Jun
19
2012
Did the Apostle Paul Really Write All the Letters Attributed to Him?
Some critical scholars suggest that the apostle Paul didn’t really write some of the letters that are now ascribed to him. Ray Van Neste, writing the introduction to 1 Timothy in the ESV Study Bible, has a concise explanation of why the pseudonymity solution is untenable:
It is problematic to argue that these works were written under a false name since the early church clearly excluded from the apostolic canon any works they thought to be pseudonymous. While critics point to the common practice of pseudonymous writing in the ancient world, they usually fail to point out that this practice, though common in the culture, was not common in personal letters, and was categorically rejected by the early church (cf. 2 Thess. 2:2; 3:17; also Muratorian Canon 64-67; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.12.3). Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-225) wrote that when it was discovered that a church elder had composed a pseudonymous work, The Acts of Paul (which included a purported Pauline letter, 3 Corinthians), the offending elder “was removed from his office” (On Baptism 17). Accepting as Scripture letters that lie about their origin is also a significant ethical problem. Thus, there is a good basis for affirming the straightforward claim of these letters as authentically written by Paul.
In addition to the external evidence (e.g., whether or not pseudonymity [false naming] or pseudepigraphy [false attributing] were accepted practices in the first centuries), Van Neste also points to the internal evidence in 2 Thessalonians where Paul’s comments are relevant. These verses are worth quoting:
2 Thessalonians 2:2: “[Do] not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed . . . by . . . a letter seeming to be from us. . . .”
2 Thessalonians 3:17: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.”
Given statements like these, it seems logically and morally incompatible to hold to pseudonymity / pseudepigraphy and the ultimate authority of God’s word containing no deception or error.
For more on this, see D.A. Carson’s essay, “Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 857-64.
5 Comments
Amen!
[...] Did the Apostle Paul Really Write All the Letters Attributed to Him? Some critical scholars suggest that the apostle Paul didn’t really write some of the letters that are now ascribed to him. Ray Van Neste, writing the introduction to 1 Timothy in the ESV Study Bible, has a concise explanation of why the pseudonymity solution is untenable. [...]
Justin -
I think many might argue that, though ‘the early church clearly excluded from the apostolic canon any works they thought to be pseudonymous’, they didn’t exclude these letters for that very reason – they thought them to be directly from Paul. But that doesn’t necessarily establish they were from Paul.
You summarise by saying: Given statements like these, it seems logically and morally incompatible to hold to pseudonymity / pseudepigraphy and the ultimate authority of God’s word containing no deception or error.
But it is worth considering that it would mainly be ‘deception or error’ from a more modern perspective, not an ancient one. I’m fine either way – Pauline or non-Pauline authorship in the pastoral letters (and others). But either way does not mean we should run the full gauntlet and proclaim this means deception. God’s been quite faithful in utilising the Timothy’s and Titus whether they are Pauline or non-Pauline, just as he has with much of the canon of which we are not sure who wrote varying letters/portions.
Scott, I think my argument stands regarding deception. If the Pastorals, for example, were not written by Paul but written by someone claiming to be Paul, then the letters themselves are deceptive—and hence incompatible with inerrancy and authority.
Justin -
It could be deception from our perspective, but possibly not from an ancient one. I am fine either way – Pauline or non-Pauline authorship. I think there are points for both sides. But the canon of Scripture does not fall on Pauline or non-Pauline authorship of the pastorals. For example, there are lots of things that point to non-Mosaic authorship of the full Pentateuch (edits and updates much later on), though traditionally we would have argued for full authorship by Moses. There is evidence for three authors of what we identify as Isaiah, though we traditionally argue for one Isaiah and one Isaiah alone. You are aware of these things. These are not just agnostic authors pointing out certain things, but evangelicals who believe in the authority of Scripture. And we could consider many other examples from ancient days. But non-Mosaic authorship/compiling with the Pentateuch does not have to denigrate the God-breathed nature of the Pentateuch. The same for Isaiah.
So, again, from a more modernist desire for verifiable and objective absolute truth, we end up demanding of Scripture what was not necessary for God’s revelation to come forth in ancient times. I think the testimony of the church historic and the Spirit of God’s witness still confirms the God-breathed and authoritative nature of Scripture. And that also being true of the pastoral epistles. It doesn’t seem a completely foreign practice if someone wrote in Paul’s name.