| Authorship Of The Pauline Epistles |
Website Links For Authorship |
Information AboutAuthorship Of The Pauline Epistles |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT AUTHORSHIP OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES | |
| biblical criticism | |
| new testament | |
|
The Pauline Epistles are the fourteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to Paul Of Tarsus , thirteen of which are explicitly ascribed to Paul, and one, Hebrews , is anonymous.Though Hebrews was almost certainly not written by Paul, it has been a part of the Pauline corpus "from the beginning of extant MS production" (Wallace, Daniel B. "Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, and Outline." http://web.archive.org/web/20031011120719/http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/hebotl.htm). Except for Hebrews, the Pauline authorship of these letters was not academically questioned until the nineteenth century. Seven letters are generally classified as “undisputed”, expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul's name do not currently enjoy the same academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The first three, called the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles," have no consensus on whether or not they are authentic letters of Paul. The latter three, the "Pastoral Epistles", are more disputed; contemporary scholarly opinion widely regards them as and 3 Corinthians . See Gutherie p607-8. Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and contemporary scholars reject Pauline authorship.Ehrman 2004:411 CRITERIA USED BY SCHOLARS Scholars use a number of methods of Historiography and Higher Criticism to determine whether a text is properly attributed to its author. The primary methods used for Paul's letters are the following: Internal Evidence: The first method can include personal testimony in the letter, claims of authorship, biographical details, and so forth. This evidence is important in spite of its problems. For example, the Epistle to the Hebrews is anonymous, which caused debate for Pauline authorship as early as the writings of Origen in the third century. External Evidence: External evidence is testimony to the authorship of a text within antiquity, statements made by those who had access to reliable sources now gone. External evidence includes ancient authors quoting Paul, naming Paul's works, or expressing ideas and phrases common to Paul. Use or mention by another implies the quoted precedes its being quoted. It helps to date when Pauline authorship was accepted. An earlier date can lend credibility to genuine Pauline authorship. For example, the ''Second Epistle to the Thessalonians'' is named by Irenaeus in the mid second century. It's improbable the text was made after this date. The text seems to have been known to Justin Martyr and Ignatius in the very early second century when people who knew Paul in person could have been alive. The lack of witness by ancient sources suggests a later date, an and Papyrus 46 , are damaged. It is thus hard to know what texts were on the first list. Historical setting: An independently-written narrative of Paul's life and ministry, found in the Acts Of The Apostles , is used to determine the date, and possible authorship, of Pauline letters by locating their origin within the context of his life. For example, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner in his Epistle To Philemon 1:7; J. A. T. Robinson argued that this captivity was Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea,Robinson p61. W. M. Ramsay identified this as Paul’s captivity in Rome, Ramsay p357. while others have placed the captivity in Ephesus. One difficulty with this position is the limited data available on Paul's historical setting, and this is especially true with the conclusion of the narrative of Acts prior to Paul's death. Language and style: Vocabulary, sentence structure, employment of idioms and common phrases, etc. are analyzed for consistency with the author’s other known works. A similar style implies common authorship, whilst a radically divergent vocabulary implies different authors. For example, E. J. Goodspeed argued that the vocabulary of the Epistle To The Ephesians showed a literary relationship with the ''First Epistle of Clement'', written around the end of the first century.Goodspeed p. vii. Similarly, E. Percy argued that the speech and style of Colossians more strongly resembled Pauline authorship than not.E. Percy ''Die Probleme der Kolosser und Epheserbriefe'' (1964) p66. Of course, style and language can vary for reasons other than differing authorship, such as the subject of the letter, the recipient, the circumstances of the times, or simply maturation on the part of the author. Contents and theology: Similar to language and style, doctrinal consistency and development are analyzed relative to the author's other known works. A theological matter like the ''eschaton'' or the Mosaic Law could be repeated in the works in question. A consistent Point Of View implies a common author. Contradictory or unrelated teachings imply multiple authors. For example, W. Michaelis saw the Christological likeness between the Pastoral Epistles and some of Paul's undisputed works, and argued in favor of Pauline authorship.W. Michaelis ''Pastoralbriefe und Gefangenschaftsbriefe'' (1930) pp99-100. A problem with this method is analyzing the coherence of a body of diverse and developing teachings. This is seen in the disagreement between scholars. For example, with the same epistles mentioned above, B. S. Easton argued their theological notions disagreed with other Pauline works, and rejected Pauline authorship. B.S. Easton, ''The Pastoral Empstles'' (1948) p25. G. Lohfink argued the theology of the Pastoral epistles agreed with Paul's, but took this as proof someone wishing to enjoy the authority of an apostle copied the famous church leader.G. Lonhfink, Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption der Pastoralbrief, in ''Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spatschriften'' ed. K. Kertelge, (1981) pp70-121. THE UNDISPUTED EPISTLES The name "undisputed" epistles represents the general scholarly consensus asserting that Paul authored each letter. However, even the most undisputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics.for example, F. R. McGuire , even though otherwise critical scholars like A. Q. Morton saw this text as the benchmark for refuting Pauline authorship of most other epistles; see A. Q. Morton and J. McLeman , ''Paul, the man and the Myth'' (1966). Moreover, the unity of the letters is sometimes questioned. 1 and 2 Corinthians have garnered particular suspicion, with some scholars, among them Edgar Goodspeed and Norman Perrin , supposing one or both texts as we have them today are actually amalgamations of multiple individual letters. There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations, among them Romans 1:18-2:29, 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 and Galatians 1:13-2:14. However, such textual corruption is difficult to detect and even more so to verify, leaving little agreement as to the extent of the epistles' integrity. These letters are quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and are included in every ancient canon, including that of Marcion . There is no record of scholarly doubt concerning authorship until the nineteenth century when, around 1840, German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur accepted only four of the letters bearing Paul's name were genuine, which he called the ''Hauptebriefe'' (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians). Hilgenfeld (1875) and H. J. Holtzmann (1885) instead accepted the seven letters listed above, adding Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians; few scholars have argued against this minimal list. The epistles all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary and style; they exhibit a uniformity of doctrine concerning the Mosaic Law , Jesus, faith, &c. All of these letters easily fit into the chronology of Paul's journeys depicted in Acts Of The Apostles . COLOSSIANS Though Colossians is witnessed by the same historical sources as the undisputed texts, Pauline authorship of Colossians has found some critics. It was originally doubted by F. C. Baur, though others working from his general thesis, such as H. J. Holtzmann, argued that an original brief Pauline text experienced many interpolations by a later editor.see F. F. Bruce, ''Colossians'' p172; also, Holtzman, ''Kritik der Epheser u. Kolosserbriefe'' (1872); some have attempted to locate the origin of doubt with T. Mayerhoff as early as 1838 in his work ''Der Brief an die Kolosser''. The basis for this early objection was that the letter aimed at refuting Gnosticism, a heresy not serious until the early second century. This thesis subsequently declined, especially following the analysis of Gnosticism by R. Wilson,R. McL. Wilson, ''Gnosis and the New Testament'' (1958) p175. where he contended that the supposed parallels were unsupported. Another argument centres on differences in style and vocabulary. W. Bujard attempted to show significant stylistic differences between Colossians and Paul's other works, such as unusual genitive constructions (1:27, 2:11, 2:19, 3:24).W. Bujard, ''Stilanalytische Unterschungen zum Kolosserfrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen'' (1973) see the commentary in Guthrie p574-5 Others have analyzed the style and reached opposite conclusions, pointing to common Pauline idiom and phrase such as ''en christo'' and ''en kurio''. The extensiveness of the theological development in the epistle compared to other epistles has led to scepticism concerning Pauline authorship. H. Conzelmann made such an argument, pointing to differing theological concepts of "hope".H. Conzelmann, ''An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament'' (1969) p314. Others accepting this analysis have asserted that the text is merely a late text of Paul, though the thesis has hardly found wide scholarly concurrence.see, for example, G. Cannon ''The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians'' (1983) pp196-203. It has been observed that Paul's criticism of strict adherence to "the law" is typical of the genuine Pauline letters. The situation of the letter also supports the idea of Paul as author, matching the personal friendships expressed in the Epistle To Philemon , making many greetings relating to personal acquaintances. The connection with Philemon, an undisputed letter, is significant. A certain Archippus is referred to in both (Philemon 2, Colossians 4:17), and the greetings of both letters bear similar names (Philemon 23-24, Colossians 4:10-14). EPHESIANS The author of the epistle claims to be Paul in the opening address, itself identical to those of Second Corinthians and Colossians. There were few doubts in the early church that authoritatively quoted from it, and examples include Tertullian ,Tertullian, ''Against Marcion'' 5.22.17 Clement Of Alexandria ,Clement of Alexandria, ''Stromata'' 4.65 and Irenaeus ,Irenaeus, '' Adversus Haereses '' 5.2.3 among others. The letter also appears in the Marcion canon (140) and the Muratorian fragment (180). The authenticity of this letter was first disputed by the Dutch Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus , and in more recent times has drawn detailed criticism. The letter is made up of 50 sentences, 9 over 50 words. The closest, Romans, has 3 out of 581 sentences of such length. E. J. Goodspeed,Goodspeed p. vi and C. L. MittonMitton, ''The Epistle to the Ephesians'' (1951) p. ii argued the style was unlike Paul's other works. Many words in the letter are not in the "undisputed" epistles. A. van Roon argued the style is consistent with Paul, and thought the entire linguistic analysis dubious.Roon, ''The Authenticity of Ephesians'' (1974) p. 215 In antiquity, the Greek Church Fathers , many of whom noticed the divergent Greek style of Hebrews, made no such comments about Ephesians. Theologically, the word '' Ecclesia '' (church) is used to refer to the universal church rather than, as Paul typically employs it, to the local churches that he had founded. Also, the Eschatological tone is more subdued than in other letters: the expectation of Christ’s imminent return is unmentioned, while future generations are, as is a concern for social order. W. G. Kummel argued that the theology is beyond Paul.P. Feine and J. Kummel, ''Einleitung in das Neue Testament'' (English translation Kummel) p. 360 Such an analysis, however, must account for the possibility of doctrinal development. There is a close literary relationship between the Colossians and Ephesians. Over forty passages in Ephesians are expansions or variations of passages in Colossians. E. F. Scott argued that Paul used one letter as a model for the other,Scott, ''The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians'' (1930) p121 whereas others have considered Ephesians to be derivative of Colossians, edited and reworked by another.e.g. Mitton, ''The Epistle to the Ephesians'' (1951) p. 245-255 Donald Guthrie summarized the implications of this: "Advocates of non-Pauline authorship find it difficult to conceive that one mind could have produced two works possessing so remarkable a degree of similarity in theme and phraseology and yet differing in so many other respects, whereas advocates of Pauline authorship are equally emphatic that two minds could not have produced two such works with so much subtle interdependence blended with independence."Guthrie p511 Paul founded and built up the church in Ephesus; however, this letter does not appear to contain the usual specific greetings, seen in Paul's other letters, addressed to people he remembers. There is some evidence that the Letter to the Ephesians might have been sent to several different churches. Some of the oldest manuscripts of this letter are not addressed to "God's holy people who are at Ephesus," but merely to "God's holy people." Marcion, around 180 , quoted from this letter and attributed the quote to Paul's "Letter to the Laodiceans." In the 17th century, James Ussher suggested that this might have been a "circular letter" that Paul sent to several churches, including Ephesus and Laodicea. This would explain why Paul's usual personal greetings are absent: these could not be included in a letter sent to several different churches. SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS The epistle was included in the Marcion canon and the Muratorian fragment; it was mentioned by name by Irenaeus, and quoted by Ignatius, Justin, and Polycarp.Guthrie p593 In recent times, criticism of Pauline authorship was raised by H. J. Holtzmann and G. Hollmann (see above). Much of the dispute concerns the linguistic similarity between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians . For example, 1 Thess 2:9 is almost identical to 2 Thess 3:8. This has been explained in the following ways: Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians soon after writing 1 Thessalonians or with the aid of a copy of 1 Thessalonians, or Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians himself but a later writer imitated him, or the linguistic similarities are seen as subtle enough to make imitation an unnecessary hypothesis. Udo Schnelle argued that 2 Thessalonians was significantly different in style from the "undisputed" epistles, characterizing it as whole and narrow, rather than as a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Moreover, Alfred Loisy argued that it reflected knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which, according to certain synoptic theories, had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Bart D. Ehrman viewed the insistence of genuineness within the letter and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start as ploys commonly used by forgers. However G. Milligan observed that a church which possessed an authentic letter of Paul would be unlikely to accept a fake addressed to them.G. Milligan, ''Saint Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians'' (1908) vi, ix, p448. The Eschatology of each letter to the Thessalonians, it is argued,for example, see C. Masson, ''Les Epitres aux Thessaloniciens'' (1957) pp. 10-11 is considerably different. Norman Perrin claimed that, in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God the Father as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus. From this hypothesis he contrasted 2 Thessalonians 3:5 and 1 Thessalonians 3:13, and contended that the letter was written after Paul's death. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES The First Epistle To Timothy , the Second Epistle To Timothy , and the Epistle To Titus are often referred to as the '' Pastoral Epistles '', and, after HebrewsHebrews, though internally anonymous, has long been ascribed to Paul, and many early manuscripts include his name in the titles., are the most disputed of all the epistles attributed to Paul. Despite this, these epistles were accepted as genuine by many, perhaps most of the ante-Nicene Church FathersA few Fathers do not mention these epistles by name, instead quoting passages found in these letters (without making it clear that they are quoting anything at all), and there is no evidence in the surviving writings of Ignatius and Justin Martyr that proves their familiarity with these texts.1. Some scholars have argued that the letters were certainly accepted as Pauline by the time of Irenaeus (''c.'' 115)see Bernard xv; James p5-24. They were also included in the (''c.'' 140) excluded all three, along with Hebrews, from his otherwise complete Pauline corpus, and it is impossible to determine whether or not he knew of them. D. Guthrie, for instance, argues that the epistles' theology would have been cause to reject the letters since it was incompatible with certain passages, such as 1 Tim 1:8 and 1 Tim 6:20, while Ehrman suggests that second-century proto-orthodox Christians had motivation to forge the Pastorals to combat the Gnostic use of other Pauline epistlesEhrman 2003:240. Even the ancient writer Tertullian (''c.'' 220), in ''Adv. Marc.'' V.21, expresses confusion why these epistles had not been included Marcion's canon. Beginning in the early 19th century, many German biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul. The vocabulary and phraseology used in the Pastorals is often at variance with that of the other epistles. Over 1/3 of the vocabulary is not used anywhere else in the Pauline epistles, and over 1/5 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament, while 2/3 of the non-Pauline vocabulary are used by second century Christian writers.Perrin 1974:264-5 For this reason, and because of a claimed precedence of 1 Clement , some scholars have associated these works with later 2nd century Christian writings.Harrison p177, Streeter p153 The precedence of 1 Clement was challenged by R. Falconer,Falconer p5 while L. T. Johnson challenged the linguistic analysis as based on the arbitrary grouping of the three epistles together: he argued that this obscures the alleged similarities between 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, between Titus and the other travel letters, and between 2 Timothy and Philippians. , Lightfoot and other scholars have suggested hypothetical scenarios that would have these epistles written near the end of Paul's life without contradicting biographical information in the other epistles or Acts. Scholars arguing for the authenticity of the pastorals posit a "second career" of Paul to explain the occasion for the visits mentioned in these letters, though contemporary scholars generally consider the "second career" of Paul to be a creation of later Christian communities.Brown 1997:675 Other reasons for a second century date have been argued. The Pastoral Epistles lay out church organisation concerning the character and requirements for bishops, elders, deacons, and widows. Some scholars have claimed that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime.Ehrman 2004:391 In terms of theology, some scholars claim that the Pastorals reflect more the characteristics of 2nd century ( and Gnosticism , which were seen as not significant in the first century;See Easton p1-2 however, recent scholarship into first century Gnosticism has suggested an earlier dominance of Gnostic views.Guthrie p617-8 HEBREWS The Epistle To The Hebrews is the most commonly-rejected of all seven disputed epistles of the traditional Pauline corpus. Unlike its thirteen peers, it is internally anonymous, though early manuscripts do mention his name in their title headings. Moreover, scholars, such as Robert Granthttp://religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1234 Robert M. Grant, ''A Historical Introduction To The New Testament'' and Harold Attridgehttp://earlychristianwritings.com/hebrews.html Peter Kirby, EarlyChristianWritings.com, have noted the many obvious differences in language and style between Hebrews and the Pauline correspondence known to be authentic. Church Fathers, including ante-Nicene writers such as Tertullian , noted the different manner in which the theology and doctrine of the epistle appear.''De Pudicitia'', XX This variance led many to name other candidates for authorship, such as the fellow traveller of Paul called Barnabas (favoured by Tertullian), a follower of John The Baptist called Apollos (favoured by Martin Luther and several modern scholars), as well as less likely candidates such as Silas . Origen (''c.'' 240), as quoted by Eusebius (''c.'' 330) had this to say on the matter: "That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us twofold , some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts."Eusebius, Church History 6.25.11-14 In general, the evidence against Pauline authorship is too solid for scholarly dispute. Donald Guthrie, in his ''New Testament Introduction'' (1976), commented that "most modern writers find more difficulty in imagining how this Epistle was ever attributed to Paul than in disposing of the theory"http://www.experiencegrace.com/Authorship_of_Hebrews.html Jeffrey S. Bowman, "The Authorship of the Book of Hebrews". Harold Attridge tells us that "it is certainly not a work of the apostle"http://earlychristianwritings.com/hebrews.html Peter Kirby, EarlyChristianWritings.com; Daniel Wallace simply states, "the arguments against Pauline authorship, however, are conclusive"http://web.archive.org/web/20000830073548/http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/hebotl.htm Daniel Wallace, "Hebrews: Introduction, Argument and Outline". As a result, few supporters of Pauline authorship remain. As Richard Heard notes, in his ''Introduction To The New Testament'', "modern critics have confirmed that the epistle cannot be attributed to Paul and have for the most part agreed with Origen’s judgement, ‘But as to who wrote the epistle, God knows the truth’"http://religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=531&C=563 Richard Heard, ''Introduction To The New Testament''. HISTORY OF THE PAULINE CANON There are no preserved lists of a Christian canon from the first century and early second century. Small portions of , James , 2 Peter , and 2 and 3 John ." The two earliest extant lists of canons containing Paul's letters are from the late second century. One of them does not contain all of the Pauline letters. Some early canons are:
SEE ALSO
NOTES REFERENCES EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|