Who wrote 1st Timothy, was it Paul? Scholars say "NO".

This is in lieu to a conversation about the authorship of one of the so called pastoral letters. They are attributed to Paul, but scholars generally accept were never written by Paul.

Thus, to be comprehensive in this discussion, lets please provide evidence to the claims for and against. It would be a good discussion.

peace.

firedragon said:

1. Marcion of Sinope was an ardent believer of Pauline letters and he was the only one to have a New Testament canon early. This guy did not have Timothy in his canon included in the Pauline letters.

Click to expand...

I don't know how that establishes anything. Did he say Paul didn't write the letters?

firedragon said:

2. The letter starts with "Paul, an apostle of Christ" or "Paulos apostalos christou" which is not Pauls manner of writing.

Click to expand...

I disagree:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus
2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
Col 1: 1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God
1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,
Titus 1:1
Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,

He had MANY ways to begin his letters.

firedragon said:

3. Then there are other phrases attributed to Paul like the herald, with a clean conscience, and many others which are not the writing style of Paul.

Click to expand...

Says who? Why do others disagree?

firedragon said:

4. Some scholars have counted numbers and stats like about 30 or more percentile of the words in the letter does not correspond with any of the other letters of Paul.

Click to expand...

That is a personal opinion. The letter had a different purpose therefore different words. 70% WERE corresponding with the other letters.

I am sure that if you wrote a letter to the President to the United States and another to your mother, 30% of your words, if not more, would be different.

firedragon said:

5. Women can be simply saved by just giving birth. These kind of theological differences to Pauls writings also do occur.

Click to expand...

that is a problem of interpretation which Jews would understand better. Your literal interpretation is wrong.



that is a problem of interpretation which Jews would understand better. Your literal interpretation is wrong. [/QUOTE]

KenS said:

I don't know how that establishes anything. Did he say Paul didn't write the letters?



I disagree:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus
2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
Col 1: 1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God
1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,
Titus 1:1
Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,

He had MANY ways to begin his letters.



Says who? Why do others disagree?



That is a personal opinion. The letter had a different purpose therefore different words. 70% WERE corresponding with the other letters.

I am sure that if you wrote a letter to the President to the United States and another to your mother, 30% of your words, if not more, would be different.



that is a problem of interpretation which Jews would understand better. Your literal interpretation is wrong.



that is a problem of interpretation which Jews would understand better. Your literal interpretation is wrong.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Shukran Jazeelan.

1. One man like Marcion who's New Testament was almost all "Paul", the one who's main teacher, prophet, the man behind the scene was "Paul", didnt know about 1st Timothy (Among others), he did not have it in the canon, he had no clue.

Tell me. How could one man who never ever knew about some book say "it is not written by Paul"? Its a very strange question.

2. Read the full sentence. The writer uses Epitaagin which is not in any of the introductions to any of Pauls letters. Every single introduction has their signature style.

3. You asked "says who". Its not a matter of "who', it is the letter to Timothy that says it.

4. See. If your dismissal of Christian scholarship as "personal opinion" is your approach, then you cannot have that discussion.

5. That was not an interpretation. It was purely the text of the epistle to Timothy. Just text. I didnt interpret it. Please read it. You would note the theological differences between Paul and this letter. Especially the more egalitarian Paul, and the more discriminative writer of 1st Timothy.
Anyway, since you spoke of how Jews would interpret, can you quote Jews who interprets this verse in a very different way? I am interested in knowing who this jew is and what he or they had to say.

firedragon said:

1. One man like Marcion who's New Testament was almost all "Paul", the one who's main teacher, prophet, the man behind the scene was "Paul", didnt know about 1st Timothy (Among others), he did not have it in the canon, he had no clue.

Tell me. How could one man who never ever knew about some book say "it is not written by Paul"? Its a very strange question.

Click to expand...

Let's look at it carefully since, in my view, it would be wrong to simply have one solution to a good question of "did Paul write it".

As you noted, "let us provide evidence for or against" and not just against.

1. Your point on "how he addressed it" as I gave evidence on Paul's variety of how he started his letters invalidated that position
2. As you noted, he didn't include the pastoral letters. Is that "he didn't agree with it" the only answer? Of course, we have no points by Marcion that he didn't agree with it, only that he didn't include it. But what is the difference between the other letters and the pastoral letters?
   1. One very important difference. The other letters were addressed to churches and thus would be reproduced and read to the other churches
   2. The pastoral letters were addressed to a person and was never said "share it with the rest of the churches". Thus the Pastoral letters would have been found much later and not at the time that Marcion was creating the first NT.
3. The letters very specifically say "Paul, the Apostle". Do we have a record during Paul's time that says there was another Apostle Paul? no. Yet we do have that Timothy was the companion to Paul in the book of Acts. It would be natural to write Timothy a personal letter.
4. Quotes about Timothy and Titusa
   1. Pseudo-Barnabas (a.d. 70-130) quotes 2 Timothy and Titus
   2. Clement of Rome (a.d. 95-97) alludes to 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy and quotes Titus 3:1
   3. Polycarp (a.d. 110-150) alludes to 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus
   4. Hermas (a.d. 115-140) quotes 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy
   5. Irenaeus (a.d. 130-202) quotes often from 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus
   6. Diognetus (a.d. 150) quotes Titus
   7. Tertullian (a.d. 150-220) quotes 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus
   8. Origen (a.d. 185-254) quotes 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus

firedragon said:

2. Read the full sentence. The writer uses Epitaagin which is not in any of the introductions to any of Pauls letters. Every single introduction has their signature style.

Click to expand...

I've already shown that there are different styles. (not to mention that sometimes a scribe wrote for Paul)

firedragon said:

3. You asked "says who". Its not a matter of "who', it is the letter to Timothy that says it.

Click to expand...

The letter very specifically says "Paul, the Apostle"

firedragon said:

4. See. If your dismissal of Christian scholarship as "personal opinion" is your approach, then you cannot have that discussion.

Click to expand...

There are Christian scholars that disagree... so you have pro and cons.

firedragon said:

5. That was not an interpretation. It was purely the text of the epistle to Timothy. Just text. I didnt interpret it. Please read it. You would note the theological differences between Paul and this letter. Especially the more egalitarian Paul, and the more discriminative writer of 1st Timothy.
Anyway, since you spoke of how Jews would interpret, can you quote Jews who interprets this verse in a very different way? I am interested in knowing who this jew is and what he or they had to say.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is an interpretation that needs clarification - as to context and even referring to Genesis 3 - has nothing to do with the actual saving of the soul/sirit.

Here is another point of view:

John Wesley: 2:15 Yet she - That is, women in general, who were all involved with Eve in the sentence pronounced, Genesis 3:16 .Shall be saved in childbearing - Carried safe through the pain and danger which that sentence entails upon them for the transgression; yea, and finally saved, if they continue in loving faith and holy wisdom.

John Gill: But spiritual and eternal salvation is here meant; not that bearing children is the cause, condition, or means of salvation; for as this is not God's way of salvation, so it confines the salvation of women to childbearing ones; and which must give an uneasy reflection to maidens, and women that never bore any; but rather the meaning is, that good women shall be saved, notwithstanding their bearing and bringing forth children in pain and sorrow, according to the original curse, in ( Genesis 3:16 )

and others.

firedragon said:

This is in lieu to a conversation about the authorship of one of the so called pastoral letters. They are attributed to Paul, but scholars generally accept were never written by Paul.

Thus, to be comprehensive in this discussion, lets please provide evidence to the claims for and against. It would be a good discussion.

peace.

Click to expand...

In a way you are correct fire, the Bible is authored by Jehovah with the letters to Timothy only being penned by Paul, or so we believe anyway.

KenS said:

I've already shown that there are different styles. (not to mention that sometimes a scribe wrote for Paul)

Click to expand...

Yes you stated it. But you did not address the point made. But I think that will get into linguistics and it will end nowhere.

KenS said:

The letter very specifically says "Paul, the Apostle"

Click to expand...

Exactly why it was someone who claimed to be Paul, but not.

KenS said:

There are Christian scholars that disagree... so you have pro and cons.

Click to expand...

Majority of renown scholars agree.

KenS said:

Actually, it is an interpretation that needs clarification - as to context and even referring to Genesis 3 - has nothing to do with the actual saving of the soul/sirit.

Here is another point of view:

John Wesley: 2:15 Yet she - That is, women in general, who were all involved with Eve in the sentence pronounced, Genesis 3:16 .Shall be saved in childbearing - Carried safe through the pain and danger which that sentence entails upon them for the transgression; yea, and finally saved, if they continue in loving faith and holy wisdom.

John Gill: But spiritual and eternal salvation is here meant; not that bearing children is the cause, condition, or means of salvation; for as this is not God's way of salvation, so it confines the salvation of women to childbearing ones; and which must give an uneasy reflection to maidens, and women that never bore any; but rather the meaning is, that good women shall be saved, notwithstanding their bearing and bringing forth children in pain and sorrow, according to the original curse, in ( Genesis 3:16 )

and others.

Click to expand...

Sorry but that's not scholarship KenS. Thats apologetics. An evangelist will try to do that.

Please read up on the scholarship on this matter.

firedragon said:

Yes you stated it. But you did not address the point made. But I think that will get into linguistics and it will end nowhere.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Your statement was that he didn't have the same welcome signature. My points I think are valid.

1. He was writing a personal letter and not one to the churches. The nature or a letter demands a different beginning
2. I showed a multiple of different beginnings. So your position of a only a special way of starting is proven false.

firedragon said:

Exactly why it was someone who claimed to be Paul, but not.

Click to expand...

Yet... you only have opinions and no hard evidence of someone in his lifetime saying "This letter is not of Paul

firedragon said:

Majority of renown scholars agree.

Click to expand...

Only if you "selectively" chose modern viewpoints. I listed people of his time (scholars) who disagreed.

firedragon said:

Sorry but that's not scholarship KenS. Thats apologetics. An evangelist will try to do that.

Please read up on the scholarship on this matter.

Click to expand...

Nice way to brush off the reality that modern interpretation does not mean correct interpretation.

KenS said:

I don't think so. Your statement was that he didn't have the same welcome signature. My points I think are valid.

1. He was writing a personal letter and not one to the churches. The nature or a letter demands a different beginning
2. I showed a multiple of different beginnings. So your position of a only a special way of starting is proven false.

Click to expand...

Any other examples?

KenS said:

Yet... you only have opinions and no hard evidence of someone in his lifetime saying "This letter is not of Paul

Click to expand...

There is no evidence of anyone in his lifetime saying anything whatsoever. But we have scholarship that analysed and said this is not him. We also have Paul himself, in his own lifetime saying that others maybe forging under his name.

KenS said:

Only if you "selectively" chose modern viewpoints. I listed people of his time (scholars) who disagreed.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe your strategy is to not analyse what scholars say but to just dismiss it ny saying "selectively schussing modern viewpoints" which is false.

KenS said:

Nice way to brush off the reality that modern interpretation does not mean correct interpretation.

Click to expand...

How do you know they are not correct interpretations? What are your arguments? How do you prove Pauls authorship?

Please provide evidence and reasons.

@KenS

I would like to request you to address these points rather than just dismissing all who say what you dont want them to say. Also, try not to question my integrity or anyone elses integrity prior to analysing the information provided and analysing them. I hope you understand that request.

• The earliest collection of Paul's letters survived in the P46 from 200 A.D. It ends with 1 Thessolonians 5:28. It probably contained ten letters. It does not contain 2nd Thessalonians and three other letters we call the pastoral letters, including 1st Timothy. Out of 100 leaves of the codex 84 had lived. This indicates that though originally 2nd thess was in the codex, the other books were not.
• Marcion of Sinope as I told you already, did not include all three Pastorals. Marcion did not have many of the NT books in his New Testament canon. If he was bias against Paul as you accuse everyone who speaks against your faith that Paul indeed wrote 1st Timothy, then he would not name the others that strangely coincide with Codex P46, and what scholars generally agree were Pauline (i.e., Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon).
• The theological character of the Pastorals has different emphases than the genuine Pauline letters. The Pauline terms like the Law, Faith, righteousness, etc have different meaning in the pastoral letters. Lets take "Pistis". Pauls reference to this is normally with reference to existence. The relationship with Christ is of Existential characteristics. Yet in 1st Timothy and the other pastoral letters it is for content of faith. If you read through carefully this is quite easy to spot. Also you should note that other highly characteristic, and important phrases like Stauros, Apocalypsus, dont manifest in the pastoral letters including 1st Timothy. But phrases that are affirmed non-pauline appear.
• The Pastorals have a total word count of 3,484 words with a vocabulary of 901 words, 306 of which are not found in the other Pauline letters and 335 of which are not found in the rest of the New Testament. Also one must note that words that appear once in the pastoral letters are missing from the actual pauline letters, and even when compared with the Septuagint. These words are technically called Hapax Legomena, and they are not actually attested in any other koine writings before the second century.
• Scholars note that Pauline letters are very different in the writing style in contrast. The "explosive style" of Paul's epistles starkly stand out in comparison with the pastorals. This is according to language experts. Thus, like some people say "Paul was angrier" or that "he was probably more aggressive" are pretty lame excuses and are not linguistic explanations. Just emotional responses for no reason.
• Scholars like Richard Bauckham assess that there is a characteristic that could be seen in pseudepigrapha, and that the pastoral letters display several features. One way of bridging the gap between the supposed addressee's and the real addressee's is to make clear that the contents are to be passed on to others in addition to the fictional addressee's (1 Tim. 4:6, 11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 14; Titus 2:2, 6, 9, 15; 3:1). The testamentary letter form is an ideal vehicle for pseudepigraphal letters since it characteristically addresses a situation after the death of the author. 1 and 2 Timothy both refer to what will occur after Paul’s death (1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; 4:3–4), and Timothy is instructed with regard to his own conduct after the death of Paul (2 Tim. 3:5, 10–4:2, 5). Pseudepigraphal letters often set the historical scene of the ostensible recipients a little more comprehensively than would actually be necessary; this is the case with the description of the false teachers in 2 Timothy 2:17–18

firedragon said:

There is no evidence of anyone in his lifetime saying anything whatsoever. But we have scholarship that analysed and said this is not him. We also have Paul himself, in his own lifetime saying that others maybe forging under his name.

Click to expand...

Could you site that please?

firedragon said:

Well, maybe your strategy is to not analyse what scholars say but to just dismiss it ny saying "selectively schussing modern viewpoints" which is false.

Click to expand...

The problem, again, is that other scholars disagree. How do decide who to believe?

firedragon said:

How do you know they are not correct interpretations? What are your arguments? How do you prove Pauls authorship?

Please provide evidence and reasons.

Click to expand...

I thought I did.
Besides that:
Introduction to 1 Timothy
AUTHOR: The apostle Paul, as stated in the salutation (1Ti 1:1). The internal evidence certainly supports Paul as the author, especially references to his earlier life (1Ti 1:13), and the close relationship between the author and Timothy (1Ti 1:2; cf. Ph 2:22). Early sources in church history that attribute this letter to Paul include: Eusebius (300 A.D.), Origen (250 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.), Tertullian (200 A.D.), Irenaeus (200 A.D.), the Muratorian Fragment (180 A.D.). References to the epistle are also found in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.), Justin Martyr (160 A.D.), Polycarp (135 A.D.), and Clement of Rome (90 A.D.).

KenS said:

Could you site that please?

Click to expand...

Attached image. Thats 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2

KenS said:

The problem, again, is that other scholars disagree. How do decide who to believe?

Click to expand...

Not a good enough response. What is the reason they disagree? What are the arguments? Why do you agree with them? What is the analysis?

KenS said:

I thought I did.
Besides that:
Introduction to 1 Timothy
AUTHOR: The apostle Paul, as stated in the salutation (1Ti 1:1). The internal evidence certainly supports Paul as the author, especially references to his earlier life (1Ti 1:13), and the close relationship between the author and Timothy (1Ti 1:2; cf. Ph 2:22). Early sources in church history that attribute this letter to Paul include: Eusebius (300 A.D.), Origen (250 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.), Tertullian (200 A.D.), Irenaeus (200 A.D.), the Muratorian Fragment (180 A.D.). References to the epistle are also found in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.), Justin Martyr (160 A.D.), Polycarp (135 A.D.), and Clement of Rome (90 A.D.).

Click to expand...

Thats not an analysis or an argument, that's appealing to authority. "They said it those days you have to blind worship what I say" is not a good argument.

Respond to this KenS.

I would like to request you to address these points rather than just dismissing all who say what you dont want them to say. Also, try not to question my integrity or anyone elses integrity prior to analysing the information provided and analysing them. I hope you understand that request.

• The earliest collection of Paul's letters survived in the P46 from 200 A.D. It ends with 1 Thessolonians 5:28. It probably contained ten letters. It does not contain 2nd Thessalonians and three other letters we call the pastoral letters, including 1st Timothy. Out of 100 leaves of the codex 84 had lived. This indicates that though originally 2nd thess was in the codex, the other books were not.
• Marcion of Sinope as I told you already, did not include all three Pastorals. Marcion did not have many of the NT books in his New Testament canon. If he was bias against Paul as you accuse everyone who speaks against your faith that Paul indeed wrote 1st Timothy, then he would not name the others that strangely coincide with Codex P46, and what scholars generally agree were Pauline (i.e., Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon).
• The theological character of the Pastorals has different emphases than the genuine Pauline letters. The Pauline terms like the Law, Faith, righteousness, etc have different meaning in the pastoral letters. Lets take "Pistis". Pauls reference to this is normally with reference to existence. The relationship with Christ is of Existential characteristics. Yet in 1st Timothy and the other pastoral letters it is for content of faith. If you read through carefully this is quite easy to spot. Also you should note that other highly characteristic, and important phrases like Stauros, Apocalypsus, dont manifest in the pastoral letters including 1st Timothy. But phrases that are affirmed non-pauline appear.
• The Pastorals have a total word count of 3,484 words with a vocabulary of 901 words, 306 of which are not found in the other Pauline letters and 335 of which are not found in the rest of the New Testament. Also one must note that words that appear once in the pastoral letters are missing from the actual pauline letters, and even when compared with the Septuagint. These words are technically called Hapax Legomena, and they are not actually attested in any other koine writings before the second century.
• Scholars note that Pauline letters are very different in the writing style in contrast. The "explosive style" of Paul's epistles starkly stand out in comparison with the pastorals. This is according to language experts. Thus, like some people say "Paul was angrier" or that "he was probably more aggressive" are pretty lame excuses and are not linguistic explanations. Just emotional responses for no reason.
• Scholars like Richard Bauckham assess that there is a characteristic that could be seen in pseudepigrapha, and that the pastoral letters display several features. One way of bridging the gap between the supposed addressee's and the real addressee's is to make clear that the contents are to be passed on to others in addition to the fictional addressee's (1 Tim. 4:6, 11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 14; Titus 2:2, 6, 9, 15; 3:1). The testamentary letter form is an ideal vehicle for pseudepigraphal letters since it characteristically addresses a situation after the death of the author. 1 and 2 Timothy both refer to what will occur after Paul’s death (1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; 4:3–4), and Timothy is instructed with regard to his own conduct after the death of Paul (2 Tim. 3:5, 10–4:2, 5). Pseudepigraphal letters often set the historical scene of the ostensible recipients a little more comprehensively than would actually be necessary; this is the case with the description of the false teachers in 2 Timothy 2:17–18

The 2 Thessalonians is not applicable...


AMP
not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come.

Timothy and the other letters have nothing to do with "the Lord has already come". That is a very specific application on which letters he is referring to lest we say all of Paul's letters are fake.

firedragon said:

Not a good enough response. What is the reason they disagree? What are the arguments? Why do you agree with them? What is the analysis?

Click to expand...

I gave all the information before... no need to repeat.

firedragon said:

Thats not an analysis or an argument, that's appealing to authority. "They said it those days you have to blind worship what I say" is not a good argument.

Click to expand...

WHOA THERE HORSEY! It is the very claim you are making on the other side of the coin. "Modern scholars say" is an appeal to authority.

firedragon said:

The earliest collection of Paul's letters survived in the P46 from 200 A.D. It ends with 1 Thessolonians 5:28. It probably contained ten letters. It does not contain 2nd Thessalonians and three other letters we call the pastoral letters, including 1st Timothy. Out of 100 leaves of the codex 84 had lived. This indicates that though originally 2nd thess was in the codex, the other books were not.

Click to expand...

There is one letter mentioned in Corinthians that still hasn't been found. Time has a way of eradicating original document and that is why, so many times, we rely on quotes from people during that time-period. Thus we include the Pastoral epistles.

As I also mentioned: " The internal evidence certainly supports Paul as the author, especially references to his earlier life (1Ti 1:13), and the close relationship between the author and Timothy"

firedragon said:

Marcion of Sinope as I told you already, did not include all three Pastorals. Marcion did not have many of the NT books in his New Testament canon. If he was bias against Paul as you accuse everyone who speaks against your faith that Paul indeed wrote 1st Timothy, then he would not name the others that strangely coincide with Codex P46, and what scholars generally agree were Pauline (i.e., Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon).

Click to expand...

This is definitely an appeal to ONE authority (as if he was the determinant of what was accepted and what wasn't). As I quoted before: "Early sources in church history that attribute this letter to Paul include: Eusebius (300 A.D.), Origen (250 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.), Tertullian (200 A.D.), Irenaeus (200 A.D.), the Muratorian Fragment (180 A.D.). References to the epistle are also found in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.), Justin Martyr (160 A.D.), Polycarp (135 A.D.), and Clement of Rome (90 A.D.)."

If we were to have taken the viewpoint of the "modern scholars" of Marcion's time... he would be outnumbered.

firedragon said:

The theological character of the Pastorals has different emphases than the genuine Pauline letters. The Pauline terms like the Law, Faith, righteousness, etc have different meaning in the pastoral letters. Lets take "Pistis". Pauls reference to this is normally with reference to existence. The relationship with Christ is of Existential characteristics. Yet in 1st Timothy and the other pastoral letters it is for content of faith. If you read through carefully this is quite easy to spot. Also you should note that other highly characteristic, and important phrases like Stauros, Apocalypsus, dont manifest in the pastoral letters including 1st Timothy. But phrases that are affirmed non-pauline appear.

Click to expand...

OBVIOUSLY.

The other epistles dealt with the church at large. These had to do with personal letters. The very nature of who it is addressed to dictates what verbiage is being used.

If I wrote a letter to the church vs. my daughter... don't you think it would be totally different?

firedragon said:

The Pastorals have a total word count of 3,484 words with a vocabulary of 901 words, 306 of which are not found in the other Pauline letters and 335 of which are not found in the rest of the New Testament. Also one must note that words that appear once in the pastoral letters are missing from the actual pauline letters, and even when compared with the Septuagint. These words are technically called Hapax Legomena, and they are not actually attested in any other koine writings before the second century.

Click to expand...

Again, look to the above statement. Too say that the words "Hapax Legomena, and they are not actually attested in any other koine writings before the second century" and yet we have people quoting them before the second century make this statement irrelevant in my view. How can one say they didn't exist when people use them during that time?

firedragon said:

Scholars note that Pauline letters are very different in the writing style in contrast. The "explosive style" of Paul's epistles starkly stand out in comparison with the pastorals. This is according to language experts. Thus, like some people say "Paul was angrier" or that "he was probably more aggressive" are pretty lame excuses and are not linguistic explanations. Just emotional responses for no reason.

Click to expand...

Again.... the difference between talking to a church vs a son in the faith.

firedragon said:

Scholars like Richard Bauckham assess that there is a characteristic that could be seen in pseudepigrapha, and that the pastoral letters display several features. One way of bridging the gap between the supposed addressee's and the real addressee's is to make clear that the contents are to be passed on to others in addition to the fictional addressee's (1 Tim. 4:6, 11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2, 14; Titus 2:2, 6, 9, 15; 3:1). The testamentary letter form is an ideal vehicle for pseudepigraphal letters since it characteristically addresses a situation after the death of the author. 1 and 2 Timothy both refer to what will occur after Paul’s death (1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; 4:3–4), and Timothy is instructed with regard to his own conduct after the death of Paul (2 Tim. 3:5, 10–4:2, 5). Pseudepigraphal letters often set the historical scene of the ostensible recipients a little more comprehensively than would actually be necessary; this is the case with the description of the false teachers in 2 Timothy 2:17–18

Click to expand...

This will take more time to address... don't have the time right now.

KenS said:

The 2 Thessalonians is not applicable...

Click to expand...

You asked for it.

KenS said:

I gave all the information before... no need to repeat.

Click to expand...

Nope. You didnt give anything whatsoever. Just opinion and blind dismissal is not information. Also, I can predict that this is just gonna be an exchange of rhetoric. So there is no point continuing that type of exchange.

KenS said:

The 2 Thessalonians is not applicable...


AMP
not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come.

Timothy and the other letters have nothing to do with "the Lord has already come". That is a very specific application on which letters he is referring to lest we say all of Paul's letters are fake.



I gave all the information before... no need to repeat.



WHOA THERE HORSEY! It is the very claim you are making on the other side of the coin. "Modern scholars say" is an appeal to authority.



There is one letter mentioned in Corinthians that still hasn't been found. Time has a way of eradicating original document and that is why, so many times, we rely on quotes from people during that time-period. Thus we include the Pastoral epistles.

As I also mentioned: " The internal evidence certainly supports Paul as the author, especially references to his earlier life (1Ti 1:13), and the close relationship between the author and Timothy"



This is definitely an appeal to ONE authority (as if he was the determinant of what was accepted and what wasn't). As I quoted before: "Early sources in church history that attribute this letter to Paul include: Eusebius (300 A.D.), Origen (250 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.), Tertullian (200 A.D.), Irenaeus (200 A.D.), the Muratorian Fragment (180 A.D.). References to the epistle are also found in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.), Justin Martyr (160 A.D.), Polycarp (135 A.D.), and Clement of Rome (90 A.D.)."

If we were to have taken the viewpoint of the "modern scholars" of Marcion's time... he would be outnumbered.



OBVIOUSLY.

The other epistles dealt with the church at large. These had to do with personal letters. The very nature of who it is addressed to dictates what verbiage is being used.

If I wrote a letter to the church vs. my daughter... don't you think it would be totally different?



Again, look to the above statement. Too say that the words "Hapax Legomena, and they are not actually attested in any other koine writings before the second century" and yet we have people quoting them before the second century make this statement irrelevant in my view. How can one say they didn't exist when people use them during that time?



Again.... the difference between talking to a church vs a son in the faith.



This will take more time to address... don't have the time right now.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Peace.