In this category we explore critical scholarship and its impact on various areas of Biblical Study.
None of the arguments against Pauline authorship—whether linguistic, historical, or theological—either separately or taken together require the verdict they are often said to deliver. What they require instead is a careful examination of the method producing those conclusions, a method that too rarely receives the scrutiny it demands.
What critics often describe as “theological development” is better understood as theological interpretation—how Paul responds to new cultural pressures, emerging syncretism, and evolving distortions of the gospel. Treating those dynamics as evidence of pseudonymity confuses development with distance.
The historical argument against the Pastoral Epistles only works if Acts is treated as a complete biography of Paul’s life. But Acts never claims to be that. When silence is treated as contradiction, a selective narrative is quietly turned into a closed system—and method, not evidence, ends up doing the deciding.
Are vocabulary differences enough to prove Paul didn’t write the Pastoral Epistles? The evidence suggests variation—not deception.
What exactly is “critical scholarship,” and why does it matter when scholars question whether Paul wrote 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus? In this post, I explain how modern critical methods—especially methodological naturalism—shape conclusions about authorship before the evidence is ever examined. If you’ve ever heard, “modern scholarship says Paul didn’t write the Pastorals,” this article will help you understand where that claim comes from and why I remain unconvinced.
