AUTHORSHIP
There are one of three premises upon which anyone approaches the Bible for the purpose of study, which will ultimately determine the outcome of the conclusions made regardless of the questions being presented. The first premise is that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God. The second premise is that the Bible is only an unreliable collection of stories written by a variety of misguided, ignorant men. The third premise is that of a distorted combination of the two.For instance: if you were to question a miracle recorded in Scripture, and your premise was one of the Bibles truthfulness, to suppose to find an error, is to not be sure of any way to determine if any other miracle you are investigating is accurate or not. For the Bible to exaggerate the truth in one instance that you find, how many other instances are there that you have not found? Thus it is considered that the error is with your investigation, before it is slandered against Scripture.
If your premise was one that denied the accuracy of the record in any one place, then the whole record must be put into question. It is not the questioning of the accuracy of what is written that is the concern, rather it is the questioning with the presumption that the record is inaccurate. And if the record of Scripture is found to be inaccurate in any one place, how then can any rely on it being accurate in any other place?
Of course it must be understood, that when we talk about the accuracy of Scripture, we distinguish the difference between the original, and translations. Translations can be, and in some places are inaccurate; which is not the fault of the original Word, only the translation of that Word. Many people will determine, and fight for interpretations based on inaccurate translations, that will be used to formulate their doctrines contrary to the Truth. But this does not make the original Word of God, which is written in Hebrew and Greek fallible and errant.
So what then, is this controversy about authorship? Can we know who are the human authors of the books of the Bible? And is it important who they are? First, we know there are certain books of the Bible that are ambiguous as to their human writer. Some of the books do not identify who the writer is, but tradition seems to have lent acceptance to ascribing an author to it, such as Paul with the book of Hebrews. Of this speculation, it is reasonable for someone; in the quest for the truth; to question authorship. For someone to hold to the belief against tradition, that Paul was not the author of Hebrews would be without as much proof as they who hold that tradition is correct.
But as for they who question the authorship of the books in which the writer clearly identifies himself as such, it is a more serious matter. For to deny the authorship of Paul to the letters in which the letters themselves identify Paul as the writer, is to bring the whole content of that letter into dispute!
Can it even be reasonable to think that another writer, in an attempt to add credibility to his letter, would "ghost write" it, and then put Paul’s name on the letter to be circulated among the churches as a letter from Paul? Where would such a thought come from in the heart of even the most liberal of men to suggest such an idea? Surely it can be seen that where the integrity of the author is at stake, so also is that which he has written. To respond to such statements almost gives more attention to foolishness than it deserves. But for the purpose of this writing, I will make the following arguments.
As I understand it, one problem stems from the dating of the letters with the dating of Paul’s death. In the last chapter of the book of Acts, we are left with Paul under house arrest in Rome, and with that the book ends. The assumption is incorrectly taken that when the record of Acts closed, that that was the end of Paul’s journeys, and his life. That Paul was killed never leaving his accommodations in Rome. Therefore, knowing these pastoral letters were written at a later date; and not having a Scriptural record of Paul’s death; and assuming Paul died never leaving Rome; he could not have written those letters. Therefore, if he could not have written those letters, somebody else must have, and attached his name to them.
How can it be easier to believe obscure and flighty notions, than that which is plainly written? There is no proof that Paul died while under house arrest in Rome at the end of the book of Acts. It is more reasonable to believe that he was released, continued on another journey, was later arrested, put in chains, and cast into a dungeon. These letters state they are written by Paul while in chains in a dungeon, not under house arrest. They are personal letters written to people that knew him: Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Would they not know if it were written by someone else especially having received them long after Paul’s death? Also, the letters have passed the scrutiny being accepted as authentic by the cannon of Scripture.
Another problem, is with those who consider the style of the pastoral letters as being inconsistent with the style of Paul’s other letters. I say, why should it not be different? In the other letters of Paul, they are written primarily as instruction to the churches. These letters are primarily personal instruction to individuals. Consider that the style of this essay is different from what I would write if this were a personal letter to the reader.
I would end with this warning. To give credibility to those who deny what is clear, for that which is obscure, is to exchange what is a sure foundation of Truth for an unreliable foundation of sand. The benefit of investigation into arguments made against Scripture is to all the more firmly establish our footing on the solid Rock of Truth, but be careful not to slip by the craftiness of deceiving men.
AMEN.
