But even were we to grant, one moment; that the style and historical considerations must preclude a Pauline authorship for them, yet, the next moment, we find ourselves confronted by more serious objections to the theory of compilation. To begin with, the historical difficulty presented by the personal and local references in the admittedly Pauline sections is insurmountable, on the hypothesis that the whole of St. Paul’s history is contained in the Acts.
Again, without using violent language about “‘ forgery,” it is not easy to explain why the alleged compiler should pretend to be St. Paul. The ascription of a book to an honoured name was not a precedent condition to its acceptance or acceptability in the primitive Church. Hebrews, and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, and the Epistle to Diognetus do not claim anyone as their authors. Whoever it was that produced the Pastorals, he was just as good a practical Christian as St. Paul himself; and he had no compelling reason to hide his identity. The case of 2 Peter is different. That epistle, whoever wrote it, was always reckoned a disputed book.
Again, how are we to explain the honourable use, certainly by Polycarp, and probably by Clement of Rome and Ignatius, not to mention other later second century writers, of a work which only ap- peared, ex hypothesi, not earlier than 90 a.p.? And, further, if these epistles are due to a compiler, he must have been an extraordinarily clever man, and quite capable not only of supplementing the Pauline fragments, but of editing them. Now by the year 90 a.p. Timothy’s name had become venerated in the Church. Is it likely that a Churchman of that time, writing too, as is alleged, with an ecclesi- astical bias, would have permitted the publication of letters which certainly give the impression of Timothy as a not very heroic per- son? The treatment of Linus (2 Tim. iv. 21) raises a similar question, A tradition, which no one has ever questioned, names Linus as the first bishop of Rome; the subordinate position he occupies in this letter is, as Salmon has noted (Introd. N.T. p. 411), quite intelligible if St. Paul was the author of it. It is, on the other hand, extremely unlikely that an editor of the year 90 Α.Ρ., who had no scruple in writing in St. Paul’s name, would not have given Linus a more pro- minent place.
These are a few of the difficulties which may be urged on the traditional side in this ‘‘ contest of opposite improbabilities”.