Pauline Epistle not by Paul

[thegospelgeek]

I have read a few references on the BB about some of the Pauline Epistles not being written by Paul and written after his death. My question for those of you who beleive this is;

Doesn't that make the scriptures in error?

If there are errors in these books then why should I believe the others are without error?

How do I know what to beleive and what not? May jesus actually isn't the way, the truth, and the light. Maybe he is not the only begotten of the father. How do I know?

 

[Deacon]

I've not expressed any opinion on the subject but have a question for you.

If the scriptures are inspired by God, does it really matter who we think wrote them?

Rob

 

[Tom Bryant]

First of all, as you already know, just because a person writes anything on here doesn't make it true. Sometimes, all of us write just to see what we say in print. :tonofbricks:

You need to trust in what the Bible says. Study it. Start a life long love affair with its teachings. But more than that love the one who wrote His book to us. Trust the Holy Spirit to lead you into His Truth. That's His job.

 

[Zenas]

I never heard that. Of course there is continuing doubt as to who wrote Hebrews but that doesn’t detract from its canonicity. There is similar debate over whether John wrote Revelation and whether Peter wrote 2 Peter. Most of the doubters, however, would be found teaching in universities that are so liberal they could hardly be called Christian. Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina comes to mind.

 

[thegospelgeek]

I've not expressed any opinion on the subject but have a question for you.

If the scriptures are inspired by God, does it really matter who we think wrote them?

Rob

In some cases no such as the example of Hebrews for instance. There is no author stated. However if the book claims to be written by Paul, such as 1st and 2nd Timothy, then if Paul did not write them, they can not be inerrant.

I am speaking to the belief that some of Pauls books were written after his death and claim to be written by Paul, but were not.

 

[Deacon]

Personally I find the arguments a bit too scholastic for interaction, it doesn’t matter to me.
The way I see it, lawyers couldn’t prove who killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Do we really think that we can be sure that a certain person did or didn’t write a portion of scripture?

Personally I err on the side of Pauline authorship but others give some persuasive argument to the contrary and still manage to revere the scriptures.

Their argument is that by the standards of the time there was no stigma attached pseudonymous authorship and that we must not judge the literary conventions of past ages by the ethics of modern times.

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

I've not expressed any opinion on the subject but have a question for you.

If the scriptures are inspired by God, does it really matter who we think wrote them?

Rob

Sure it does when raising doubt about the authors are a tool to discredit scripture.

 

[Deacon]

Sure it does when raising doubt about the authors are a tool to discredit scripture.

Well then you have a problem with God, He's the one that inspired them. :laugh:

Rob

 

[StefanM]

Well then you have a problem with God, He's the one that inspired them. :laugh:

Rob

That's not the issue at hand.

A book cannot be inerrant while containing a false authorship claim.


If the autographs attribute a letter to Paul, then either

A) Paul wrote it.

or

B) The book is errant.

 

[jbh28]

I never heard that. Of course there is continuing doubt as to who wrote Hebrews but that doesn’t detract from its canonicity. There is similar debate over whether John wrote Revelation and whether Peter wrote 2 Peter. Most of the doubters, however, would be found teaching in universities that are so liberal they could hardly be called Christian. Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina comes to mind.

I wish Bart Ehrman was a Duke instead. :laugh:

Sorry, just had to say this....back to the topic

In some cases no such as the example of Hebrews for instance. There is no author stated. However if the book claims to be written by Paul, such as 1st and 2nd Timothy, then if Paul did not write them, they can not be inerrant.

I am speaking to the belief that some of Pauls books were written after his death and claim to be written by Paul, but were not.

What are they saying is evidence as to Paul not writing them?

 

[thegospelgeek]

I wish Bart Ehrman was a Duke instead. :laugh:

Sorry, just had to say this....back to the topic



What are they saying is evidence as to Paul not writing them?

NO evidence was given. It was on some threads on the BB discussing pastoral qualifications and other such doctrines. I wish I could remember who and which threads. But There was at least one poster and I believe one or two others who made statements that the scriptures were added after paul's death, not written by Paul, and added because the church wanted to control women, etc.

StephanM has hit the nail on the head. If the Bible says it was Paul who wrote it and they don't believe that, then how do you believe scripture at all?

 

[Deacon]

That's not the issue at hand.

A book cannot be inerrant while containing a false authorship claim.


If the autographs attribute a letter to Paul, then either

A) Paul wrote it.

or

B) The book is errant.

“What God has made clean you must not call profane.” :saint:

Again I’m not arguing from my persuasion, I have no cards in this hand.
Here’s a quote from an author that doesn’t support the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles.

Apart from pseudonymity there are various ways in which a named author may not in fact be the actual writer and composer of a document.

(1) An author may use another person as a secretary and delegate powers to them to write on his behalf, and then sign the letter as being in effect from himself …

(2) … it is permissible for the work of an author who has died to be posthumously edited and published for future generations…

(3) It is not too great a step to a situation in which somebody close to a dead person continued to write as (they thought that) he would have done. An incomplete work can be completed by somebody else…

Marshall, I. H., & Towner, P. H. (2004). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (83). London; New York: T&T Clark International.

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

Apart from pseudonymity there are various ways in which a named author may not in fact be the actual writer and composer of a document.

(1) An author may use another person as a secretary and delegate powers to them to write on his behalf, and then sign the letter as being in effect from himself …

This is ridiculous splitting of hairs that only hyper-intellectuals care about.

 

[StefanM]

“What God has made clean you must not call profane.” :saint:
Rob

And the relevance of this would be?

It's simple logic. If not-A is true, and A is claimed to be true, the proposition is false. A and Not-A are mutually exclusive.

Either Paul was responsible for the content or he wasn't.

What we know for certain is that the texts claim Pauline authorship.

If the authorship is non-Pauline, then the text is in error.

This does not answer the extent of authorship (such as secretaries, etc.), but it addresses a fundamental point. If Paul had nothing to do with 1 or 2 Timothy, then the biblical text is in error.

 

[RAdam]

If Paul claimed to write them and Paul didn't write them, someone lied. There's no other way around that. If Peter claimed to write an epistle and didn't, then someone lied. Hebrews is a different animal altogether seeing it wasn't signed by anyone. Those that were signed are not up for discussion.

 

[thegospelgeek]

Evidently there is no one to defend this belief. Maybe I should have placed it in the "Other Denominations" forum. It could be that the post I had read about it were submitted by non baptist.

 

[thegospelgeek]

I did find one post by someone who believes this

(Still say that) Paul's early (real) letters taught total equality and his early churches were organized bottom up. His late (written after his death) letters were written in a time when churches were organized top down (bishop, priest) and stifled women. Of course, the church has always been pleased to let the women do the dirty work.

Not sure if he only post in "Other Christain Denomination" or not. I think I have read some post by others also.

 

[sag38]

It's hard to tell anything about Bill. He loves shock value drive by posting.

 

[rbell]

If the autographs attribute a letter to Paul, then either

A) Paul wrote it.

or

B) The book is errant.

How about:

C) The book was written by Paul...but a different "Paul."

Just a thought...didn't say it was a good one...

 

[John Toppass]

Well, since I don't claim to be an intellectual, does anyone have a time machine I can borrow? I will report my findings promptly. (after I take a side trip to punch Adam in the nose for starting all this):laugh: