Truth in Mikra

Where all of Pauls letters authentic?

—

by

The Hoosac historian
in

This is a major debate these days but is not new because the authorship of letters like 2nd Thessalonians and Hebrew were questioned by the early church actually.Turtullian who live in the 3rd century CE questioned the authorship of some of the letters of Paul,so this debate is not anything new.

So who was the Apostle Paul? He was born by the Hebrew name Shaul(romanized sometimes as Saul) which in Hebrew means “to ask” Shaul a common Benjaminite name for Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin.Shaul was born about 5 CE in Tarsus then part of Grecian Rome but now modern day Turkey.By Pauls testamony he was a Parushim(a Pharasee) which meant pious or separated ones and he said he zealously persecuted the early Christian church.Paul died on Rome,Italy in the mid 60’s first century CE and although the Bible itself is silent on the issue ,the tradition is that Paul was beheaded.

As to the name change it is often believed that it was because Saul sounds like Paul,if that was true it would make sense.We know Saul in his life was known as Shaul not Saul and that Paul is a purely English name and that in Pauls life he went by the Greek name “Paulos” which meant small in Greek.This may have been chosen because he may have been disabled or was small in stature.

What are the authentic letters not in dispute by anyone?

Seven letters (with consensus dates)[6] considered genuine by most scholars:

As far as the dating I can’t add very much ,there are varying ideas on the dating but that is as accurate as you are going to get.So what letters are disputed?

Somewhat doubted

Very doubted

And Hebrews is the most doubted.

Why are some of the letters doubted then, and I am not going to analyze all the doubted letters because I do not know Greek.The main reasons why people doubt some of the letters were not written by Paul is change in writing style and I would agree that this is true but this does not that mean that Paul did not write them.Another reason is theological ,for instance 2 Thessalonians is not as end times oriented as 1 Thessalonians for example.This quote is from directionjournal.org

2 Thessalonians

Consider the disputed 2 Thessalonians. Scholars point out that whereas 1 Thessalonians stresses the immanence of Jesus’s return, 2 Thessalonians brings an emphasis on events that must transpire before the parousia or coming of Messiah Jesus to establish God’s victory everywhere (compare 1 Thess 4:13–18 and 2 Thess 2:1–12).

What I would say here is that just because the two letters addess different issues does not prove different authorship.Dubliners and Ulysses by James Joyce deal with different issues but does that mean that one is pseudepigraphical?And 2 Thessalonians adds more about what will happen before Jesus’s return,ok so what ?I don’t see a case here for pseudepigraphia.These are typical arguments for pseudepigraphia and here is more from the previous website on Collossians

Colossians

Likewise, scholars doubt that Colossians is an authentic letter of Paul because its vocabulary, poetic style, and eschatology are distinct from what we find in the undisputed letters. Again, these inconsistencies need not disqualify Paul as its author.

We will talk about theological differences in a bit but what about the changes in writing style?The answer is given by Paul himself in “Romans 16.22”


22 I, Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord.

Here it is said that a scribe wrote for Paul and likely all 14 letters were written by by scribes but why?Here is Acts 26.14 Tree of Life version but the NIV is the same.

14 When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against goads!’

And also Acts 21 and 22 Paul speaks to the crowd in Aramaic and so it is clear Aramaic was Paul’s first language not Greek.I think for sure it’s most likely that Paul knew some basic Greek and could mingle it on the Street but Aramaic was where he was the most profound.So Paul wanting his Holy Spirit inspired letters to have the best Grammar he employed scribes.So my theory is this(this is my speculation ok) Tertius wrote the seven non disputed letters and other scribes worked on the other 6 at least.We will deal with Hebrews the most disputed of the 14 letters last.

So what about the theological aspects?

One factor to also consider in the case of the shorter letters like Titus or Timothy is that they may have been intended for a small audience and this is important to recognize as well.Here is a quote from Bart Ehrman from ehrmanblog.org

“But contrast this statement with what Ephesians says: “Even when we were dead through our trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ…and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places” (2:5-6). Here believers have experienced a spiritual resurrection and are enjoying a heavenly existence in the here and now.  This is precisely the view that Paul argued against in his letters to the Corinthians!”

He is talking about 1 Cor. 15.12 on the resurrection of the dead.

Professor Ehrman misses the mark here in a big way.Ephesians is talking about the great peace and joy in the heart that Jesus’s believers experience in life and the next life.Corinthians 15 is talking of the time of physical resurrection of the dead,two totally different contexts.I don’t find this theological argument compelling for Ephesians not being authentic in Aramaic by Paul then put into Greek by a scribe.

So what about the controversial Hebrews and why is it the most doubted?

For one unlike the other letters it is anonymous and has no formal author and even the early Catholic church questioned it’s authenticity.Here is a link to a full article on Hebrews.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/who-wrote-hebrews

Could This Be Paul?

Unlike Paul’s epistles — and all other New Testament letters, except the epistles of John — Hebrews does not begin with the name of its author. Nor does it in any place divulge his name, or give any telltale clues as to his identity. The closest information we have is the mention of Timothy, as an associate, at the close: “Our brother Timothy has been released” (Hebrews 13:23). Assuming this to be the Timothy we know from Acts 16–20 and the epistles of Paul (and especially the two letters addressed to him), the author of Hebrews seems to be from the Pauline circle. So the question has long been, Might it be Paul himself?

And from the same article here is a dissenting view.

Not Paul

Even though the author of Hebrews does not leave us his name, he does refer to himself in a revealing statement at the beginning of chapter 2 — and in doing so he speaks in a way that we can acknowledge, on good authority, that the apostle Paul emphatically would not speak.

Again this can be explained through a scribal change,someone else putting Pauls words a bit differently.To be honest I re-read Heb 2.3 and was not moved to feel it was not Paul but that is my untrained opinion and I also do not read Greek.I would also like to point out that even if Hebrews is non Pauline that does not diminish it’s inspired and spiritual profoundity,the power of Hebrews is clearly the Holy Spirit speaking.

Thank you and God Bless and put any questions in the comments.

Comments

Leave a comment