and Phillipians for example, mention is made of leadership of some sort. Are these legitimate, spirit-inspired documents in your estimation?

        True enough, most modern scholars and museum curators reject these letters as not from Paul and of a later date. However, it must be said that most modern scholars reject the idea of inspiration as well. Even the supernatural altogether, frequently. I sometimes wonder what motivates most modern scholars to teach others and to write books about a God which really cannot be known or even exists.

        With regard to the word which was slipped into 1 Timothy 6:11, I need further assistance. Looking at all these translations, new and old, it does not appear to me that the forger successfully, enduringly introduced hierarchy or pagan practices into the scriptures or the church. I would have expected at least from the Catholic translations to have highlighted it. Since they are so keen on a priest controlled, priest dictated church life - beginning, middle and end.

        If there were in these letters a clear passage about a regional bishop or a guy who had the sole right to speak and to preside at the Lord's table - that would be very suspicious to me.

        Can you reference another source (book or website) where the early church was changed by the insertion of this particular word and verse (eusebia in 1 Timothy 6:11)? And as being the basis of something huge, previously unknown? Yes, we realize that many of the historians and church fathers were biased and occasionally way off the mark.

        In Timothy as well as Acts, I see elder appointment. So, I have difficulty rejecting 1 Timothy on the basis that teaches a new kind of church government with professional priestly churchmen at the top. This, of course, is just one of many challenges brought against the so-called pastoral letters.

        Let me add that one of the house church movement's most prolific writers and influencers, Robert Banks, who has written scholarly books on the subject since the early 90's also refers to "Paul's undisputed letters". So, yours is not to be regarded a silly opinion. Not at all.

        The question is whether the alleged negative evidence overcomes the alleged positive evidence.

        Let us prove all things. Hold to that which is good.

        • I have to disagree with the popular assumption that the pastoral Epistles are not authentic. I'm far from being the best Greek scholar but I do study the NT and Septuagint in Greek for a few hours every day and have been doing it for years. I also have a degree in culture anthropology and sociology and have studied comparative linguistics. The emphasis on word order used to support the argument that the pastoral letters are forgeries doesn't work at all in Greek. We English speakers are use to a syntax controlled language. Basically we understand the parts of speech by the order that the words are presented to us and we have our own way of understanding the significance of a position of a word in a list which doesn't corralat at all with NT Greek. I will defer to the opinion of the extremely well studied scholars Keaner and Fee. Both agreed that by the principals used to discredit the authenticity of the pastoral letters much of what they have written would definitely not be expected as authentic. Think about this for a minute. I'm a retired EMT and a Habilitation plan coordinator (I had oversight on a multidisciplinary team and was responsible to document every aspect of clinical care). I have written hundreds of technical documents and EMS run reports non of which resemble this writing. By the standards that are used to disqualify the pastorale letters this can't possibly be me writing this because it doesn't resemble the vast majority of my writing which is extremely technical and specific to the situation I was addressing. The scriptures are what they are and we have to deal with that. Luther (I'm certainly not a Lutheran) wanted to get rid of lots of the scriptures that did not fit his theology and he rearranged his Bible to deliberately discount the importance of scriptures he disagreed with. I believe strongly that that's wrong. The pastoral letters were always assumed to be authentic until a few hundred years ago and as I stated the reasoning to question them is flawed in my opinion. Having said all that there's definitely room to decide what aspects of the very specific instructions to Timothy and Titus are to be interpreted as absolutely normative for the whole church in all times. Part of the problem with understanding any epistle is that it is like listing in on half of a phone call. We only hear the answer and have to guess as to what the original issue was that was being addressed. There were definitely radical issues in play in the specific regions that have profound implications for biblical egalitarianism and church politely. One can certainly question wether the leadership structure and the restriction placed on women were specific to that time and place or were intended to be normative in the church for all times and places (any in-depth study of the NT definitely would cause any impartial student to see that there is a lot of diversity in the types of leadership and the roles of women in the rest of the NT). I'm always amused by the fact that many modern Christians have a need to say that understanding the scriptures is simple. If that we're true we would not have to be disciples ( μαθητής)

          • Hi Billy. Your point that "we English speakers are use to a syntax controlled language" is just one reason that the English language can be terrible for understanding the Bible. Take, for example, the translation of John 3:16 from the KJV... "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Large number of Christians will cite this as a proof text for the free will of people to chose their salvation, despite many passages throughout Scripture that seem to contradict that position, But I get why people would say this, because the translation uses "whosoever believeth" in an active voice. It is therefore "my belief" that saves me. But if you read the Interlinear Bible ("everyone believing in Him") or the Young's Literal Translation ("every one who is believing in him"), you'll find a passive voice which allows for God to be the primary actor in salvation and not the individual. Modern English language translations have many such problems which set up Scripture to contradict itself, leaving the Christian to pick and chose which passages they will keep and which they will discard. I find it sad that in their zeal to make the Bible more "readable", modern translators use devices like word order revisions or dynamic equivalence to help them to achieve their goals. I often use the YLT or Interlinear Bible when reading Scripture so that I can consider what God Himself is saying (to the degree that that is possible) rather than what the translator thought that God has said

          • Sorry hit the wrong button there. As I was saying μαθητής literally means learner English confuses this the verb form of disciple is discipline which is completely different from the verb form of learners which is learn. If the issues in the scriptures were simple we would not need to be disciples in the biblical sense we could be followers or even devotees but the great commission is to make disciples. Are we even doing that?

            • Hey dear Billy. You can always go back and edit your posts at a later time. Of course, you must be logged in to see the edit option.

              Circular reasoning seems to come into play with regard to the authenticity of the letters to Timothy and Titus. Scholars, so called, pretend to have found "official church hierarchy" in these letters thereby making them suspect. This hierarchy however is overblown and even non-existent.

              Interestingly, in one version of the English bible, the word OFFICE was inserted 7 times. Such language creates an exaggerated form of the leadership roles in the minds of the modern "scholars".

              An even weaker argument against the Pastorals is the alleged vocabulary discrepancy. Of course the word usage is different in a letter to an individual compared to one written to an entire church.

              The person, btw, named Timothy writing above no longer participates on this site. And if you will notice from the About page, linked at the bottom, our commitment here to the God-breathed Scriptures is the baseline from which we desire to work from.

              Yes, there are many minor "textual variants" but they do not change any basic doctrine. If any NT letters are inauthentic or forged - we are pretty much wasting our time.

              • I am extremely encouraged by the responses to this post. It really seemed to me that rejecting scriptures based on the potential theological changes to personal confirmation bias was some what expectable here and that never should be.

                One of the most fascinating aspects of contemporary theology is that all the conflicting polity structures rely on the pastoral Epistles as proof text for polity structures that are completely different. There's certainly no reason to believe that Scriptures that can be interpreted to support all kinds of leadership structures is suspect of corruption or illegitimacy.

                My main focus in the church is that of a missions mobilizer. I admit that it is not popular. In that regard I absolutely insist that the first second language any cross cultural worker learns is biblical Greek. I am dyslexic (you may have noticed that I leave obvious incorrect words, I can't really detect typos). It probably took me three times as much time and effort to achieve the competency in Greek that a non nurodivegant person would need. The fact is that you only have two options in regards to the scriptures. You can learn Greek and study them directly or you will only ever be able to study what others have written about the scriptures. Every translation is an interpretation and highly imperfect.

                The real problem is that the stated goal of the translation is to sell the most Bibles . It's a popularity contest and the concept of accuracy is completely neglected. Just a few generations ago you had to learn Greek if you went to college. Translators would never even try to take some of the libertys that are taken in the novel translations because tons of people many probably not even Christians would call them out on it.

                I'm saying all this to say it is definitely worth the effort to learn to read Greek. I also am an unflinching proponent of studying the Septuagint. It's absolutely the Bible that the early church used and influenced the New testament more than any other writing. I'm not Lutheran I have a problem with Luther's wanting to reject scriptures for his theology (he had problems with James, Hebrews and the Septuagint). I guess that brings me back to where this started. Don't ditch scriptures that challenge your theology.

                • Building on what you've said about language, I'd add that another thing that really holds Christians back, especially in the West, is our regular thought patterns which are very linear in nature. When we see certain words or phrases, we associate meanings with them without once giving thought to whether those meanings are true and accurate. Consider, for example, the word "worship". I think that many Christians, when asked for Biblical references about worship, might cite the 4th commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy". But where, exactly, does God say that this means that we must *worship* on the Sabbath? Here is the Scripture from Ex 20:8-11....

                  “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

                  Not only do I not see the word "worship" anywhere in the text, but what we see seems to clearly exclude worship in it's definition of Sabbath day holiness. Verse 8 tells us to keep the Sabbath holy. Verses 9 and 10 appear to define what holiness means in this context. Verse 11 brings us back to creation where it all started. Verse 11 also bookends the "rest" aspect of Sabbath day holiness by saying, "[He] *rested* on the seventh day. *Therefore* the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it *holy*" (emphasis mine).

                  Now before anyone says that I believe that you can't worship on the Sabbath or that I'm just being too nit-picky, I see nothing wrong with worshipping on the Sabbath. But growing up in a culture where the Sunday was considered to be the Sabbath day of rest (it is not) and Sundays were packed with church activities that offered very little actual rest for the week's activities, I think that we Christians would do well to take a step back to see how we got to the convoluted system that exists today. We should listen to what God is telling us in Scripture and adjust accordingly. What prevents us from even thinking about doing this is the fact that when we think of "worship" we pull in all this extra human-invented crud that can't be defended Scripturally. We follow that which we have been taught, not necessarily that which God has ordained.

                Please Log In or Join to comment or to download files.