Did Paul Write 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus? Why I’m Unconvinced by Skeptical Scholarship

Part 1: What Is Critical Scholarship and Why Does It Matter When Determining Pauline Authorship??”

If you’ve been following along, you know I’ve recently been engaging with some of the claims made by Dan McClellan in his book The Bible Says So?. That discussion is part of a broader two-year deep dive I’ve taken into critical scholarship—especially the work of scholars like Bart Ehrman—and the role their arguments play in shaping the modern deconstruction movement.

Today I want to address a claim I’ve been aware of for a long time but never took very seriously. I always felt there were bigger fish to fry—until this one started to stink. At that point, it seemed wise either to cook it or toss it out altogether.

I had been dealing with individual claims piecemeal—questions about the biblical teaching on homosexuality, the deity of Christ, univocality and what II Timothy 3:16 means. That path led me to questions about authorship, especially the debate over whether Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. Tackling these issues one at a time was enlightening, but it also revealed how differently people think—both scholars and those who quote them. I began to notice a pattern: many arguments were supported by appeals to “modern scholarship says…” rather than by explaining how those scholarly conclusions were reached

As someone who isn’t a professional scholar, trying to argue on that playing field—using rules I didn’t set and terms I didn’t define—wasn’t easy. At first, I tried pointing out inconsistencies or selective reasoning, but that only goes so far. Eventually, I realized that to have a meaningful conversation, I needed to understand the methods themselves—not simply react to their conclusions. Only then could I challenge the assumptions beneath the arguments rather than just the arguments at face value.

Tackling these one by one was enlightening. It taught me how differently people think—both scholars and those they influence, directly and indirectly.

By “directly,” I mean formal debates and the growing number of online spaces—YouTube channels, podcasts, TikTok “call-in” shows—where critics dismantle Christians who step into the arena after watching a few apologetics clips and assume they’re ready to engage trained scholars. Even when these Christians may be right on substance, they often lack the preparation and framework needed to operate at that level of argumentation.

But the indirect influence is, in some ways, more significant. Scholarly ideas filter slowly into the broader culture until they become assumptions: accepted not because most people understand them, but because they sound authoritative and are backed by consensus. We rarely pause to examine the systems, standards, or methodologies that produced that consensus in the first place.

I’ve often heard that major intellectual shifts move slowly throughout history. They may accelerate in our digital age, but traditionally they unfold over generations—embedding themselves until they feel like the default setting.

Critical scholarship works much the same way. If you want a full history of its development, we’ll save that for another post. For today, we’ll settle for a working definition and a look at how critical scholarship operates—using the controversy surrounding whether Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) as a case study, with particular focus on 1 and 2 Timothy.

What Do I Mean by “Critical Scholarship”?

The term critical in “critical scholarship” does not mean being negative or hostile toward the Bible. It comes from the Greek word kritikos, which means “able to judge or discern.” In this context, “criticism” refers to the analytical study of a text—evaluating its wording, structure, authorship, and historical context.

Critical scholarship, then, is an academic approach to the Bible that uses historical and literary tools to understand how a text was composed, transmitted, and developed. These tools include:

• textual criticism – comparing manuscripts to determine the earliest recoverable wording
• source criticism – identifying possible earlier sources behind a text
• form criticism – studying literary forms and how they functioned in ancient settings
• redaction criticism – examining how material may have been arranged or edited
• linguistic and stylistic analysis – analyzing vocabulary and grammar patterns
• historical criticism – placing the text within its cultural and historical background

Scholars often distinguish between two broad categories of criticism.

Lower criticism (textual criticism) focuses on the wording of the text itself—manuscripts, variants, and the effort to reconstruct the original text.

Higher criticism focuses on questions of authorship, date, sources, and composition—how the text came to be in its present form.

In short:

• lower criticism asks: “What did the original text say?”
• higher criticism asks: “How did this text originate and develop?”

Understanding these categories matters because the debate over the Pastoral Epistles—whether Paul wrote 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus—arises primarily from the tools of higher criticism: stylistic analysis, historical context, and authorial attribution.

The Question of the Supernatural

One important clarification needs to be made before we move on. Critical scholarship generally conducts its analysis using what is called methodological naturalism—the principle that historical inquiry should explain events through natural causes, human actions, and evidence that can be corroborated or compared with other historical sources. For many scholars, this is a methodological boundary rather than a theological statement: supernatural explanations are bracketed, not necessarily because they are considered impossible, but because they involve agents and actions that fall outside what historical tools are designed to assess.

However, this methodological boundary is not without consequences. When applied to texts that explicitly attribute events to divine action, such as biblical narratives, methodological naturalism necessarily directs scholars toward alternative, naturalistic explanations. In that sense, certain categories of explanation are ruled out before the investigation even begins—not because the evidence itself excludes them, but because the method does.

It is also worth noting that critical scholars differ in how they relate methodology to belief. Some adopt methodological naturalism purely as an academic tool while personally remaining open to or affirming supernatural events. For example, a believing scholar might bracket miracles in their historical analysis for professional reasons, yet still hold that God could raise the dead or inspire Scripture—they simply see those claims as theological rather than historical questions. Others extend the method into metaphysical naturalism, concluding that supernatural events do not occur. For instance, a skeptic committed to philosophical naturalism might argue that miracles are impossible in principle and therefore view biblical accounts of prophecy or resurrection as legends, symbolism, or later theological developments rather than historical events. The former represents a methodological limit; the latter, a philosophical conviction.

In either case, the practical effect is the same: the most naturalistic explanation tends to become the most plausible by default—not necessarily because the evidence demands it, but because the method excludes alternatives from consideration. This has profound implications for how critical scholarship interprets biblical claims about authorship, prophecy, and divine action.

Where This Takes Us Next

Now that we’ve outlined the broader field and its assumptions, we can examine a second significant weakness in critical methodology: the tendency to treat literary and stylistic analysis as definitive proof, often with insufficient attention to factors like audience variation, the use of secretaries, or the contextual flexibility common among ancient writers. The debate over the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles—1 & 2 Timothy and Titus—provides a clear example of how these methodological limitations can lead to premature conclusions, particularly when vocabulary differences or theological emphases are interpreted as evidence of forgery rather than rhetorical adaptation.

My aim in what follows is straightforward: to show you why I don’t find critical scholarship’s case against Pauline authorship compelling—and why you don’t need to either. I’ll present their arguments fairly and accurately, because the only way to answer a challenge is to face it head-on. But I’ll also show you why these arguments, despite their scholarly polish and academic confidence, rest on fragile assumptions, overlook plausible alternatives, and often prove far less than they claim. If you’ve ever felt shaken by appeals to ‘what scholars say,’ or worried that defending traditional authorship means ignoring evidence, this series is for you. The case for Paul’s authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is stronger than critical scholarship suggests—and you can hold that position with both intellectual integrity and confidence.

So until next time, stay shaped by reason, guided by faith, and grounded in Christ.  Take it easy.