Nearing the end of his first chapter of Paul and the Faithfulness of God, N.T. Wright lays out the sources being discussed throughout the rest of the book. Right from the beginning, he says he doesn’t want to simply concede “the ruling hypothesis” regarding the authenticity of Paul’s letters. Part of that “ruling hypothesis” are the seven, hardly questioned “Pauline” letters: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. What I found really interesting about Wright’s view of the “Pauline” corpus is what he adds: Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians.
My introduction to biblical studies carried along the “ruling hypothesis,” so I have had a hard time seeing the authenticity of the six other letters (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) as directly from Paul. Instead, I have thought of them as authored by Paul’s close disciples or, at the very least, someone within Paul’s school of thought. Bart Ehrman suggests in Forged, as the title suggests, that the latter six had a completely different agenda; to deceive their audiences into thinking they were from Paul (forgeries). I never finished that book partially because I didn’t find Ehrman’s argument convincing enough, but mostly because I didn’t find the topic interesting enough (but don’t worry, there’s still a bookmark for where I left off). Ehrman has since written a more scholarly version, but again, I’m having a hard time being compelled to read on.
Wright, as part of his goal with the entire book, offers a different picture than the one I’ve been led to believe. He says that Ephesians and Colossians aren’t included is because “Ephesians in particular, and Colossians to a considerable extent, seem to have a much stronger and higher view of the church – and, indeed, of Jesus himself – than many scholars have been prepared to allow.”[1] Since those other six letters have such a lack of “justification by faith” language, apart from Eph. 2:8, it seems unlikely that Paul was the author.
My own understanding about those other six, which might fall in line with Wright’s critique, is that they carry a very different tone and include language that reflects a much more developed theology, which seems quite different from Romans. For example, the qualifications for “bishops” and “deacons” in 1 Timothy 3 or the inclusion of what might have been Christian hymns in Ephesians and 1 Timothy again. Minor examples, sure, but they carry language and a flow that seems awkward compared to Romans or the Corinthian correspondence.
Yet I’m quite interested into how Wright might develop this further (please, if you’ve read ahead, no spoilers). One point he makes, referencing John A. T. Robinson, is that “a busy church leader may well write in very different styles for different occasions and audiences.”[2] As a writer, I know this is true.
What would you define as authentic “Pauline” epistles? Have you held to the “ruling hypothesis” like I have (admittedly, with not much research) or do you favor a view like Wright’s – something that seeks to give the benefit of the doubt to Paul? What are the letters you deem “Pauline”?
[1] N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Fortress Press, 2013), 57
[2] Wright, PFG, 60
the archives near Emmaus 
I come at the problem from socio-rhetorical and oral/performance criticism perspectives. And the more I immerse myself in the letters, the more I see four sets. I have to validate what you call the “ruling hypothesis”—think of it more like the “standard model” in physics. It’s accepted because it’s the most supportable basic claim. The burden of proof is on connecting the other six, not only to one another, but to the man who wrote these seven.
The second set I see is Colossians and Ephesians, built on realia drawn from Philemon in particular, and with access to what seems to be all seven legit letters. Much higher Greek, in ways that outlie the distribution of scribal habits we see in the set of seven. These also aren’t letters that show real argument with their audience. They strive for fidelity to Paul in ways Paul never had to. Paul’s realia belonged to his audience and their relationship, and he expected to be questioned. He doesn’t write theological treatises—but that’s what these are.
The third set I see is the Pastorals. These clearly have an axe to grind, if not two or three. And it’s an axe Paul never swings. Really, much more like 1 Peter and the Johannine epistles in the sense of dealing with inter-ecclesial politics and the outside world. The “Pastor” is settling disputes authoritatively, not persuasively. And he’s doing it by setting up hierarchies. Formal organization and micromanagement aren’t Paul’s thing. He puts out fires, but he also expects authentic diversity.
And then there’s 2 Thessalonians. Which reminds me of Jude and the Revelation to John. Paul is an apocalyptic thinker, sure—but never a post-apocalyptic thinker. He never saw the end of the world, and the one he anticipated was not doom and judgment and destruction.
However we divide the “Pauline” canon today, I don’t think any of this is a matter of giving the benefit of the doubt to Paul. Paul hasn’t asked for it! It’s a question of giving the benefit of the doubt to unknown agents within the long dark canonical process. And they haven’t earned it! It’s also a question of buying what the pseudonymous authors are selling. Which goes over much better in an age of illiteracy and limited textual access.
But even in the canon you can see the differences between audiences that are “literate” (familiar with the original material at some stage), and people for whom Paul is just a character of the history. The “Pastor” isn’t accountable to Paul’s authentic letters—but whoever wrote Colossians and Ephesians, even if they were written separately, was dealing with a knowledgeable community, and had to clear that bar. (Just as the authors of Matthew and Luke can be presumed accountable to audiences that knew the gospel we call “Mark” in telling stories that rely on it.)
There’s nothing unfaithful to the texts of scripture about distinguishing pseudonymity and being specific about the contexts of significantly different texts. Disagreeing with opinions within the tradition is another matter entirely. The issue of credulity here is how much we extend to the church, not to Paul.
I agree with the core points of Matt’s response, and most if not all the conclusions. He’s probably studied it more than I have, and thanks for the comments, Matt. Also to you, Jeremy, in raising what is an often-sidelined issue re. not just authorship but the implications of certain authorship presumptions and the paradigm re. revelation and authority they lie within.
I do think the Pauline epistles (or so claimed) is one, but just one, aspect of the surrounding issues. And I’d really love to see how Wright is able to make a case for 2 Thess. as Paul’s. From the relatively little I know in depth, I’d think it a difficult task. (And yes, I basically accept the “ruling hypothesis”, although I don’t have much concern about who wrote Col. or Eph., and grant that they may be more debatable.)
The authorial claims in the text of the Pauline epistles or others seem to me to be VERY important… that they be valid… to the general (or broad) traditional views of both canon/canonization, and concepts of revelation and authority. To Process/progressive thinkers like me and probably the majority of true scholars (not a category I can properly claim), we have a very open and curious, exploratory stance. I don’t think I’m stretching it much, if any, to say that within a more traditional paradigm, its very tough to take the data as one finds it, ever looking deeper, etc. and then try to just make the best sense of it. (“Follow the truth wherever it leads”.)
@Jeremy: I also wanted to comment about “Forged” a bit, since I read it twice, and parts a 3rd time, to write a careful review (on my blog). However, I don’t have it with me to consult now. But I noted (reading all the numerous footnotes) that Ehrman gives enough detailed documentation, even in this “popular” work, that a person could basically retrace his steps and see if he distorts things from the sources (both primary and secondary), etc. Basically “replicate” his “experiment”. However, to be thorough, one would have to not only know Greek pretty well, but also German. I recall that he cites, as one of about 3 leading texts on ancient forgery practices and such, an important German text that has not been translated into English.
Anyway, I’d be interested whether you thought Ehrman fails to adequately support his main thesis and couple sub-theses and why. I thought he supported them more than adequately and that this may be one of his more important contributions, in that it seems to have more original research and goes deeper into important assumptions that have been carelessly made and then replicated many times by much of traditional scholarship… issues having to do with “pseudepigrapha” and forgeries, how they were made and viewed in ancient times, etc. I feel he “tightens up” this area in some important ways. And that the subject is VERY important.
Matt:
I like your four sets of arranging Paul’s letters (or “Paul’s” letters). I especially appreciate your points about Paul not using his authority, but his persuasion and how he expected to be questioned, which isn’t a present tone in the Pastorals, where there doesn’t seem to be room for any pushback from the various people and communities “Paul” is writing to. And I also agree with you about the “ruling hypothesis,” although, again, I haven’t studied very many alternative views, so what Wright seems to offer here would be the first.
Wright also mentions the possibility (one that he doesn’t necessarily agree with) of the actual others from the other six being some of Paul’s close disciples. I was wondering what you thought of that idea because you draw a related point about whoever these other authors were they were very familiar with the seven (or at least a couple of the seven). Do you think it’s plausible for these authors to be some of Paul’s disciples? Or do you think, something like what Ehrman suggests, they were other people who happened to be familiar with Paul’s style who wanted to “pass” as Paul in order to achieve some sort of end (assuming that’s what Ehrman was talking about; it’s been a while since I last read from Forged)?
Howard:
I, too, am interested to see how Wright’s case for 2 Thess. plays out. In his initial discussion regarding sources, he didn’t say much at all about 2 Thess. mostly because he was establishing a (small) case for Eph. & Col., which are texts I’m also interested in seeing how he develops.
Honestly, I think I stopped reading Forged mostly because I lost interest. Although I did get a sense that Ehrman was suggesting an intent of the author that I didn’t sense from reading the other six letters. It’s not wrong to suggest an intent of the author; I think we do this a lot (especially on Sunday mornings), but the particular “intent” Ehrman was suggesting didn’t seem plausible (an intention to deceive or trick the various audiences of the other six). But again, it’s been a long time since I’ve read his book, so I’m not entirely sure this was what he was saying. Perhaps you could shed some light on what you gleaned from Forged?
I think, because it’s Ehrman, I’ll pick it back up before long. I usually tend to enjoy his comments regarding NT criticism as a whole (as in his textbook) or his thoughts on the Gospels and transcription traditions (as in Misquoting, Jesus). I also started reading Did Jesus Exist? a while back, but got caught up reading other things and never got back to it.
Jeremy, building a timeline is a tricky thing. There’s nothing solid to stand on. But I’m willing to venture more of my own conjectures, as long as you take them as such. 🙂 Off the bat, I find it hard to believe from the seven acknowledged epistles that Paul really ever had “disciples.” He has coworkers, he has partners, he has friends and allies, he even has enemies, but no school. He doesn’t appear to encourage dependence. That’s not the way he wants his communities to imitate him as he imitates Christ.
It’s easy to assign Paul more importance than he had, simply because we have this set of his writings. He was clearly one among several working the same broad territory, but nobody preserved what they wrote. But these five (six, counting wherever Philemon is really from) communities preserved these seven writings. These letters were important to them. And I doubt the letters were shared with other communities while Paul was alive and active. They aren’t general addresses, nor would a manuscript copy be sufficient to reproduce the message as Paul intended it to be delivered. There’s no hint that Paul expected his communities to be talking to one another, much less hearing what he said to any of the others. (It’s only in Colossians that there’s a suggestion that letters to other places get around, and ought to be read.)
So my bet is that the formation of the circulating canon begins with these seven in the wake of Paul’s death. But whoever composed Colossians and Ephesians has seen and heard these letters, presumably multiple of them, because the author echoes them. I don’t think that’s a disciple, or anyone Paul ever knew. I think it’s a member of a community that values some set of these letters after they start circulating as a collection. And I’m betting that that community, wherever it was, is responsible for adding these two to the canon and spreading them. (Not Colossae or Ephesus, because they lean on references someone in those communities could check.) And because of the tenor of these two letters, and the absence of the post-apocalyptic, I’m betting that happens before 70. Universalism is hard to come by after that.
For the same reason I would tend to place 2 Thess after the fall of Jerusalem, but I can’t be more precise than to give a closing bracket somewhere around the 130s with the consolidation of Roman control over the region, and more likely in the first half of that span than the second. There are commonplaces with the gospels and the Apocalypse that put this letter well after Paul for me, and it is the least interested in imitating Pauline style in any depth.
The Pastorals, on the other hand, employ the novel conceit of Paul writing personal letters to his coworkers. Literate culture is in play here. And the author clearly knows at least three of the seven letters, though he’s not making anything like the effort to sound like Paul that we see in Colossians and Ephesians. Quite possible that the author can’t distinguish Colossians and Ephesians as pseudonymous. Very normatively Hellenistic, “civilized,” with touches of Judean culture but no thorough depth of Judaism on display. Which means no apologetics. Still, the Judean canon is very much in play. Insider texts written for insiders. Also, very institutional, as opposed to the loose and parallel networks of Paul’s missionary environment. I get the distinct whiff of the culture behind Acts, and that says second century to me. Someplace away from Jerusalem, someplace insulated and already strongly independent. I’m betting diaspora context; Philo’s Alexandria is the kind of place that comes to mind.
re: Ehrman’s work, I wouldn’t try to make any claim for “forgery” outside of the Pastor using Paul to underwrite a very different agenda. There’s nothing inherently sinister about pseudonymity—it’s in how you use it. And of course, you should keep at Wright’s book, because he’s been at this a lot longer than I have. He and I know very different things from our different perspectives, and arguing with his work is very fruitful!
@Matt: Very interesting summary on some authorship points and especially on the likely lack of a Pauline “school” (at least as started by him, tho I’d be interested whether you think one might have been started a bit later… But is that not the way it ever worked?).
I’m not clear just what you mean about forgery in your last comment. If the Pastor (I presume you mean the real author) is writing in Paul’s name, as if to pass the epistle off as by Paul, how is that not a forgery? Or do you find another scenario likely?
Jeremy, you should give some attention to the scholarly arguments for Paul’s authorship of the disputed letters. Good summaries of those arguments, including a more general rebuttal of idea of early accepted Christian pseudipigrapha can be found in Carson and Moo’s Introduction to the NT.
In short the arguments for non Pauline authorship often are based on differences in style, vocabulary and theology – and all of these seem to be overplayed. As you pointed out authors can write in a diversity of all of the above due to audience, circumstance or their pwn development. Secondly the idea of Christian writers penning letters in someone else’s name without their explicit permission and/or oversight is problematic and seems to create more issues than it solves.
@Jeremy: In the first video at the following link Luke Timothy Johnson argues that Paul wrote none of his epistles….but that he authorized all of the thirteen attributed to him. I’m not sure that I buy the argument, but it is an interesting one. Essentially, he challenges our definition of “authorship”, i.e., Paul sat down to write a letter. Instead, authorship is validation of the contents, approval of them. He uses the example of the State of the Union, not written by the President, but upon deliver officially approved by the President. In a similar way Paul’s students or hired scribes may have received his dictation, or compiled his teachings, but Paul had to make final approval before they were sent in his name. –> http://cruxsolablog.com/2014/04/07/video-resource-luke-timothy-johnson-lectures-on-paul-gupta/
I guess it depends on what you mean to do with said forgeries, Howard. Looking back at what I’ve said, there’s no reason for me to deny that any of the pseudonymous epistles (which applies equally to many if not all of the “catholic” epistles) are forgeries, made with the intent to use apostolic bona fides to gain acceptance for new compositions. I certainly am not interested in suggesting that the greater fidelity to Pauline language in Col and Eph should in any way convince us that Paul wrote them, much less that those letters convey Pauline substance because of the language.
But when we identify works as forgeries, we then remove them from the museum. The lie voids the value of the piece. This is the splash of shock value Ehrman wanted for that book. Lies vs. the Truth. I don’t want anyone to think that Paul wrote these other six letters. But once we realize they aren’t by Paul, we have not exhausted their value. Of course, I also don’t want anyone prooftexting on the basis of sheer canonical authority, either. That’s not the value of these texts—and besides, it’s a shoddy way of doing theology. But when we stop fighting the inerrantists and go back to doing serious work, Ehrman hasn’t given us anything new—just a pejorative name for it.
When you realize that Paul is the only real-name first-person author of a work that we call scripture in the entire canon, both testaments, you get really comfortable with the fictive nature of scripture really quickly. Or you don’t. I suppose some people never get over that. The prophetic writings are the next closest things we have, at their best—and even those are compositions after the fact, made to preserve original material in narrative. They’re closer to the gospels in that way.
Brian, I don’t buy that argument, because it doesn’t actually change the game. Of course Paul didn’t sit down and write letters. I do oral and performance criticism, I’ve granted that already. Paul is mostly illiterate. The scribes do his writing for him, just like they do for everyone else. But nothing about that fact changes the question of whether Paul is the author. And I see no reason to believe that Paul is anything like a head of state, in whose name things go out rubber-stamped with his approval. If you want to talk State of the Union addresses, it’s perfectly reasonable to suppose that Paul is working with a team to compose the addresses that will be delivered to his audiences. The scribe prepares the final manuscript, and someone performs it on site—but Paul remains the author.
None of that removes the internal-evidence challenges to the other six epistles, unless one seriously wishes to distance Paul from the acknowledged seven and entirely question the authorship of the whole set.
The speechwriter argument from the SotU is like claiming that Phoebe is the author of Romans just because she delivered it. Everyone knows the President has speechwriters, and that he doesn’t author his own material the overwhelming majority of the time. Someone writes his speeches.
I didn’t say I bought it either. Just throwing it out there since Jeremy’s thinking about the subject.
Perhaps, to push Ehrman’s argument, Luke Timothy Johnson gives us an explanation that makes Paul’s letters more like “Tom Clancy” books that he didn’t actually write—ghostwritten “team efforts.” Nobody would call those forgeries, but only because they got the seal of approval. Gentry Lee doesn’t write like Arthur C. Clarke, either.
The question remains: whose mind is behind the works in each case?
Or, like some directors who put their approval on a movie directed by someone else with the “presented by…[name]” credit that helps it sell and gives the audience some confidence in an otherwise unknown. Again, I don’t know that I buy that model, per se, but I do think Johnson’s right that we need to be careful about “authorship” language in general.
Matt, thanks for the further response… a number of interesting concepts, all of which I can’t address in a reasonable-length response. And for what I will say, I should “locate” myself a bit, as you have. I come from and try to utilize an interdisciplinary approach, oriented mainly around a fair depth in theology, psychology, and education — the theology including some focus (tho not an academic specialization) on biblical studies, esp. NT studies and Christian origins; also some academic and further lay-level familiarity with cultural anthro, sociology and history (esp. ancient history and church hx). With such a background and related perceptions, I particularly respect and tend to read scholars who seek to be interdisciplinary and push their fields toward it. Given the “education piece”, and my roles over the years in that and related counseling/coaching work, I suppose I’ve evaluated “Forged” and most other books a lot in terms of their educational value to any particular (sometimes broad) audience.
And in terms of that “standard” (or function), I do believe Ehrman, in “Forged” as well as other books, HAS given us quite a bit beyond a different label for “pseudepigrapha”. I do think he indeed is “fighting the inerrantists” as many of us are in a variety of ways, but also doing a lot more. Approaching things in the biblical studies arena as an educator and developmentalist (I’m pretty into that area, including stage theories), I continue to observe both myself and many other people who are asking deeper questions of and about the NT texts (and OT as well) in relation to their beliefs and their own “spiritual formation” and that of their spiritual communities. And the authority of the canon, how it was formed and why, etc., including q’s of authorship, are right in the midst of all that.
In looking again at my much-earlier, fairly lengthy, review of “Forged” found here: http://wp.me/p5oBn-4l, I noted a couple sections which I think are quite pertinent to some of your remarks and this thread’s discussion of several related authorship and Christian origins issues. First, this one:
“The key question raised is this: “Is there congruency and validation of this core value in terms of the production and content of many of the books of the NT, which themselves set up concepts of authority for Christian faith and timeless truth?” Incidentally, nowhere does Ehrman argue that the presence of forgeries and other forms of deception in the Bible means that nothing in it can be viewed as true in the broader sense of valid and useful spiritual, moral, ethical principles. Although he is frank and perhaps could be called confrontive, he does not come across to me as pushing an anti-religious agenda or atheism. He merely loves the truth to be known and respected, leaving it to others to deal with the religious ramifications.”
And then this:
“I was particularly pleased that Ehrman’s careful digging has provided me greater clarity on a key point: that there is virtually no precedent in ancient literature for students or later followers of a teacher writing under the teacher’s name and it being considered typical, acceptable practice. Thus, this oft-cited misconception (I’d encountered it often myself, validating what Ehrman claims) is actually a rationalization or a lazy avoidance-of-the-real-issue technique. This vital misconception has been passed along through generations of scholars (and pastors, etc.) without anyone, apparently, going back to the original pertinent period documents and to see what the truth really is.”
The latter comment connects back to something I’d referred to earlier — that this contention (to my knowledge) is both important and “new”, and that this sub-thesis of the book can be checked via both independent work and/or “retracing Ehrman’s steps” which I think he at least significantly if not fully provides for in “Forged”, and I presume much more so in the more scholarly follow-up work which I gather is out, but I’ve not read.
@clbirch, you write:
“Secondly the idea of Christian writers penning letters in someone else’s name without their explicit permission and/or oversight is problematic and seems to create more issues than it solves.”
How do you mean it’s “problematic”? And as to “create more issues….”, I’m not sure that’s always a bad thing. “Solutions” would seem to be in better placing both the authorship, or its social/theological “location” and its dating, and the exact author of these types of ancient texts is very often going to be unsolvable… but the virtual elimination of Paul (or Peter, etc.) as a viable author is important in itself, if/when that is warranted.