|
==מחבר האיגרת ותיארוכה==
מרבית החוקרים סבורים כיום כי איגרת זו, יחד עם יתר [[איגרות הרועה]] ([[האיגרת הראשונה אל טימותיוס]] ו[[האיגרת אל טיטוס]]) לא נכתבו על ידי פאולוס, אלא נכתבו על ידי אחד מתלמידיו לאחר מותו של פאולוס בשלהי [[המאה הראשונה]] או ראשית [[המאה השנייה]], ושוייכו לו.
<!--
{{see|First Epistle to Timothy#Authorship}}
יחד עם זאת, השפה, הביטויים והרעיונות באיגרתה שנייה שונים משתי איגרות הרועה האחרות, ודומים יותר לייתר [[איגרות פאולוס]] - ועל כן מרבית החוקרים סבורים כי מחבר איגרת זו הוא תלמיד אחר של פאולוס מאשר זה שכתב את שתי איגרות הרועה האחרות. ריימונד בראון מסביר את הדימיון בין איגרת זו לאיגרות המאוחרות של פאולוס (שאין מחלוקת שנכתבו על ידיו) בכך שמדובר בתלמיד של פאולוס אשר שהא עימו בשנת חייו האחרונה. ג'רום מרפי אוקונור סבור כי מדובר אכן באיגרת שפאולוס כתב בשל הדימיון לאיגרות שאין מחלוקת שהוא כתב.
The majority of modern biblical scholars accept the consensus that 2 Timothy, along with the other Pastoral Epistles, was not written by Paul but by an anonymous follower of the Apostle in the first century AD after Paul's death, who also wrote [[First Epistle to Timothy|1 Timothy]] and [[Epistle to Titus|Titus]].<ref>[http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm New Testament Letter Structure], from [http://catholic-resources.org Catholic Resources] by Felix Just, S.J.</ref> However, the ideas and language of this epistle is notably different from the other two Pastoral letters yet similar to the later Pauline letters, especially the ones he wrote in captivity. This has led at least some scholars to conclude that the author of 2 Timothy is a different person from 1 Timothy and Titus. Raymond E. Brown proposed that this letter was written by a follower of Paul who had knowledge of Paul's last days.<ref>Raymond E. Brown, ''An Introduction to the New Testament'' (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp.672-675.</ref>
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, however, would go further than Brown. He noted that a number of pseudepigraphic letters attributed to the Apostle were rejected in antiquity, indicating that there was not "a climate of acceptance, which would make it easy for the forged Pastorals to enter the mainstream of church life." Murphy-Brown continues,
: Realistically, the only scenario capable of explaining the acceptance of the Pastorals is the authenticity of one of the three letters. Were one to have been long known and recognized, then the delayed "discovery" of two others with the same general pattern could be explained in a variety of convincing ways.<ref>Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, OP ''Paul: A Critical Life'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 357</ref>
Murphy-O'Connor then argues, based in part on recent research on the style of this work, that 2 Timothy was the authentic one of the trio. It was not widely known due to its private nature, but eventually published for the benefit of the church. Using it as his model, one of his followers then wrote the other two Pastorals and was able to persuade his fellows that they were also previously unknown letters of Paul.<ref>urphy-O'Connor, OP ''Paul'', pp. 356-359</ref>
-->
==תוכן==
<!--
|
