Hello Martin, thanks for taking the time to respond.

You said:

"The article is interesting, but sadly I feel the reliance on I Timothy is the weak point, If you believe that I Timothy is written by Paul, then it is ok, but realistically there are many reasons for believing that I Timothy has a later date and is not by Paul. You may believe that I Timothy is by Paul, but that is your choice. Your argument is thus "If you believe that I Timothy was written by Paul, then perhaps Paul know the gospels". We have to be scientific !"

1 Timothy is a big part of the argument, but even without it, we can prove Paul knew the Gospels.

Everyone agrees 1 Corinthians is genuinely Pauline, and it's 1 Corinthians where he appeals to Matthew and Mark as Scripture.

Yet I believe we have sufficient evidence to conclude that 1 Timothy is genuinely Pauline, and to see that the arguments against 1 Timothy being Pauline are weak.

Two of the key pieces of evidence are the ancient New Testament manuscripts and the writings of the early church fathers.

In every case, the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament bundle all of Paul’s letters together — both those universally accepted as Pauline and those that some scholars doubt.

Historically, there’s no difference between them. All are always accepted.

Likewise, in the writings of the earliest church fathers, there isn’t the first hint that anyone doubted any of Paul’s letters.

Which is entirely the opposite of what you’d expect, if these letters really were the work of a late forger.

If the pastorals came decades after the rest of Paul’s letters, do you really think no one would notice? Do you really think no one would ask why these suddenly appeared out of nowhere? Do you really think no one would be suspicious?

Yet historically, no one was suspicious. In all of our extensive collection of church father writings, there isn’t one hint that any of Paul’s letters came decades after the others, or were ever looked at suspiciously.

The case for inauthenticity is entirely a modern phenomenon. It has no historical evidence and no historical data behind it.

Further, the case rests on a logical fault.

Many claim that 1 Timothy is not from Paul, because its vocabulary is a bit different than Paul’s other letters. And to be fair, it is easy to prove that the vocabulary is slightly different in 1 Timothy, compared to 1 Corinthians.

What we can’t prove is that this is due to it being another author.

Do you see the slight-of-hand, my friend?

The argument skips a step, saying “there are differences, therefore, Paul didn’t write them both.”

Put it in a syllogism and it looks like this:

Premise 1: There are differences in vocabulary between the pastorals and the accepted letters.

Premise 2: [non-existent]

Conclusion: Therefore, Paul didn’t write the pastorals.

The reason Premise 2 is left silent is that it’s ridiculous. You would have to argue that the only possible reason for the differences is that another author wrote them — which no one would accept. Of course there are other possibilities!

The simplest possibility is that the same author can write in different styles. We do it all the time. A letter you write to your spouse will contain a very different vocabulary than a report you write at work, or an email you write to a distant family relation.

1 Timothy is a private letter from Paul to a dear friend. It’s not a circular meant to be read to the churches, or a robust theological treatise, as many of his other letters were. Of course the vocabulary will be different! Paul isn’t writing the same kind of letter.

The case is also made that 1 Timothy describes an ecclesiology too advanced for being a few decades after the time of Jesus. Yet this claim forgets the origins of Christianity. The Christian church emerged from the Jewish synagogue, with its rich ecclesiastical structure and tradition stretching back centuries. Paul built atop centuries of prior ecclesiology. It had every reason to be advanced.

The historical evidence and manuscript evidence are entirely on the side of all of Paul’s letters being authentically Pauline.

The historical and manuscript evidence fits perfectly with the hypothesis that Paul is writing to a close personal friend, and therefore uses different language in doing so.

What clashes with all of the historical and manuscript evidence is the claim that it cannot be from Paul. We have no historical data that would require such a restriction.