1° Origin of this name— It has hardly been used in general terms since the 18th century; but it is very suitable for designating the small group of writings formed by the two letters to Timothy and the letter to TitusThese letters, which date from the same period in the life of Saint Paul, are addressed to two of his closest disciples and share many similarities in both thought and style. This designation is derived from both the subject matter of the three letters and the purpose the author intended in writing them. Composed for two bishops, for two spiritual “pastors” (under the old covenant the princes and priests of Israel were already designated by this metaphorical appellation, cf. Isaiah 44:28; Jeremiah 2:8; Ezekiel 34:2, etc.; Our Lord Jesus Christ gives himself as the Good Shepherd, cf. John 10:2 ff., and his ministers are honored with an identical name, cf. Ephesians 4:11, which became customary from the beginning of the Church to represent the leaders of particular Christianities), they provide them with valuable instructions on how to faithfully fulfill their delicate functions. The selection and institution of bishops, priests, deacons, and widows; certain rules concerning divine service; the duties of the different categories of the faithful; the organization of the life of particular churches: this is what one finds there, along with some personal details concerning the author and the recipients. This shared characteristic gives them a distinctive character, which no other part of the New Testament possesses. The term "pastoral letter" is used to designate the instructions addressed by bishops to their priests and their diocesan flock.
No doubt, we should not look for a complete pastoral theology in these letters. Indeed, they contain only a number of practical pieces of advice, chosen from those that the circumstances of time and place rendered most pressing. Nevertheless, the essential elements are there; and they have always been the source from which all good priests have drawn, as the Church invites them to do during the ceremony of their ordination (“Having been instructed in the disciplines that Paul had expounded on”). Tite and to Timothy, that they may believe what they read, teach what they believe, imitate what they have taught, and keep the gift of their ministry pure and spotless.” Roman Pontifical for the Ordination of Priests, See Saint Augustine, of Christian Doctrine, 4, 16, 3, and especially the excellent practical commentary by Bishop Ginoulhiac, pastoral letters, or Dogmatic and Moral Reflections on the Letters of Saint Paul to Timothy and to Tite, Paris, 1870).
Although they are addressed directly to Timothy and to TiteThe individuality of these holy figures largely disappears; their higher functions are almost the only thing that remains in view. This is why our three letters have a general character, even though they are intended for private individuals.
2° The authenticity of pastoral letters is not attested with less force than that of the other writings of Saint Paul (see the General Introduction); but, as it was very violently attacked in the 19th century by the rationalists (in 1807 for the first time). According to Baur and his school, the letters to Timothy and to Tite They would not have been composed until the middle of the second century. Some critics, however, admit that they are actually based on the letters of Saint Paul, considerably reworked; it will be good to discuss this briefly separately.
Throughout all of early Christian history, no orthodox author has expressed the slightest doubt on this point, while a long series of favorable testimonies can be cited. 1. The testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, consisting of quotations, reminiscences, and more or less characteristic allusions, shows that the ecclesiastical writers of the late first century and the early years of the second (Saint Clement) pope, in his Ep. ad Corinth., the author of the’Barnabas's wife, Saint Polycarp, Saint Ignatius, the author of the’Ep. to Diognetus, etc.) knew our three letters, as we possess them today. 2° The testimony of the ancient Greek apologists, notably of Saint Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, 7 and 35; cf. Tite 3, 4) and of Saint Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (Ad Autol3.14; cf. 1 Timothy 2:2, etc.), around the middle of the second century. 3. The testimony of the ancient versions, notably the Syriac Peshitta and the Itala. 4. The testimony of the early heretics, some of whom, like Marcion, rejected the Pastoral Letters because they condemned their perverse doctrines in advance, while others, like Heracleon, Theodotus, etc., quoted passages from them: in both cases, this attested to their existence. 5. The testimony of the particular Churches, and thereby that of theUniversal ChurchThe Church in Gaul is represented either by the letter from the Christians of Vienne and Lyon to their brothers in Asia and Phrygia, which mentions 1 Timothy 3:15 and 4:3-4 (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3, 2-3; 5, 1, 17), or by Saint Irenaeus (his book Against Heresies opens with a quotation from 1 Timothy 1:4, with the formula: "As the apostle says"). The Church of Alexandria has as witnesses Clement of Alexandria and Origen; the Church of Africa, Tertullian; the Roman Church, the Muratorian canon, which specifically identifies the Pastoral Letters as authentic writings of Saint Paul (Bible Manual, t. 1, n. 41). 6° The testimony of the oldest Greek manuscripts, among others the "Vaticanus", the "Alexandrinus", the "Sinaiticus". 7° The testimony of the first councils, especially the third council of Carthage, in 397.
Who cannot see the unshakeable scientific character of such an argument? But nothing finds favor before rationalist criticism, which has opposed it, as is its custom, with intrinsic proofs, which we must examine quickly.
The style, it is said at first, differs too much from that of Saint Paul for these letters to have come from him. They contain about 150 expressions that are not used elsewhere in the New Testament. Of these, 74 belong to 1 Timothy, 28 to 2 Timothy, 46 to the letter to Titus. Note among others the words σωφρονίζειν, σωφρονισμός, ϰαλοδιδάσϰαλος, ἑτεροδιδασϰαλεῖν, numerous composed of φίλος, new formulas, such as πιστὸς ὁ λόγος (1 Timothy 1, 15; 3, 4, etc.), λόγος ὑγιής (Tite 2, 8), εὐσεϐος ζῆν (2 Timothy 3, 12), etc. On the other hand, we notice the absence of various terms familiar to the apostle of the pagans (we note ἐνεργεῖν, ϰαυχᾶσθαι, περισσός, σῶμα, etc.). And not only would the vocabulary differ, but the grammatical structure would also present notable differences (few broken constructions, little obscurity arising from the wealth of evidence, etc.), not to mention the less didactic style, the less abundant thoughts, and the imperative formulas, frequent here (cf. 1 Timothy 5:7-8, 22-25; 2 Timothy 3:1, 5, 12, etc.) and rare elsewhere. — Without denying the existence of these divergences, we will reply that they have been singularly exaggerated and that, if they were taken as an absolute rule, the authenticity of all of Saint Paul's writings would have to be called into question. Indeed, "the same phenomenon occurs in all the letters; there is not one that does not contain words that do not reappear elsewhere. For example, there are 94 in the letter to the Romans96 in the second letter to the Corinthians, 50 in the one to the Galatians. When one considers how few pages we have of the Apostle Paul, over how many years they are spread, how many different subjects he addresses (this is particularly true in the Pastoral Epistles), and how much freedom, skill, even genius he displays in the handling of a language very rich in itself, which he now had to shape to serve a whole new set of ideas, one would be justified in wondering if there were a monotonous uniformity, if his vocabulary were less rich.” (This excellent reply to the objection is by Mr. Reuss, one of the leading figures of rationalist criticism.) Instead of innovating in terms of style, a forger would have focused on using only the most ordinary vocabulary of the Apostle. Moreover, as has also been very rightly said, "the peculiarities of the style are counterbalanced by even more striking similarities, and by (almost) infallible proofs of the composition (of these letters) by Saint Paul."
Chronological and biographical difficulties have also been raised as objections. Various critics claim it would be impossible to fit the numerous personal details inserted here and there in the Pastoral Epistles, and especially in the Second Letter to Timothy, into the framework of Saint Paul's life. — Yes, undoubtedly, if one insists, as has often been done, on placing these details, and especially the author's travels, within the historical context of the Acts of the ApostlesAny attempt of this kind is bound to fail. But the difficulties are smoothed out if we assume, according to Philippians 2:24, Philemon 22, Hebrews 13:23-24, and following a tradition as clear as it is ancient (see the General Introduction, and the commentary on the letters to the Philippians and to Philemon) that Saint Paul regained his freedom in Rome, that he travelled either to Spain, as he had long desired (cf. Romans 15, 28), that is, in the different regions of the East mentioned in the letters to Timothy and to Tite (cf. 1 Timothy 1:3; 4:13; 2 Timothy 1:18; 4:13, 20; Tite 1, 5; 3, 12), or that he suffered a second captivity which ended in martyrdom. Between the years 63 and 67, he had ample time to complete the various itineraries marked here. It matters little that it is not possible to determine with certainty the order of these journeys, due to a lack of sufficient information: several perfectly acceptable combinations have been proposed, and one has no right to demand more. See C. Fouard, Saint Paul, his final years, Paris, 1897, p. 111 et seq. Several rationalist writers also admit the fact of a double captivity of Saint Paul in Rome.
The objection has also been raised regarding the supposed doctrinal difference between the Pastoral Letters and those that critics attribute to Saint Paul. But this difference does not actually exist. Let us quote Mr. Reuss again: «With regard to theological teaching, one finds absolutely nothing in these three letters that contradicts the well-known doctrine of Saint Paul, or even that is foreign to it. On the contrary, his fundamental ideas are easily discerned, although the author is nowhere led to expound them theoretically and in their entirety. Indeed, this would have been superfluous with regard to the people to whom he is addressing himself, and at a time when he was concerned with exclusively practical interests.» Concerning God the Father, Our Lord Jesus Christ, salvation, faith, the role of Mosaic Law, etc., we find here the principles and theories that characterize the Apostle to the Gentiles. If the form of our three letters is less dogmatic, this is due to the purely practical and moral aim that their author had in mind. It is true that he insists on the necessity of good works; but in his other writings similarly, whenever the opportunity arises, he asks as a necessary thing that faith bear fruit (cf. Romans 2:7 and 13:3; 1 Corinthians 13:3; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 5:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:8, etc.).
It is also a gross exaggeration to claim that the organization of the Churches, as presupposed by our three letters, "would present a state of affairs such as only occurred later," in the middle of the second century. A simple glance at the ecclesiastical institutions during the preceding period is enough to convince oneself that nothing essential had been introduced or modified, and in particular, that we do not find here "a more developed hierarchical system." The Acts of the Apostles and Paul's earlier letters present us with an organization as complete as that of the Pastoral Letters: the apostles, the priest-bishops (cf. Acts of the Apostles 11, 30; 14, 23; 15, 2 et seq.; 20, 28, etc.; Romans 12, 7 and following; 1 Corinthians 12, 28; Ephesians 4:11; Philippians 1:1, etc.), the deacons (Acts of the Apostles 6:2 ff.; Philippians 1:1, etc.), the deaconesses (Romans 16, 1; 1 Corinthians 16:15), those charged with the ministry to the poor (1 Corinthians 16:2; 2 Corinthians 8-9), etc., and, as even more minute points, the laying on of hands to confer their powers upon the sacred ministers (Acts of the Apostles 13, 1-4, etc.), the prohibition against women speaking in religious assemblies (1 Corinthians 11, 5, etc.), etc. All these detailed instructions are, moreover, in perfect harmony with the admirably practical spirit of which Saint Paul gives many proofs in his letters, and especially in the first one to the Corinthians.
A final objection is drawn from the polemical elements of the Pastoral Letters. The false teachers they attack repeatedly and with great vigor are, it is claimed, none other than the Gnostics of the second century; this would resolve the question of authenticity in a way that is absolutely contrary to Saint Paul. But this assertion is no more well-founded than the preceding ones. The proof lies first in the inability of critics to agree on the Gnostic system represented in our three letters (the theories of Marcion, those of Valentinus, the Ophites, Valentinus' predecessors, a mitigated Gnosticism, etc., have all been mentioned in turn), and yet nothing is better known than this system. Moreover, it is certain that the heretics to whom the apostle refers here the war, were primarily Judaizing Christians, although they were somewhat more advanced, on certain points, than the Judaizers of Acts (Acts of the Apostles 15, 1 ff. etc.) and the earlier letters of Saint Paul (especially the Second Letter to the Corinthians and the Letter to the Galatians), and that they could be considered very distant precursors of Gnosticism (these details will be developed in the commentary). Let us conclude by saying with a Protestant author that "all the arguments put forward against the authenticity of the Pastoral Letters speak in their favor when they are examined more closely." Another says, no less accurately: "If we compare our three letters with the letters that were forged in the second century or later, and attributed either to Saint Paul or to other apostles, we recognize that the former are manifestly authentic."
