Did Paul write the Pauline epistles?
The majority of modern scholarship does not attribute authorship of the 6 “Pauline” epistles to the apostle Paul. This does not in any way mean that this is the consensus amongst modern scholars, there are many well respected scholars that have, and do argue for Pauline authorship of these 6 books.
In fact, of a study of 109 scholars at the British New Testament conference on Pauline Authorship 2011 conducted by Paul Foster, we see a majority did not hold to the Authorship by Paul of 1 (59) and 2 (58) Timothy and Titus (62)
As we can see from this survey there was also strong Doubt over Ephesians but considerably less doubt than many would proport over Colossians (17) and 2nd Thessalonians (13) Interestingly almost as many accept Paul as the author of both Colossians and 2nd Thessalonians as reject Paul as author of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. If the numbers of those that reject Paul as author of these 3 books, then we should be able to affirm Paul as author of Colossians and 2nd Timothy. This then would bring the number of Pauline books accepted by scholarship up from 7 to 9. Ephesians should not be outright rejected as theer are almost as many that accept this book as being Pauline as reject it.
Something worthy of note is that EVERY book, Hebrews aside, has at least 25 of 109 scholars that (a little under 23%) This being the lowest of the percentages. While we may be able to assert that “a majority of scholars do not accept Paul as the author of the 13 Letters”. it still remains that there are a significant number of New Testament scholars that do assert Pauline authorship. This is probably higher than most are led to believe.
So let’s have a look at the evidence for and against Paul being the author of these books.
After demonstrating that stories about Paul were made made up, which I would most certainly agree there were, Bart asks the following question
“IF CHRISTIANS MADE UP stories about Paul, did they also
make up writings allegedly by Paul?
Bart Ehrman Forged page 96
Referring to the books of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus Bart states
“IF CHRISTIANS MADE UP stories about Paul, did they also
make up writings allegedly by Paul?”
Bart Ehrman Forged page 109
In 1807 Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote a letter to a pastor arguing that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.
His main arguments were that the letter used different words and developed ideas that were not compatable with the other writings of Paul.
Even today the works of Schleiermacher are studied and used by scholars.
A firther argument is that Paul argued against teachings that were not known in his day, specifically those that sounded like 2nd Century Gnosticism, and thus show the later dating of these letters
What Paul was arguing against was in no way the same as 2nd century Gnosticism…and we have 1st century quotations of the epistles that show this to just be wrong. Gnosticism was not in full force until the 2nd Century but it had started earlier. Paul was dealing with a proto Gnostic position.
Schleiermacher argued that the “myths and genealogies” opposed in 1 Timothy sound like the mythologies propounded by
these later, second-century Gnostics. In connection with the other problems of the book, such as the non-Pauline vocabulary, this
shows that it was a later production, forged in the name of Paul.
Soon after Schleiermacher wrote his open letter-essay, other
scholars came forward arguing not only that he was right about 1
Timothy, but also that the other two pastoral letters were written
by the same person. All three were forged.
Page 110
SO does Bart agree with Schleiermacher? are his arguments simply reguritation of the arguments of Schleiermacher
The Authorship or non authorship of the Pauline epistles by Paul himself is not proven because Schleiermacher argued against Pauline authorship, nor because scholars after him have agreed with him.
The arguments for and against authorship by Paul must stand or fall on their own merit.
“An incredible amount of scholarship has been devoted to the
pastoral letters just in the past thirty or forty years, two centuries
removed from Schleiermacher. Much of it is tedious to normal
human beings, but fascinating to those of us who are abnormal
scholars. I can’t summarize it all here. Instead, I simply give a
few reasons for thinking that all three letters were written by the
same person, and that this person was not Paul.”
page 110
We should assume, seeing Bart is making a case that these 3 letters are not authored by Paul, but that he is only going to present a few reasons why the letters are not written by Paul that Bart will present what he sees as the strongest arguments for his position, or at least a few of the strongest arguments.
Paul is writing to Churches and then to friends, it would be expected that Paul would write differently to these two different audiences. The argument only works if we assume that Paul has to use the same vocabulary within all his writings.
Bart himself writes very differently in his books aimed at a non scholarly audience than he does when he is writing to those of a scholarly background. Should we assume that Bart didnt write one set of these because he uses different vocabulary for his differentt intended audiences. The obvious answer to this is no, it is expected that Bart would use differing vocabulary based upon the intended audience in order that they would best understand that which is being stated. An argument based on vocabulary would have to go much further than that. It would have to be demonstrated that there was no need to change the vocabulary used.
We must also acknowedge the fact that Paul utilised writers on his behalf, I deomonstrate this in my argument regarding Pauline authorship of the book of Hebrews.
So lets test these arguments and see just how strong they really are.
I should admit at the outset that some recent scholars have
argued strenuously that 2 Timothy is so different from the other
books that it should be considered separately, as by a different
author from the others, possibly Paul himself.11 For about a year
or so before I started writing this book, I myself began to be increasingly inclined to take this view. But then I did some further serious research on the matter and am now thoroughly persuaded that whoever wrote 1 Timothy must have written 2
Timothy. The reason is that they share way too many verbal connections and similarities for these to be accidental
Page111
Barts argument that the letters 1 and 2 Timothy are wriiten by the same person, but specifically not by Payul, are based on language.
1 Timothy: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus…to
Timothy…grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father
and Christ Jesus our Lord.”
2 Timothy: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus…to
Timothy…grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father
and Christ Jesus our Lord.”
They are virtually the same. And even more important, there
is no other letter of Paul that begins this way. Either these are by
the same author, or one author is copying the writing of another.
But there are reasons for thinking it is not the work of a copyist.
For one thing, there are tons of verbal agreements of a similar
sort. Both letters have words and phrases in common not found
in any of the other letters attributed to Paul: the “promise of life”
“with a pure conscience” “from a pure heart” “guard the deposit
(of faith)” Paul is an “apostle, herald, and teacher.” And on and
on and on.
Page111
Bart at least acknowledges that it is possible that an “astute” student could have done this, even if he rejects that position.
This then leads us to the first of the arguments put forth by Bart, and it is one of language, just he argued that the same author had written both 1 and 2 Timothy based on language, he also argues that it is because of the language used in these letters that negate them as being Pauline.
That is one of the reasons scholars from the nineteenth century on have been convinced that Paul did not write the letters.
The vocabulary and the writing style are very different from
those of the other Pauline letters
page112
Bart then appeals to the writings of A.N. Harrison as evidence of the differences in vocabulary.
In 1921 the British scholar A.
N. Harrison wrote an important study of the pastoral letters in
which he gave numerous statistics about the word usage in these
writings. One of his most cited set of numbers is that there are
848 different words used in the pastoral letters. Of that number
306—over one-third of them!—do not occur in any of the other
Pauline letters of the New Testament. That’s an inordinately high
number; especially given the fact that about two-thirds of these
306 words are used by Christian authors living in the second century. That suggests that this author is using a vocabulary that was
becoming more common after the days of Paul, and that he too
therefore lived after Paul.
112
A number of scholars have called Harrison’s use of statistics
into question, since, as we all know, you can make statistics say
just about anything you want them to say. But the arguments
over word usage have gotten increasingly refined over the ninety
years since he wrote, and in almost every study done, it is clear
that the word usage of the Pastorals is different from that in
Paul’s other letters.
112
So what we should do is see if this argument really is as strong as Bart would seem to assert that it is.
Now, interestingly, Bart then states that not too much stock should be given to the numbers regarding vocabulary.
At the same time, probably not too much
stock should be placed in mere numbers. Everyone, after all, uses
different words on different occasions, and most of us have a
much richer stock of vocabulary than shows up in any given letter or set of letters we write.
112
Bart then states that it is the overall evidence that points to non Pauline authorship
The problem is that a large number of factors all seem to
point in the same direction, showing that this author is not Paul.
113
Now, that is something I can agree on, even if the strength of any particular piece of evidence is not convincing on its own, if the weight of evidence should fall on the side on non Pauline authorship and that each individual piece of evidence should point that way, then that would certainly make a strong case, despite the weaknesses of the evidence individually. But we should also not take a number of weak evidences and try to make them stronger simply because of weight. Each piece of evidence still needs to be strong enough that it does, in fact, point us in any particular direction.
For one thing, sometimes this author uses the same words as
Paul, but means something different by them. The term “faith”
was of supreme importance to Paul. In books such as Romans
and Galatians faith refers to the trust a person has in Christ to
bring about salvation through his death. In other words, the term
describes a relationship with another; faith is trust “in” Christ.
The author of the Pastorals also uses the term “faith.” But here it
is not about a relationship with Christ; faith now means the body
of teaching that makes up the Christian religion. That is “the
faith” (see Titus 1:13). Same word, different meaning. So too with
other key terms, such as “righteousness.”
113
If true, I think this would consitute as reasonable evidence, certainly not definitive, it could be argued that Paul deliberately used it in a different way, for a different context and a different audience while making a different point. But, lets just take this as it is.
1 Coeinthians 16:13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
2 Corinthians 13:5 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
Philippians 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
While Paul may use faith in the way that Bart has asserted this does not mean that Paul cannot use it with a different nauance in other places, and he most certainly does on occasions even in the undisputed letters.
Have we really just accepted Pauline authorship based on tradition, are we so much smarter now that we can decipher infomation that the early church justt couldnt, or just got wrong.
Information is lost to us
Marcion did not reject that Paul wrote the letters, he rejected them as being part of scripture, based on his theological beliefs. This is a big difference.
A second example cited by Bart
Even more significant, some ideas and concepts in the pastoral letters stand at odds with what you find in the letters that Paul
certainly wrote. For example, we have seen that Paul was highly
concerned with arguing that performing the “works of the law”
could not contribute to one’s right standing before God. It was
not the Jewish law that could bring salvation, but the death and
resurrection of Jesus. When Paul talks about “works,” that is
what he means: doing the things that the Jewish law requires,
such as getting circumcised, keeping kosher, and observing the
Sabbath. In the Pastorals, however, the Jewish law is no longer
even an issue, and the author speaks of works as “good works,”
that is, doing good deeds for other people. The term occurs this
way six times in 1 Timothy alone.
113
A third example is in regards to marriage.
Or take a completely different idea, marriage. In 1 Corinthians
7 Paul is insistent that people who are single should try to remain
113/357
single, just as he is. His reason is that the end of all things is
near, and people should devote themselves to spreading the
word, not to establishing their social lives. But how does that
square with the view in the Pastorals? Here the author insists
that the leaders of the church be married. In Paul’s letters it is
better not to be married; in the Pastorals it is required that
people (at least church leaders) be married.
113 -114
Bart then turns to what he claims is “Probably the biggest problem”. Here Bart claims that Paul, like Jesus believed that the end was very close, and that the resurrection would happen imminantly.
Probably the biggest problem with accepting the Pastorals as
having come from Paul involves the historical situation that they
seem to presuppose. Paul, like Jesus before him, thought he was
living at the very end of time. When Jesus was raised from the
dead, that was the sign that the end had already started and that
the future resurrection of the dead was about to take place. According to Jewish thinking the resurrection was to arrive when
this age had come to an end. That’s why Paul called Jesus the
“first fruits of the resurrection” in 1 Corinthians 15:20. This is an
agricultural metaphor. The farmhands celebrate the first day of
harvest by throwing a party that night; this commemorates the
“first fruits” of the harvest. And when do they go out to get the
rest of the harvest? The next day—not twenty or two thousand
years later. Jesus is the first fruits, because with him the resurrection has started, and very soon everyone—all the dead—will be
raised for judgment. That is why Paul thinks he himself will be
alive when Jesus returns from heaven (see 1 Thess. 4:14–18)
The one thing Paul does not do is write to the leaders of the
church in Corinth and tell them to get their parishioners in order.
Why is that? Because there were no leaders of the church in Corinth. There were no bishops or deacons. There were no pastors.
There was a group of individuals, each of whom had a gift of the
Spirit, in this brief time before the end came.
Contrast that with what you have in the Pastorals. Here you
do not have individuals endowed by the Spirit working together
to form the community. Here you have the pastors Timothy and
Titus. You have the church leaders: bishops and deacons. You
have hierarchy, structure, organization. That is to say, you have a
different historical situation than you had in the days of Paul.
page 116
Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Bishops and deacons in the time of Paul
1 thessalonians 5:12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
Paul references teachers in the book of romans
Romans 12:7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
He mentions a servant
Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
The word translated as Ministry in Romans 12:7 and servent in Romans 16:1 is διάκονον diakonon from which we get deacon.
1 Corinthians 16:15 beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) 16That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth. 17I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.
No prizes for guessing that the word translated as ministry is διακονίανv diakonian.
Pauline letters.
Example: Words like epiphaneia (appearing), sōphrosynē (soundness of mind), and presbyteros (elder) are frequent in the Pastorals but absent elsewhere in Paul.
If you expect Jesus to come back soon—say, sometime this
month—there is no real need for a hierarchical system of organization and leadership. You simply need to get along for the short
term. But if Jesus does not return, and you need to settle in for
the long haul, things will be different. You have to get organized.
You have to have leadership. You have to have someone run the
show. You have to have teachers who can root out the false teaching in your midst. You have to specify how people should relate
to one another socially: masters to slaves, husbands to wives,
parents to children. In a hierarchical system there is no equality;
there is leadership. That’s what you find in the pastoral letters—churches settling in for the long haul. But that’s not what
you find in the historical Paul. For the historical Paul, there was
not going to be a long haul. The end was coming soon.
Page 116
Arguments in favour of the Pauline authorship
The early church accepted the authenticity of these books. Dispite rejecting Pseudo books, the church accepted and used these books. Including 1st Century church father Polycarp.
Polycarp quoted from 1st Timothy. On its own this gives good evidence for the acceptence of the book as scripture.
What is interesting is that Polycarp uses clusters of quotations, including from 1 Timothy mixed with quotes from uncontested Pauline letters.
These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but because you have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom 2 Peter 3:15 of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, is the mother of us all.
Galatians 4:26 For if any one be inwardly possessed of these graces, he has fulfilled the command of righteousness, since he that has love is far from all sin. But the love of money is the root of all evils.
1 Timothy 6:10 Knowing, therefore, that as we brought nothing into the world, so we can carry nothing out,
1 Timothy 6:7 let us arm ourselves with the armour of righteousness; Ephesians 6:11 and let us teach, first of all, ourselves to walk in the commandments of the Lord. Next, [teach] your wives [to walk] in the faith given to them, and in love and purity tenderly loving their own husbands in all truth, and loving all [others] equally in all chastity; and to train up their children in the knowledge and fear of God.
Polycarp letter to the Phillipians chapters 3and 4
In chapter 5 we see the same thing, Polycarp quotes from 1 and 2 Timothy.
Knowing, then, that God is not mocked,
Galatians 6:7 we ought to walk worthy of His commandment and glory. In like manner should the deacons be blameless before the face of His righteousness, as being the servants of God and Christ, and not of men. They must not be slanderers, double-tongued, 1 Timothy 3:8 or lovers of money, but temperate in all things, compassionate, industrious, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who was the servant Matthew 20:28 of all. If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, we shall also reign together with Him,
2 Timothy 2:12 provided only we believe. In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since every lust wars against the spirit;
1 Peter 2:11 and neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God,
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming. Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ. The virgins also must walk in a blameless and pure conscience.
Polycarp letter to the Phillipians chapter 5
Irenaaeus said that Paul wrote the epistles.
Irenaeus
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.
Irenaeus against Herecies book 3.3
Irenaues uses Titus against having any interaction with Marcion
And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me?
I do know you, the first-born of Satan.
Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself.
Titus 3:10
Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3:4
Irenaeus of the school of John, through Polycarp attributes not only 1 Timothy but also Titus to Paul.
Jerome in the 4th Century stated that Tatian had stated in the 2nd Century that he accepted Titus as Pauline but not 1st or 2nd Timothy. While this may offer evidence against the 2 books of Timothy, if this is used then it must also be used to support the book of Titus as being Pauline.
Marcion rejected the 3 books…..while accepting the entire pauline corpos, which again means if you accept this as evidence against these 3 books (and Hebrews) then marcion must be evidence for the other 3 books of the corpus along with the 7 uncontested.
In reality, Marcion in particular, rejected the books of the Bible that did not align with his theorlogical beliefs. Marcion did not accept 3 of the 4 Gospels and only partially used Luke. He is not best evidence for what is or is not authentic.
3 Corinthians was rejected as not being authentic. Shows acceptence of letters attributed to Paul were considered Pauline. Also shows rejection of Pseudo works.
Jerome used 1st and 2nd Timothy along with Tirus and attributed them as the saying of Paul while also citing uncontested Pauline letters.
The apostle Paul learned the Law of Moses and the prophets at the feet of Gamaliel and was glad that he had done so, for armed with this spiritual armour, he was able to say boldly the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds;
armed with these we war casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and being in a readiness to revenge all disobedience.
2 Corinthians 10:4-6 He writes to Timothy who had been trained in the holy writings from a child exhorting him to study them diligently 2 Timothy 3:14-15 and not to neglect the gift which was given him with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 1 Timothy 4:14 To Titus he gives commandment that among a bishop’s other virtues (which he briefly describes) he should be careful to seek a knowledge of the scriptures: A bishop, he says, must hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Titus 1:9
Jerome Letter 53.3
1st Clement cites 1 Timothy 1:17 and Titus 3:
To our rulers and governors on the earth — to them You, Lord, gave the power of the kingdom by Your glorious and ineffable might, to the end that we may know the glory and honour given to them by You and be subject to them, in nought resisting Your will; to them, Lord, give health, peace, concord, stability, that they may exercise the authority given to them without offense. For You, O heavenly Lord and King eternal, givest to the sons of men glory and honour and power over the things that are on the earth; do Thou, Lord, direct their counsel according to that which is good and well-pleasing in Your sight, that, devoutly in peace and meekness exercising the power given them by You, they may find You propitious. O Thou, who only has power to do these things and more abundant good with us, we praise You through the High Priest and Guardian of our souls Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and majesty to You both now and from generation to generation and for evermore. Amen.
Clement of Rome first epistle to the Corinthians chapter 61
90-98AD
You mourned over the transgressions of your neighbours: their deficiencies you deemed your own. You never grudged any act of kindness, being ready to every good work.
Titus 3:1
Clement of Rome first epistle to the Corinthians chapter 2 90-98AD
How could Clement quote something that did not exist yet.
Mauritonain canon says that Paul wrote the pastoral epistles
Clement of Alexandria quotes 2 Timothy and attributes it to Paul
You, therefore, be strong,
says Paul, in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard of me among many witnesses, commit to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 2:1-2 And again: Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Clement of Alexandria Stromata book 1 chapter 1
He also calls it scripture
But he that speaks of himself, seeks his own glory.
Such are the Greeks, lovers of their own selves, and boasters.
2 Timothy 3:2 Scripture, when it speaks of these as wise, does not brand those who are really wise, but those who are wise in appearance.
Clement of Alexandria Stromata book 1 chapter 17
He also quotes 1 Timothy and says Paul said.
I charge you,
he says, writing to Timothy, before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that you observe these things, without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
1 Timothy 5:21
Clement of Alexandria Stromata book 1 chapter 1
And we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully. 1 Timothy 1:8 Desiring to be teachers of the law, they understand, says the apostle, neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 1 Timothy 1:7 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. 1 Timothy 1:5
Clement of Alexandria Stromata book 1 chapter 27
He also attributes Titus to Paul and scripture
For there are,
he says, many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers.
Titus 1:10
Clement of Alexandria Stromata book 1 chapter 8
Epimenides the Cretan, whom Paul knew as a Greek prophet, whom he mentions in the Epistle to Titus, where he speaks thus: One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. And this witness is true.
Titus 1:12-13
Clement of Alexandria Stromata book 1 chapter 14
Clement said that Heretics rejected the epistles to Timothy
As, then, philosophy has been brought into evil repute by pride and self-conceit, so also gnosis by false gnosis called by the same name; of which the apostle writing says, O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science (gnosis) falsely so called; which some professing, have erred concerning the faith.
1 Timothy 6:20-21
Convicted by this utterance, the heretics reject the Epistles to Timothy
Clement of Alexandria Stromata book 2 chapter 11
Tertullian refers to Marcian rejecting the 3 books attributed to Paul
To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to protect it against the falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder, however, when he received (into his Apostolicon) this letter which was written but to one man, that he rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which all treat of ecclesiastical discipline. His aim, was, I suppose, to carry out his interpolating process even to the number of (St. Paul’s) epistles. And now, reader, I beg you to remember that we have here adduced proofs out of the apostle, in support of the subjects which we previously had to handle, and that we have now brought to a close the topics which we deferred to this (portion of our) work. (This favour I request of you,) that you may not think that any repetition here has been superfluous, for we have only fulfilled our former engagement to you; nor look with suspicion on any postponement there, where we merely set forth the essential points (of the argument). If you carefully examine the entire work, you will acquit us of either having been redundant here, or diffident there, in your own honest judgment.
Tertullian against Marcian book 5 chapter 21
Tertulliand AND Irenaeus not even on the same continent arguing against Marcion.
The early church was very aware of forgories and errors and picked up on it quickly.
Jerome wrote a commentary on the psalms, someone on the other side of the sea was corrupting it not long after…Jerome wrote a whole treties against the person. This was defending his commentary not even the book of PSalms itself.
Jerome changed one word in his vulgate and an entire city revolted.
Paul was not combating the same type of Gnosticism that appeared in the 2nd Century, he was dealing with a very early form of it, not the same as what would later become true Gnosticism of the 2nd Century.
“Paul wrote letters to seven churches… First to the Corinthians, second to the Ephesians, then to the Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, and Romans. And though [he wrote letters] twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for correction, yet it is one Church that is spread abroad throughout the whole world.”….. “Besides these, Paul wrote one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love; yet these are held sacred in the esteem of the Church for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.”
Muratorian Canon (also known as the Muratorian Fragment dated late 2nd Century gives canon of the western church
In Latin but it is beleieved to be a translation from Greek.
Interestingly what we see in the document is the separation of the general letters of Paul and his persoanl letters that includes Philimon, an uncontested letter.
This could be why we see all these missing from certain evidences, they are lumped together.
We shouldnt be comparing the epistles to the general letters but rather to the personal letter of Philimon.
Notice that this tells us that these personal letters were written with love and affection. This of course would lend to different vocabulary.
What is also interesting is the document identifies 2 letters, that have been forged and attributed to Paul. We see clear evidence that non Pauline letters attributed to Paul were being rejected.
There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [6b] [and] another to the Alexandrians, [6c] [both] forged in Paul’s (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.
Muritorian fragment introducion
This states that CURRENT, there were these letters being attributed to Paul but not being accpeted.
Universally accepted and universally rejected.
The church wasnt just accepting any book that had been claimed to have been written by Paul.
It is beleieved that Origen stated Paul wrote 14 letters (he doesnt name them)
P46
P46 document also doesn’t contain Philemon, which is regarded as authentic by critical scholars. Second, the Chester Beatty Papyri may have excluded letters written to individuals (and only included letters written to churches). Mounce hypothesizes, “The absence of Philemon may suggest that the codex included only Paul’s public letters, omitting letters to individuals such as Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.” Finally, the copyist may have run out of space. Mounce and Guthrie both argue that that the copyist simply may have run out of room on the papyrus parchment. Indeed, the writing of P46 grows smaller and smaller toward the end of the manuscript.
The same goes for vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus does contain all 3 of the Pastoral epistles as does Codex Alexandrinus
P32 dates to around 200AD and contains a small portion of Titus.
Approx 850 words used in the epistles and a 1/3 not found in the other pauline books
Many of these words are more common to late 1st century early 2nd century
William Mounce word Biblical commentary Pastoral epistles
Over 90% of these words can be found in writings prior to AD 50
Xondervan illustrated Bible says not one single word would have been alein at that time and could not have been used by PAul. (even if they were more common later.
D.A.Carlson and Douglas Moo. An introduction to the New Testament
Arguments statistical are weak
The stats cannot themselves tell us why the differences exist. Different authors or different topics or different audiences.
Stephen Boyce did a study on the 3 books and Philimon and found they are 80% or more similar.
I have done a study on the language of Philimon and the accepted books of Paul.
https://www.followintruth.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=19887&action=edit
F.F.Bruce argued for Pauline authorship
Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
amanuenses (secretaries).
Donald Guthrie
New Testament Introduction
N.T Wright Paul: A Biography, The Climax of the Covenant
Ben Worthington III The Paul Quest, The Letters of Paul: Interpreting Biblical Texts Series
Luke Timothy Johnson The Writings of the New Testament
The letters were universally accepted as being Pauline, there are no different authors being asserted within different areas of the church.
When we say a consensus, what do we mean…do we mean conssus as is of today or the last 100 years or the last 1000 years or since the first century. While there is a majority of scholars today that hold to non Pauline authorship, and this is no means an overwhelming majority, the majority and it is an overwhelming majority of scholars throughout history and it has been the consensus that Paul wrote these letters.
Amenuensis …I wrote this with my own hand …
88% of the letter to Philemon can be reconstructed by using the words that are found in the Pastoral letters.
Comparing like for like we actually find that they are very close to one another in language used.
Only in Philemon and the pastorals does Paul call someone his son.
Philemon 1:10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
1 Timothy 1:2unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
2 Timothy 1:2 to Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
2 Timothy 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:4 to Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
It would seem then that Philemon should be added together with the other 3 Pastoral letters. If Philemon is accepted as being from Paul, if we compare the other 3 letters to Philemon rather than the general letters it is a much more honest comparrison.
Why do scholars accept Paul is the author of Romans?
Romans was one of the last books written by Paul.
Muritorian Fragment mentions Romans was written by Paul
Irenaeus identifies Paul as the writer of Romans
And again he says, in the Epistle to the Romans, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.”
Against Heresies book 5 chapter 5:2
And again to the Romans he says, “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies.”
Irenaeus against Heresies book 5 Chapter 7:1
And again he says, in the Epistle to the Romans, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.”(14) [Now by these words] he does not prohibit them from living their lives in the flesh, for he was himself in the flesh when he wrote to them; but he cuts away the lusts of the flesh, those which bring death upon a man. And for this reason he says in continuation, “But if ye through the Spirit do mortify the works of the flesh, ye shall live. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.”
Irenaeus against Heresies book 5 chapter 10:2
If, therefore, flesh and blood are the things which procure for us life, it has not been declared of flesh and blood, in the literal meaning (proprie) of the terms, that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God; but [these words apply] to those carnal deeds already mentioned, which, perverting man to sin, deprive him of life. And for this reason he says, in the Epistle to the Romans: “Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, to be under its control: neither yield ye your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves to God, as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Irenaeus against Heresies book 5 chapter 14::4
Tertullian cites Romans and attributes it to the apostle (Paul) who is the apostle in reference in book 5
But, behold, he bears testimony to the law, and excuses it on the ground of sin: What shall we say, therefore? Is the law sin? God forbid.
Romans 7:7 Fie on you, Marcion. God forbid!
(See how) the apostle recoils from all impeachment of the law. I, however, have no acquaintance with sin except through the law. But how high an encomium of the law (do we obtain) from this fact, that by it there comes to light the latent presence of sin! It was not the law, therefore, which led me astray, but sin, taking occasion by the commandment.
Romans 7:8 Why then do you, (O Marcion,) impute to the God of the law what His apostle dares not impute even to the law itself? Nay, he adds a climax: The law is holy, and its commandment just and good.
Romans 7:13 Now if he thus reverences the Creator’s law, I am at a loss to know how he can destroy the Creator Himself. Who can draw a distinction, and say that there are two gods, one just and the other good, when He ought to be believed to be both one and the other, whose commandment is both just and good?
Then, again, when affirming the law to be spiritual
Romans 7:14 he thereby implies that it is prophetic, and that it is figurative. Now from even this circumstance I am bound to conclude that Christ was predicted by the law but figuratively, so that indeed He could not be recognised by all the Jews.
Tertullian against Marcion book 5 chapter 13
It certainly disturbs some that for some reason the letter to the Romans is placed first, when reason reveals it not written first. For this is shown by him to have written travelling to Jerusalem, when he was exhorting the Corinthians and others before now by letters, as they collected the ministry which was carried with him. For which reason some want all the epistles to be understood arranged thus: that the first is set down which was sent later, (and) that through each letter by steps he came to the more perfect. For the majority of the Romans were so ignorant, that they did not understand themselves to be saved by the grace of God and not by their merits, and on account of this duo, the people struggled among themselves. Therefore, he asserted them to need to be strengthened, recalling the former vices of the gentiles
Jerome Preface to the Pauline letters
Eusebius attributes the book of Romans to Paul
The didache quotes Romans 12:9
Ignatius to the smyrnians quotes romans 1:3
Polycarp epistle to the Philippians quotes romans a number of times
romans 14:12 , Romans 12:10, Romans 2:24
Origen wrote an entire commentary on the book of Romans.
Written by an amenunses.
Paul knew that there were letters being sent that were not coming from him and told them not to worry
2 Thessalonians 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2 thessalonians 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.
So Paul in his own writing would write his own salutation..even when using a scribe. This would identify his own letter from those that would try to send one in his name.
Colossians 4:18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.
1 Corinthians 16:21 The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.
Paul probably wrote more letters in his earlier days.
Galatians was written with his own hand
Galatians 6:11 Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.
The same type of evidence for Romans is apparent for the disputed letters.
- If you liked this study please subscribe hereYou can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here Join our Patreon membership here or you can buy me a coffee through paypal
0 Comments