doubts have been raised whether
they would be attributed to St. Paul, and whether completely or partially. Some
authors have denied this a) because of difference of vocabulary and style
from the other letters of St. Paul: not new words and a new way of writing
can easily be attributed to the new circumstances of the author or to the
material. In a similar way the difficulty can be solved b) because the
pastoral letters are not now dealing with the advancement of the faith in new
conversions, but with preserving the faith already embraced; for that can be
explained by the different circumstances of times and place. Likewise c) they
say that these letters suppose churches already monarchially constituted: but
this is also an argument for the fact that the churches are not being ruled in
a democratic way, but in a monarchic way, very much in agreement with the usual
practice of St. Paul; and this way of denying authenticity to these letters of
St. Paul can be conceived only in an a priori way. Similarly, a difficulty is
proposed d) especially from the errors of the Gnostics, who are described in
these letters as already now creeping in like serpents (1 Tim. 1:4.8; 4:7;
5:20; 2 Tim. 2:17; Tit. 3:9) but the errors of the Gnostics, which are
mentioned here and corrected are at their beginning stage and have not yet
obtained the force that they had in the 2nd century; hence these letters are
much more ancient . . . (Joachim Salaverri and Michaele Nicolau, Sacrae
Theologiae Summa, 4 vols. [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, Inc., 2015],
1B-567 n. 15)
The following is from the Biblical Commission on the Pauline
authorship of the Pastoral Epistles:
The Author,
Integrity, and Time of Composition of the Pastoral Letters of Paul the Apostle
[Response of the Biblical Commission, June 12, 1913]
2172 [DS 3587] I. Whether, keeping in mind the tradition of the Church which continues
universally and steadily from the earliest times, just as the ancient
ecclesiastical records testify in many ways, it should be held with certainty
that the so-called pastoral letters, that is, the two to Timothy and another to
Titus, notwithstanding the rashness of certain heretics who have eliminated
them as being contrary to their dogma from the number of Pauline epistles,
without giving any reason, were composed by the Apostle Paul himself, and have
always been reckoned among the genuine and canonical?—Reply: In the affirmative.
2173 [DS 3588] II. Whether the
so-called fragmentary hypothesis introduced by certain more recent critics and
variously set forth, who for no otherwise probable reason, rather while
quarreling among themselves, contend that the pastoral letters were constructed
at a later time from fragments of letters, or from corrupt Pauline letters by
unknown authors, and notably increased, can bring some slight prejudice upon
the clear and very strong testimony of tradition?—Reply: In the negative.
2174 [DS 3589] III. Whether the
difficulties which are brought up in many places whether from the style and
language of the author, or from the errors especially of the Gnostics, who
already at that time are described as serpents; or from the state of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is supposed to have been already evolved, and
other such reasons in opposition in some way, weaken the opinion which holds
the authenticity of the pastoral letters as valid and certain?—Reply: In the negative.
2175 [DS 3590] IV. Whether, since
no less from historical reasons as from ecclesiastical tradition, in harmony
with the testimonies of the oriental and occidental most holy Fathers; also
from the indications themselves which are easily drawn from the abrupt
conclusion of the Book of the Acts and from the Pauline letters written at
Rome, and especially from the second letter to Timothy, the opinion of a
twofold Roman captivity of the Apostle Paul should be held as certain, it can
be safely affirmed that the pastoral letters were written in that period of
time which intervenes between the liberation from the first captivity and the
death of the Apostle?—Reply: In the
affirmitive. (The
Sources of Catholic Dogma, ed. Henry Denzinger and Karl Rahner [trans. Roy
J. Deferrari; St. Louis, Miss.: B. Herder Book Co., 1954], 558)