'The Pastorals': The Gospel as Legacy

Sources: Luke Timothy Johnson, The New Testament Writings: An Interpretation, 2d ed. (Fortress, 1999); I. Howard Marshall et al., Exploring the New Testament: A Guide to the Letters and Revelation (IVP, 2002); Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3d ed. (Oxford, 2004).

I. Disrespected Letters
The label 'pastoral letters' stuck to these in the eighteenth century,

but ironically they are less 'pastoral' than Paul's letters to specific congregations.

These letters’ topics fall into several categories:

sound living and faith for the recipients and whole congregations, leadership tasks, falseness, and the perennial mission.

A. Just about every survey treats them together.

But do these really cluster together so closely? Not necessarily.

B. They are commonly presented as products of the end of Paul's ministry, or later.

But do they all belong to that stage, or even the same stage? Not necessarily.

C. Their authorship is disputed.

But are they really outliers from classic Paul? Not really.

So is critical scholarship helping here?
A'. Do they cluster together?

Paul's letters to individuals are arranged together. Once Philemon was associated with Colossians, Enlightenment critics grouped the rest as "the Pastorals" and focused on what they had in common.
Yet (so Luke Timothy Johnson) 2 Timothy's concerns align with Philippians, and its style sounds more like Paul's classic style. 1 Timothy's agenda looks rather like 1 Corinthians; Titus' agenda is in the mainstream of Paul's travel letters (1-2 Thess, 1-2 Cor, Gal, Rom). We could draw different associations and see different resemblances.

B'. Do they belong to the end of Paul's ministry? If they come from Paul, they need not.

Philippians is likely written in the late 50s to early 60s, and 2 Timothy shares much in common.
Timothy in the pastorals matches Timothy described in 1 Cor 4:17, 16:10-11, Phil 2:19-23, 1 Thess 3:2.
Titus matches his characterization in the other letters.
The theological 'sayings' (examine 1 Tim 1:15; also 3:1, 4:8, Titus 3:7, 2 Tim 2:10) could be coming from a later church stage, but they often represent common-sense sentiments, so could also be earlier.
1 Tim's and Titus' directions on church order are often dressed up as formal roles in an increasingly hierarchical church, so the grouped letters are said to emphasize structure and order ("early Catholicism").
But 2 Tim doesn't discuss church polity, and the roles are named from earlier eras: elders/presbyters in Acts 11:30 (and Jewish ones throughout Luke-Acts) and James 5:14, supervisors/bishops in Phil 1:1 and Acts 1:20 and 20:28, and servants/deacons in Rom 16:1 and Phil 1:1. The responsibilities don’t sound terribly developed, and the standards are commonsensical and ordinary, if not minimal, so in these passages Paul could just be norming already existing arrangements that are borrowed from synagogues.
So these work as well in the fluid environment of the embryonic Greco-Roman church as they do the much more formalized and standard environment of the second century. They have proved useful in any context.

C'. Their authorship is disputed.

They aren't co-written, and 2 Tim and Titus are full of circumstancial details that are either legitimate or outright fraudulent. Most churches rejected pseudonymous Paulines such as (anti-gnostic) 3 Cor, (Marcionite) Laodicians, and (ascetic) Paul-Thecla.
1-2 Timothy and Titus are present on the earliest lists of Paul's letters, quoted early, and aren't disputed.
As a group they don't fit in Acts' (incomplete) chronology.
They are said to be preoccupied with 'ethics' rather than 'theology.' (But so is Philemon.)
Some grammar is strikingly distinct, esp. in 1 Tim and Titus:
Peculiar constructions such as "our savior God" (1 Tim 1:1, 2:2:3, Titus 1:1, 2:10, 3:4) and
"Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13, cf. 2 Peter 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:18; cf. 2 Tim 2:10)
Note 2 Tim isn't really on these lists. Also, these are commonplace among Christians.
But sophisticated lexical analysis by Jermo van Nes doesn't find it all that unusual.

The supposedly outlying themes are found in typical Paul (see Johnson 427-428):

1. Law (1 Tim 1:8-10): good but meant for wrongdoers; compatible with Rom 2:12-27, Rom 7-8, 1 Cor (5, 6, 9, etc.), Phil 3:6-9, even Gal 5:23.
2. Faith: the trust of believers (1 Tim 1:5, almost all instances in 2 Tim, Titus 1:1, 1:4, 2:2, see Col 2:5), but also the faith (1 Tim 3:9, 4:1, 2 Tim 4:7, Titus 3:15; but also in Phil 1:25-27, Col 1:23, 2:7, Eph 4:13, 2 Cor 1:24 and 13:5, maybe even Gal 3:23).
3. Righteousness: standing with God (2 Tim 4:8, cf. Rom 1:17), but also the virtue of justice (1 Tim 6:11, 2 Tim 2:22, 3:16; Rom 14:17, 2 Cor 6:7, 11:15? Eph 4:24, 5:9, 6:14, contrasted with ‘righteousness from law’ (Titus 3:5, cf. Phil 3:6-9).
4. Eusebia, 'piety' or 'godliness': A minor term in Prov and Isa LXX, prominent in 1 Tim (because of 3:16? 4:8-9?) but once each in 2 Tim (3:5, more in contrast) and Titus (1:1), four times in 2 Peter.
Cf. the more popular asebia, impiety, in 2 Tim 2:16 and Titus 2:12. This has LXX roots in Deut 9:4-5, writings, minor prophets including Hab, and esp. Isa 59:20-21 in Rom 11:26. In Rom 1:18 it's synonymous with unrighteousness.
The concepts translate the effect of the shift from Romans 1 through Romans 5 to Romans 12 into a Greek but still biblical category (as Peter uses it in Acts 3:12, again in contrast). (It's not just for Greeks: also Jude 15, 18, contrasting with how Christians should live.)
Has Paul adjusted his vocabulary for half-Greek Timothy and Greek Titus?
1 Tim and Titus are semi-public mandatum principis letters for colleagues' professional use rather than public letters for congregational settings. Is eusebia shorthand?
Since 1 Tim aligns well with the concerns in Corinth, it's worth noting that the terms apply well there.

In sum, there is continuity with the diversity in Paul's undisputed (and other disputed) letters,

and these letters' concerns recur throughout the NT letters anyway.
Some of these could be pseudonymous, but these differences of degree are not as vast as critics make them out.
Paul is just bigger and less predictable than our factions (traditionalist, liberationist, Protestant) want him to be.

It’s (barely) better to know the complications, pay attention to the quirks, and adjust (rather than just react) to them,

while listening to the reasonable voices, not taking 'scholarly' authority uncritically, and getting a sense of the stakes.
We tend to see what we look for.
Outside of evangelical and some Catholic scholarship, the Pastorals' uniformity and outlier qualities are exaggerated, sometimes greatly.

Even if they're fake, to read them earnestly as scripture we must interpret them as genuine.

But otherwise we're swimming in suspicion and deconstructing these letters instead of heeding them.

These letters can be pressed into a variety of paradigms for the early church:

a less formal early-early church,
or a later, more formal and hierarchical 'early Catholic' one,
or a strict 'baptist' or fundamentalist one.

They reflect the widespread ethical priorities of second century Christians (cf. 1 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, the Didache, and the so-called '2 Clement') that are already well anticipated in other NT letters, including undisputed Paulines.

Their decline in popularity is a casualty of the process that led up to and included the Protestant Reformations and then the Enlightenment.

Excluding everything that doesn't match the style and content of the hits of Paul's undisputed letters artifically constricts 'Paul.'

II. 1 Timothy: Behaving in God's Household
Timothy, from Lystra, is Paul's deputy, fellow worker, co-author, and eventually bishop of Ephesus; d. 97.

Timothy's family became Christian because of Paul's ministry (Acts 14:5-20) and raised him in the faith (2 Tim 1:5).

Paul offers directions for Timothy for churches under their care, that "you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God" (3:14-16).
Highlights:

1:2-3: No thanksgiving (cf. Gal 1). The content matches royal Greco-Roman mandata principis letters.
1:3-11: Teachers and leaders are to hold to right doctrine (classic Paul) and correct other [Jewish] myths and endless genealogies (1:3-11; cf. 3:14-4:10, 2 Tim 2:23-26, Titus 1:9-14).
The Torah is being mistaught (4:2). "The law" is for restraining the bad (1:8-9).
1:12-2:7: appointment to ministry by grace happens for the sake of Christ's mission to extend grace to authorities and live in its peace (2:1's "thus"); cf. Titus 3:3.
2:8-3:15/16: church order. Unruly behavior like that in Corinth is more in view.
2:8-15: cf. 2 Cor 11. Here's a treatment. Take (seize) authority? The context of Ephesus seems relevant; no such emphasis in 2 Tim and Titus.
3:16: piety/eusebia is rooted in Christ. This isn't moralism.
5:1-6:2a, then 17-19 (a P.S.?): Negotiating (power) relations as a fellowship’s leader (cf. 1 Cor 9.) 5:19-20 matches 2 Cor 13:1.
6:20-21: Executive summary. "Deposit" only here and 2 Tim 1:12-14. Leaders need encouraging too.

III. Titus: Staying on Track
Titus, from Antioch (?), is Paul’s Greek secretary, interpreter, companion at Jerusalem (Acts 15, Gal 2:1-5),

messenger to Corinth, fundraiser for Jerusalem, and eventually bishop of Crete (?); d. 96 or 107.
He appears in 2 Cor 2:13, 7:6, ch 8, 12:18, Gal 2 (an early gentile convert, not circumcised at Jerusalem),
so arguably the letter could be early: cf. 1 Tim 4:10.

How and when was Paul involved in Crete? (Acts 27?)
Occasion: For the faith and genuine knowledge of 'the elect', Titus is to put things in order (1:1-5).
Stress on false and true doctrine, conduct, and formation resembles classic 1 Cor, Col 2.

None of the material calls for churches to be any different structurally, ethically, or theologically.
It’s parenesis, as well as speaking 'over' Titus to his charges to bolster his authority.

Highlights:

No thanksgiving again.
Key (and classic) emphases: fidelity, integrity, holiness and godliness, salvation-historical significance, discipline, continuity, witness.
Lots about eusebia, as "lifestyle evangelism" (2:5).
The gospel's transformation in 2:11-15 sounds like the transformation from Rom 11-12 or Col 2-3, but with a more compact vocabulary and compressed perspective.
Titus is an executive summary of the right, fruitful relationship between grace and responsibility.
Community life is to be orderly both internally (2:2-15, cf. 1 Tim 2:8-15) and externally (Titus 3:1-7, cf. 1 Tim 2:1-7, 6:1-2), because church persons are icons of Christ.
3:1-8: a favorite take on authorities.

Titus' vocabulary is shorthand for the kind of change that animates the Wesleyan Holiness and Pentecostal traditions,

which have not found the deep tensions that allegedly separate Paul's classic travel letters from the Pastorals.
Their zeal for both justification by regenerating grace and sanctification by cooperative grace represent a more 'ecumenical' Protestant vision.

IV. 2 Timothy: Fanning a Flame
2 Tim is more personal, yet still businesslike and public, and relational as Philippians is.

Highlights:

1:7-8: Leaders’ authority is both Spirit-given and formally bestowed (cf. 1 Tim 1:18-19, 4:11-16, 6:11-16, Titus 1:1-5).
2:14-19: Skip pointless controversy (cf. 1 Tim 6:2b-10, Titus 3:9-11).
3:1-9: Opponents’ motives are corrupt (cf. Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres, Titus 1:10-16).
Does one respond to folly gently (2:24-26), or harshly (3:2-5)? Paul does both.
3:10-13: Paul offers ethical models here like in Philippians, where (Phil 1:20-26) he also anticipates the end of his life (4:6-8). Timothy has Paul’s shoes to fill.

This is a sobering letter:

The Kingdom is a marathon with setbacks and disappointments, yet fruitfulness and a faithful remnant.