The Pauline epistles are those books in the New Testament that are traditionally attributed to Paul of Tarsus. The authorship of the Pauline epistles is a subject of much debate.

The New Testament contains thirteen letters explicitly ascribed to Paul and one anonymous letter, Hebrews, traditionally attributed to Paul. Nearly every modern scholar agrees that Paul was the author of seven letters, often referred to as the "undisputed epistles" (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). Six additional letters bearing Paul's name have traditionally been accepted as Paul's work but are disputed mainly by many scholars today (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus). Conservative Christians maintain that all the disputed epistles were written by Paul and offer a number of arguments in defense of the traditional authorship given to Paul. The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (which does not bear Paul's name) had been disputed in the early centuries of the church, and very few modern scholars (even conservatives) believe Paul to be its author.

Criteria used by scholars

Scholars use a number of methods of historiography and textual criticism to determine whether a Biblical book -- or any ancient document -- is genuine. The primary methods used for Paul's letters are the following:

Language and style: the vocabulary, sentence structure, etc. For example, Ephesians uses extremely long complex sentences, unlike many other letters of Paul.

Contents and theology: What does the writer believe about the Law? (abolished in Ephesians, but not in Romans). What is the main emphasis? (faith, in Romans & Galatians; proper behavior (works) in the Pastorals). Who was Jesus? Is Jesus returning soon? (1 Thess seems to say yes; 2 Thess seems to say no.) Are the leaders of the church important? (Galatians seems to disparage church leaders; 1 Timothy teaches that bishops and deacons are important.)

Historical setting: An independently-written narrative of Paul's life and ministry is found in the Acts of the Apostles. Do the Pauline letters fit in with that chronology? Galatians, Romans, the Corinthian letters, the Thessalonian letters fit reasonably well in the framework of Acts. On the other hand, Titus and 2 Timothy mention visits to Crete and Nicopolis, plus an extra visit to Ephesus; these journeys are not mentioned in Acts.

However, scholars often disagree about how to weigh these criteria in a specific instance. For example, suppose two letters use similar vocabulary. Does that mean they were both written by Paul? Or could it be they were both written by the same non-Paul writer?

These criteria are subject to several criticisms. It is possible that Paul did not dictate his letters literally, but just gave a loose outline to his scribe -- in that case, a different scribe's writing would sound different, but by ancient standards Paul would still be considered the author because the ideas were his. It is possible that Paul went on an additional journey after the end of Acts, and the Pastoral letters refer to events during that journey. And it is possible that a really good forger could have imitated Paul's style perfectly, or that Paul's own style could have changed as he got older. It is possible his own views could have changed, so even if two letters disagree with each other they could both be by Paul. Based on these arguments, some critical scholars, such as Luke Timothy Johnson, agree with Baur's methods and yet still believe that Paul wrote all 13 letters bearing his name. Noted liberal theologian John A.T. Robinson also argued that Paul was the author of all the letters.

The undisputed epistles

Almost every scholar, ancient and modern, conservative and liberal, attributes the following epistles to Paul:

Around 1840, German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur concluded that only four of the letters bearing Paul's name were genuine, which he called the Hauptebriefe (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians). His successors Hilgenfeld (1875) and Holtzmann (1885) refined his methods, and concluded that the seven letters listed here were genuine, adding Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians.

These seven letters all share common themes, and a common emphasis, and common verbiage. Paul's teaching about the Jewish Law, about Jesus, about faith, and about other subjects in these letters is quite similar.

All of these letters easily fit into the chronology of Paul's journeys depicted in Acts of the Apostles. Specifically, 1 Thessalonians was probably written in Corinth around the year 51, during Paul's second missionary journey. Philippians and 1 Corinthians were written during Paul's long stay in Ephesus during his third journey, from 54 to 57. Assuming Galatians is addressed to the Christians in North Galatia, it was written during this stay as well, but if it is addressed to the South Galatians it could have been written earlier. 2 Corinthians is written when Paul and Timothy arrived in Macedonia in 57, and then Romans was written in the winter of 57/58 in Achaia. Philippians and Philemon could have been written during any of Paul's imprisonments. Traditionally the Roman imprisonment was assumed, but recent scholars have suggested that Paul could have been briefly imprisoned during his time in Ephesus.

Although Philemon has connections to Colossians, even those scholars who believe Colossians to be inauthentic accept that Philemon was written by Paul, because a forger would have had no motive to create this short, personal note with little theological import.

Colossians

Some scholars consider that Colossians was not written by Paul. One group of arguments against Paul's authorship relate

Other arguments rely on the polemical content of the letter, certain concepts, and false-teacher arguments, not expressed by other Christian writers until the end of the first century, making an appearance in Colossians.

The extensiveness of the development of the theology in the epistle compared to that of other epistles has led many scholars to the opinion that if it is genuine, then it must be very late. However, due to the apparent consideration of the letter as genuine by the author of the Ephesians, then those scholars who claim that if Colossians is forged, it is very early.

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. Those who contest Paul's authorship claim that such parallels are merely due to a careful forger, deliberately introducing unnecessary additional greetings for the purpose of making the text appear more genuine. Scholars who advocate Paul's authorship point out that since Philemon was a personal letter, it is unlikely that it was as widely copied as Paul's more famous letters. So if a forger wanted Colossians to sound like Paul, argue supporters, why not include personal names from his more famous letters instead of names from a minor letter?

Ephesians

Traditional arguments for Pauline Authorship

It seems that there are few doubts in the early church that Paul was the author of the letter to the Ephesians. Early church fathers with authority use quotations from this letter in their writings. Examples can be seen in the writing of Tertullian (Against Marcion 5.22.17) , Clement of Alexandria ( Str 4.65) and St Irenaeus (Her 5.2.3). It is unlikely that such figures in the early church would have quoted the letter without believing that it carried the weight of Pauline authorship.

Recent arguments against Pauline Authorship

The authenticity of this letter was first disputed by the Dutch Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus. More modern scholars point to a different author. Their arguments can be summarised into four main areas:

• Considerably different style and vocabulary of the letter when compared to undisputed Pauline writing. What is outstanding is the length of the sentences. There are 50 sentences in the letter, 9 of which contain more than 50 words. The closest comparison scholars can make is the letter to the Romans which consists of 3 sentences of comparable length amongst a total number of 581. Coupled with this stylistic anomaly scholars can also find 116 words that do not appear in what is accepted to be authentic Pauline writing.
• The theological viewpoint presented in the letter is markedly different to the other letters. The word ecclesia (church) is used for the first time to refer to the universal church rather than the local churches that Paul had founded. More significantly, the eschatology in the letter is very different to what scholars can normally see in Paul. The absence of the expectation of Christ’s imminent return, the mention of future generations, and the concern for social order seem contrary to Paul's belief stated in Romans and Corinthians that the end is very close.
• The image of Paul in the letter is very strong; he is presented as being the prisoner for Christ, an exclusive use of the definitive article which seems to place Paul above any other persecuted Christian. Also there is, unusually for Paul, no mention of any other disciples or helpers, which appears to clash with the self-understanding of Paul that he is a co-founder of the Christian Tradition with the other apostles. This clash is more pronounced if the disputed status of Paul as an apostle and his own acute awareness of his role in the early persecution of the Church as Saul are taken into consideration. This exclusive portrayal of Pauline authority seems to belong much more to the vision of someone wishing to promote him after his death.
• Strong evidence of the reliance on the authentic Pauline Epistle to the Colossians seems to indicate that this is a letter written after his death, intending to restate and develop some of his theology. Over forty passages in Ephesians are expansions or variations of passages in Colossians. It is for this reason that some scholars consider Ephesians to be an edited and reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is the result of Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of dispute.
• Scholars know that Paul spent years in Ephesus building up the church there. But this letter does not appear to contain any of the usual friendly greetings seen in Paul's other letters, where he greets to people he remembers in this church.

Modern rebuttals to arguments against authenticity

Standard academic rebuttals to the arguments above include the following:

• If the Greek of Ephesians is so un-Pauline, why did none of the Greek Church Fathers notice this fact? Several of them noticed that the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not sound like Paul.

• The question of whether Paul expected Jesus' imminent return is widely debated. And even if Paul did expect this when writing his early letters, that does not rule out the possibility that he had adopted a longer-range view by the time he wrote his later letters.

• 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, Irish prelate and scholar James Ussher (1581-1656) 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.

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians

Compared word-for-word, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians have some very similar wording. For example, 1 Thess 2:9 is almost identical to 2 Thess 3:8. This has been explained in three different ways by scholars:

• Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians so soon after writing 1 Thessalonians that the same phrases were on his mind.
• Paul had a copy of 1 Thessalonians nearby when writing 2 Thessalonians, and deliberately repeated some of the same phrases.
• Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians himself, and a later writer wrote 2 Thessalonians in deliberate imitation of Paul's style.

Scholars who find the first two options unlikely generally support the third theory.

Udo Schnelle has shown that 2 Thessalonians is significantly different in style from the undisputed epistles, being whole and narrow rather than a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Neither does 2 Thessalonians have significant open or deep questions, unlike much of the remainder of Paul's writing. Moreover, Alfred Loisy has argued that it seems to reflect knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Bart D. Ehrman has noted that the insistence of genuineness within the letter, and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start, are ploys commonly used in forged documents.

Another issue often raised is that of context; for example, Norman Perrin claims that in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God (the Father) as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus (a focus on Jesus did not become popular until the end of the first century); since 2 Thessalonians states may the Lord direct your hearts to .. the steadfastness of Christ (3:5) in contrast to 1 Thessalonians' may establish your hearts unblamable .. before God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus.. (3:13), this supposedly implies it was written sometime after Paul's death.

The main theological difference between the two epistles, according to these scholars, is that in 1 Thessalonians, the day of Christ is nigh, whereas the main body of 2 Thessalonians seems entirely dedicated to showing that it is not, and in fact many things must happen first. They think the reason for the writing of 2 Thessalonians was due to there not having been a second coming before Paul died, and that 2 Thessalonians has no other purpose. Others suggest that perhaps Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, and then later wrote 2 Thessalonians to correct misinterpretations of his earlier letter. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the two letters describe two different appearances of Christ: 1 Thessalonians describes the Rapture, while 2 Thessalonians describes the Second Coming.

Some scholars argue that it would be hypocritical for a pseudepigrapher to warn against forged letters (2:2), and that even by the standards of the ancient world, a false signature (3:17) would constitute an unethical forgery.

The Pastoral Epistles

The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus -- often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles -- are the most disputed of all the epistles bearing Paul's name.

These epistles were rejected by Marcion, who considered only the other ten epistles by Paul and his version of the Gospel of Luke to be canon. Tertullian expressed his astonishment at Marcion's omission, and all the Church Fathers accepted these letters as being from Paul. Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul.

Modern attempts to settle the issue center on textual criticism and comparison with the other Pauline epistles. Such issues are usually assigned by supporters of the view that Paul is the author to human variability.

The vocabulary used in the Pastorals is distinctly at variance with that of the other epistles, to the extent that it matches texts from general Hellenic philosophy more than any of the other Pauline epistles. Although statistical analysis never provides concrete argument, 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. However, the vocabulary is similar to that of 2nd century Christian writers, although Paul was a 1st century writer, for which there is much less similarity to the general vocabulary. However, scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has challenged this analysis, claiming it is based on the arbitrary decision to lump these three epistles together as a unit. He argues out that this obscures the similarities between 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, between Titus and the other travel letters, and between 2 Timothy and Philippians.

The style in which the vocabulary is used also differs, for example rather than having faith used on its own, faith becomes part of the body of Christian faith. Also, the Pastorals are described as noticeably meditative, and quiet, which is characteristic of literary Hellenistic Greek, rather than the dynamic Greek with dramatic arguments with outbursts and opponents that are used in the remaining epistles attributed to Paul. However, the situation in which Paul is set in the pastorals is one towards the end of his life, so these variations could be due to the change from middle age to an older man.

Norman Perrin has pointed out that Paul's travels to Crete (Titus 1:5-6), again to Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), and Troas (2 Tim 1:15, 4:13) cannot be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life or works as determined from the other epistles or from Acts. Harnack, 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. Moreover, the Catholic tradition, going back to ancient times, is that the imprisonment of Paul in the year 62 (described at the end of Acts of the Apostles) was not the imprisonment that led to his death. Paul was released, left Rome, went on an additional journey, and returned to Rome to be martyred in 66 or 67. If this tradition is correct, this final journey could have been the occasion for the visits mentioned in these letters.

In terms of theology, some scholars claim that the Pastorals reflect more the characteristics of 2nd century (non-gnostic) church thought, than those of the 1st century. In particular, whilst in the 1st century the idea of Christ's time being immediate was current (as also described in the non-pastoral epistles), in the 2nd century it was seen as more distant, matching the choice of the pastorals to lay down instructions for a long time after the passing away of the apostles.

The Pastoral Epistles lay out church organisation, and character requirements for men who are chosen to be bishops and deacons. Also, the Pastorals lay out a peculiar ecclesiastical office, that of the widows (prayer connected to chastity). Some scholars claim that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime. Some 19th century Protestant scholars disputed the authenticity of these epistles out of doctrinal reasons because they viewed bishops (or "overseers"), deacons, and vows of chastity to be too "Catholic."

Another peculiarity is in regard to false teachers, which the pastorals seem particularly devoted to, in particular condemning Hellenic mysticism and gnosticism. Rather than engage in theological debate with the false teachers (as Paul describes doing in the other epistles attributed to him), the pastorals merely suggest quoting scripture. Scholars such as Kummel suggest that if the lack of debate with false teachers were only due to them not being worth contradiction, then there would be no necessity to warn people of them in the first place. Thus scholars of this view claim that the early church faced a serious threat from such teachers, as the prior epistles either supported or accepted their view, and thus the church fabricated the Pastoral Epistles to support their case.

In the 19th century, Europe-based scholars claimed that the Pastoral Epistles must have been written in the late 2nd century. Today, scholars generally agree that these epistles were known by Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, and may have also been known by Clement of Rome. These would place the date of these epistles no later than the early second century or late first century.

Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives continue to insist on the traditional view that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul, and have long questioned scholarly methods such as higher and historical criticism, as well as questioning the theology of their opponents.

Hebrews

The Epistle to the Hebrews does not explicitly name its own author, although church tradition held it to have been Paul. However, since the style is so different, the authorship was distinctly disputed even in ancient times; early church authorities even went so far as to acknowledge the distinct appearance of a different author. Attempts to resolve this issue whilst holding on to the idea of Pauline authorship, in order to give the text authoritative weight, produced the argument that the difference was due to Paul having been assisted, for example by Luke or Clement of Rome.

However, other ancient authorities, such as Tertullian, noted the extremely different manner in which the theology, and doctrine, of the epistle appear. 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 suggested that the answer would remain unknown, except to God. Most individuals, even strongly conservative and religious scholars, have rejected Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

History of the Pauline canon

There are no preserved lists of a Christian canon from the first century and early second century. If such lists were made, they have not been preserved.

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. These two canons are:

• A canon written by Marcion, the founder of Marcionism (similar to gnosticism), heretical sect. Marcion did not include any of the Gospels except a version of the Gospel of Luke, which according to his enemies he had edited, whereas he claimed that it was their version which was edited. He includes ten epistles by Paul, but does not include the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). Neither does he include the Epistle to the Hebrews.

• A canon written by someone unknown in Italy, usually named the Muratorian Canon. This includes all thirteen of the letters containing Paul's name, although he does not include the Epistle to the Hebrews as canon, and includes other texts now viewed as non-canonical.

Scholars are divided about the significance of Marcion's omission of the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews. Some argue that this may indicate these letters were not widely circulated by the time of Marcion, and therefore they may have been composed at a relatively late date. Others point out that as Marcion did not include many books he disagreed with, he may have omitted these books for theological reasons.

See also

• Textual criticism
• Authorship of the Johannine works
• Historicity of Jesus
• History of Christianity
• New Testament apocrypha
• Gnosticism and the New Testament

References

• The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture - Bart D. Ehrman
• The Gnostic Paul - Elaine Pagels
• An Introduction to the New Testament - Richard Heard
• The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings - Udo Schnelle
• The New Testament: An Introduction - Norman Perrin
• Introduction to the New Testament - Werner Kummel
• Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Series, NY: Doubleday, 1997). Includes excellent summaries of the arguments for and against Pauline authorship of all the epistles.
• Luke Timothy Johnson, with Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, Revised Edition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999). Includes excellent summaries of the arguments on both sides; Johnson concludes these letters were written by Paul. Auteurschap van de brieven van Paulus