Jump to content

Talk:Authorship of the Pauline epistles/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

I have Reworked Ephesians ....

Hello, i have to say I am dissapointed with the general tone of discussion on this page. I think if we work together a bit more on it we can move it of the disputed list.

I am studying a second degree in theology in Madrid at the moment and am working on an exegesis of Ephesians so I have tried to start the ball rolling by rewriting the section on Ephesians. I have attempted to present a wider presentation of current academic opinion, not just from the English Speaking World, in a more objective tone. I will be interested to see what you think. Please dont let this descend into bickering. --Timsj 17:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think your rewrite of the Ephesians section is a great improvement. Could you add any references for it, or perhaps a couple of general references to the end of the article that cover the general field? Thanks for your work. Wesley 16:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge request

Is there still any interest in merging this article with Pauline epistles? If not, I think the mergerequest tag can probably be removed. Wesley 16:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I vote strongly against this proposal. Most Wikipedia articles complain if they get too long. Keeping these articles separate makes sense.
I haven't seen anyone pushing for it for a while. So I am removing the tag. Lawrence King 17:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Computer Analysis

I believe recent computer analysis of word frequency and patterns in the epistles has come to the conclusion that he only wrote the first 4 epistles, regarded as his major ones, plus probably Hebrews. The others are all by different authors, except the the 2 to Thessalonians are by the same author, as are the 2 to Timothy. This view at least deserves a mention. A very small number of theologians did already hold this view. PatGallacher

Can you give details or substantiation? I'd be amazed if a statistical study claimed Hebrews and Galatians were by the same author. And statistical studies have been done before, never showing this. Of course, the best statisticians have said that of Paul's letters are too short for definitive statistical analysis, but these results still should be mentioned if they are significant. Lawrence King 06:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Undisputed epistles

The following is the article's complete text bearing on this subject:

Virtually every scholar, ancient and modern, attributes the following epistles to Paul: [list]

This announcement contains very little information. The reasons for the universal acceptance of the undisputed epistles would provide the reader information. And some thought to this subject would correct the current imbalance focussed on disproving all textual and history-based reservations. I'd do this myself if I were capable. --Wetman 00:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A good point...I too wish I could contribute something. Would it be better to cite authorities or provide something like computer analyses? I don't know whether the former would be more controversial (who is an authority?) or the latter (analysis can often be very subjective while appearing objective). I can do some searching in this regard but I don't know how much I'll find -- what little I've read usually focuses (naturally) on the "disputed" epistles. Jwrosenzweig 06:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
We have had a very similar discussion on the Galatians page -- Talk:Epistle to Galatians#Authorship of Galatians. Do you think I should move a lot of the material in that discussion thread into this article?
One problem, as I see it, is how much should these issues be centralized? The question of the authorship of a single letter (e.g. Galatians) is a subset of the question of the authorship of the Pauline letters, which is a subset of the question of the authorship of all Biblical books, which is a subset of the question of the authorship of ancient documents in general. I wonder if the general principles should be under an article such as Pseudepigraphy or Writer or Forgery or Authenticity. Then in any specific article a link can be made to that, and how it applies in this case can than be stated. Is this a reader-friendly solution?
If not, then perhaps the reason most scholars accept the seven "undisputed" letters as being from Paul belongs on this page, and the individual pages for the seven letters should just point here when discussing authenticity? Lawrence King 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Lawrence, I really like that material from the Galatians talk page as a starting point for the section in question in this article. I am sure it bears some smoothing and adding to, but in general it seems very knowledgable and clear, and it at least partially establishes the rationale behind authenticity. I hope you'll move as much of it as you think applies into the section at your leisure.
As far as the long-term centrality discussion, I personally think that this is one of Wikipedia's toughest points. Being paper-free encourages depth, but it also creates these problems of locating information. I do like the solution posed in your final paragraph--perhaps a brief paragraph in each of the seven articles summarizing the case (and perhaps providing more detail about that particular letter...what details are most convincing, most in agreement with Acts, etc.) with a link to the section in this article. Ideally that would be our solution, I think. If that works for you, I'd encourage you to make it happen. Thanks so much to both you and Wetman (and the other contributors) for your work here--I'm feeling good about this article this summer, and that hasn't been true for a long time. Jwrosenzweig 07:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The title "Authorship of the Pauline epistles" suggests to me that the whole question is meant to be handled here, with specifics that concern only individual epistles handled at the various articles, under a Main article at Authorship of the Pauline epistles header. Those brief summarizing paragraphs Jwrosenzweig mentions could be here, as this is a trunk article on this question, and each of the individual articles have many other issues to address, on content, etc.. Some overlap is always desirable, so that thoughts may be complete. Surely a report on individual scholars' reasons for recognizing Paul's undisputed hand, even quoting them, makes a useful encyclopedic report. And the computer studies throw fresh light. But, as for the subsets of broader questions, my sense is constantly that the broadest questions just don't suit encyclopedia format. They need whole books, or they dissolve into airy generalities: that is, History of Europe will never be as satisfactory as Merovingians. This current article is the highest level I can imagine encompassed in a Wikipedia article. --Wetman 08:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


I agree with both of you about the issues involved in locating information. And I especially agree that broad questions are very difficult to address here. I try to avoid broad articles (sometimes unsuccessfully), and I try to avoid constantly churning disputed articles because they are just endless flame wars. Yet I'm still amazed how much good stuff there is on Wikipedia despite all the difficulties.
I'll follow Wetman's suggestion that the current article is the highest level that should be used here. Give me a couple days to move this stuff in, and then we'll see how the other Wikipedians update it! Lawrence King 02:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think some of the stuff is the section starting with This entire procedure is subject to criticism towards the end of Talk:Epistle to Galatians#Authorship of Galatians would be a good addition to this article. As an evangelical christian I have my prejudices of course ;-), but applying statistics to such short letters letters would in my eyes seem to be the same as applying statistics to Hamlets Act I Scene 1 and Act I Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice, and concluding that they were written by different authors. (Comparison is not ideal, I know, scene 1 of the Merchant has about 1500 words, Ephesians in an average modern translation about 3000). However, some arguments of opponents of this approach might be mentioned for npov sake. TeunSpaans 02:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

General issues

It seems to me that in this article views aren't attributed nearly as much as they should be. As I understand it, besides the seven "undisputed" epistles, only Colossians and 2 Thessalonians have had any serious scholars in the last 70 years or so who support Pauline authorship. The Pastorals and Ephesians seem to be generally agreed to not be the work of Paul, in the same way that nobody really believes that Peter wrote the Gospels attributed to him, or that James brother of Jesus wrote the Epistle attributed to him. The article as it stands seems, like so many wikipedia articles on early Christian themes, to present the case as one between "skeptics" who don't accept much of anything, and conservative Christians who except the traditional attributions. If we're going to do this, each questionable Gospel ought to quote the specific scholars who argue specific points, rather than lengthy disquisitions. Material at earlychristianwitings.com would probably provide useful summariez, and so forth, of the various debates (they conclude that, besides the 7 undisputed gospels, only Colossians might plausibly be the work of Paul. john k 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there. I feel the problem lies in the black/white approach many Christians take towards the Bible: either a given work was written by its putative author, & thus was created under divine inspiration & is undeniably authoritative in what it says; or it was not written by that person, & therefore has no more validity than the mutterings of a schizoprhenic homeless person. (Maybe this is a little overstated, but when people seriously claim that denying that the world was created in 6 days or that a Biblical Flood never occured means the rest of this work is therefore a lie, it is hard not to believe that many devout Christians think these are the only 2 choices available to them.)
Raymond Brown (who is quoted in the article & by me above) points out that it was the tradition for authors in the ancient world to publish their works under the name of their more famous (or authoritative) teachers, because they sincerely believed they were expounding their teacher's ideas & opinions: for example, the Pastoral Epistles may not have been written by Paul, but they were written by people who knew him, & thus at least some of the material comes from Paul. Of course, a view like this requires the student to think for her/himself, & many students -- I believe out of a lack of confidence -- are unwilling to do so: thus the insistence that these works be labelled either authentic or forgeries. -- llywrch 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Peter Kirby runs earlychristianwitings.com, maybe he might like to look over the article?

As for R Brown's argument, it could equally be said that it was written by people who didn't ever come within 1000 miles of Paul but who sincerely believed they were expounding his ideas (possibly due to schizophrenia, misplaced self-worth, or just plain old pious self-delusion), and consequently the Pastorals may not have been written by people who knew Paul, but by people who thought they did (or by people who deliberately lied). While R Brown's argument is interesting, its a bit of a damp squib - it doesn't really add anything; while it demonstrates that the epistles might have a connection to Paul even if not written by him directly, it also leaves wide open the possibility that they have none whatsoever.

More importantly, R Brown's argument doesn't address the substantial difference in theology between the Pastorals and the remainder; if someone else wrote it and it has noticeably different theology to the remainder, then occam's razor says that its more likely that it doesnt derive from the same writer as the rest, not even via people who knew him.

Clinkophonist 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

weasel words

section

opening paragraph

"Nearly every modern scholar agrees that Paul was the author of the seven letters"

"but are disputed mainly by many scholars today"

"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"

"However, scholars often disagree about how to weigh these criteria in a specific instance. For example, suppose two letters use similar vocabulary."

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

"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 to differences in vocabulary and style."

"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."

"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."

"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."

Recent arguments against Pauline Authorship

"More modern scholars point to a different author. Their arguments can be summarised into four main areas:"

"Strong evidence of the reliance on the authentic Pauline Epistle to the Colossians"

"Scholars know that Paul spent years in Ephesus building up the church there."

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians "Some scholars argue that it would be hypocritical for a pseudepigrapher to warn against forged letters (2:2),"

The Pastoral Epistles

"Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul".

"Some scholars claim that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime."

"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."

"Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives"

Hebrews

"Most individuals, even strongly conservative and religious scholars, have rejected Pauline authorship of Hebrews"

"Scholars are divided about the significance of Marcion's omission of the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews.

Could someone NAME these scholars, please. Thanks LoveMonkey 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Rewrite

I have attempted to rewrite the first section of the article and intro so as to include references and remove such words. Personally, I find the current state of the article embarrassing. Arguments were made with no reference at all, and sound almost whimsical. I hope this page gets its needed attention soon. I will try, but more and differing opinions are needed. Lostcaesar 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I just read through the discussion page and wanted to express my appreciation for the efforts of the people involved to get to a high quality article. It seems to me that you have succeeded at least to some degree. This is a link to an article with a POV about the authorship that I enjoyed. If somebody felt there was some value they might consider adding it in as an external link. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/epistles.html I thought the Wikipedia article did a better job of covering most of the tobin's points though. Davefoc 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"..,W M Ramsey entertained the time of Paul's Roman captivity,.." What was meant?Rich 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The following has been deleted: "Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives continue to insist on the traditional view that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul." Is that not the essence of the conservative view, that the critical reading is dismissed in favor of the traditional attribution? Has deleting this sentence truly been done with a view to enlightening the reader? --Wetman 08:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet made any changes to the Pastoral Epistles section, it still needs much work imo. Lostcaesar 09:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

in defence of the genuineness

The citation given is from a source that I do not believe meets the requirements of a "reliable source". To state that the citation covers "various scholars" seems misleading. I understand that there are probably seriously scholars who argue for genuineness, but I would seriously prefer a much more scholarly citation to support the claim. I was not trying to create a strawman, but instead have the wording accurately represent the citation. If we are going to cite Tekton, the POV needs to be qualified. Hope this explains the reasoning behind my edit, and hopefully inspires someone to find a more reliable source!--Andrew c 20:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize we were dealing with a source (that ref must be new). My apologies. The strawman I wish to avoid is as follows: the implicit claim that scholars hold X position, while only apologists (obviously based on religious preconceptions rather than scholarly work) think something else. In some cases, like new earth creationism vs evolution, this might be the case. But, when it comes to authorship of the pastorals, there are good reasons to think Paul wrote them, and other reasons to think he did not, and scholarship falls on both sides generally speaking. While there are apologists (particularly those who think that apostolic authorship is essential to inspiration) in the fray, there are just as many people with a different axe to grind against who join in the debate "on the other side". And besides that, the ivory tower of scholarship is not above such concerns and predispositions. Scholarly trends come and go, especially since criticism of the current view (whatever that may be at the time) is considered edgy, and in areas such as this were certainty is not possible based on available evidence this is more the case. I don't think we can place scholars into one group which agrees to have settled the matter of authorship of the Pastorals (Hebrews, for a counterexample, is a text where we can - really the only text in this article where we can); Lostcaesar 06:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

pastorals

Just so we aren't only citing Ehrman, I found this "...(3)All three Pastorals are pseudonymous, but II Tim was written not long after Paul's death as a farewell testament by someone who knew Paul's last days, so that the biographical details therein would be largerly historical, even if dramatized with some license. Titus and I Tim were written pseudonymously later, most likely towards the end of the 1st century, partly in imitation of II Tim. A "second career" was created. (4)All three Pastorals are pseudonymous, written in the order Titus, I-II Tim most likely towards the end of the 1st century. A "second career" was shapred (probably fictionally) for Paul with a second Roman imprisonment, so that he might speak final words about issues now troubling areas once evengelized by the apostle.... Although the majority of scholars favors a variant of (4), in my judgement (3) best meets some of the problems listed in Chapter 30 above in discussing the authorship of Titus and I Tim, and the implications of pseudeprigraphy." Brown, Raymond E. Introduction to the New Testament. Anchor Bible; 1ST edition (October 13, 1997) ISBN: 0385247672 p.675.

As for how we should present dissent among scholars, I feel that we should represent the majority view, and then have one sentence regarding minority views (instead of having a rebuttle to each statement). Just a thought. --Andrew c 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact tagged sentences removed

For history's sake, I have moved sentences that have been tagged for over a month to talk:

  • It has even been theorized that Onesimus, the slave referred to in Philemon, delivered both letters, and that Philemon was part of the Colossian church.
  • Attempts to resolve this issue whilst accounting for its undisputed Pauline theology produced the argument that the difference was due to Paul having been assisted, for example by Luke or Clement of Rome.

And we still need a citation of the one tradition cited in antiquity for the so-called 'second career' of Paul.--Andrew c 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If Brown just says there was 'one tradition cited in antiquity' without naming the source, it sounds like you would need to contact Brown directly to obtain that citation. (No, I haven't checked Brown's book or gone over his bibliography to look for it.) Wesley 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick look through Brown, and the only relevant statement I could find was a footnote on page 672: "The first clear reference to a second imprisonment in Rome occurs early in the 4th century in Eusebius, EH 2.22.2." I didn't see anything relevant to anything being cited in antiquity on page 675. -- Cat Whisperer 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look through Brown myself and found:
Most scholars who accept Paul as the writer of Titus or at least the accuracy of the details given in Titus posit a "second career" for the apostle in the mid-60s dfuring which he was released frollowing this two-year captivity in Rome narrated in Acts 28:30 (AD 61-63) and went back east, namely to Crete, Ephesus, and Nicopolis. II Tim is brought into this theory to posit a terminus of Paul's second career in another ROman captivity and execution there in 65-67. (Sometimes the affirmation that Paul wore chains seven times (1 Clement 5:6) is invoked as evidence for this: yet Quinn contends that it stems simply from a count of the seven available NT works that emtniosn imprisonment...) 641
Paul's life situation pictured in Titus and 1 Tim, as we saw, could not be fitted into his "original career" known from Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters. Consequently in each case scholars posit a "second career" (actual or fictional) for Paul after his being released from the Roman captivity of 61-63. 672
I guess I missed the footnote one 672. I removed the sentence from the article because Brown made it sound like the second career was a creation of modern scholars. Feel free to change the article.-Andrew c 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is Eusebius:
Festus was sent by Nero to be Felix's successor. Under him Paul, having made his defense, was sent bound to Rome Aristarchus was with him, whom he also somewhere in his epistles quite naturally calls his fellow-prisoner. And Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, brought his history to a close at this point, after stating that Paul spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large, and preached the word of God without restraint. Thus after he had made his defense it is said that the apostle was sent again upon the ministry of preaching, and that upon coming to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom. In this imprisonment he wrote his second epistle to Timothy, in which he mentions his first defense and his impending death.
Footnote 242 is also on topic.-Andrew c 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the tradition is derived from 1 Clement:
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
Even so, Clement doesn't say explicitly that Paul had a second career. Some scholars argue that Clement, writing from Rome, means "Spain" when he says "the West". The idea of a second career, then, is a modern interpretation of an ancient tradition.
But I could be wrong. Aardvark92 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hebrews in traditional Pauline corpus?

I've been following the recent (minor) edit dispute over whether Hebrews is in the traditional Pauline Corpus. Based on my small library, I think it is:

  • Word Biblical Commentary on Hebrews (William Lane, 1991) page cliv (yes, introduction pages used Roman numerals), says Jerome ("with caution") and Augustine regarded it as Pauline. Then Lane says "Those who assembled at Carthage in A.D. 419 describe the Pauline letter collection as consisting of fourteen letters, a shift in opinion reflective of the influence of Jerome and Augustine".
  • New Bible Dictionary (Second Edition, IVP, 1982) says that Pauline authorship was not seriously challenged after that until the Reformation. It also virtually says that its canonicity depended on its supposed Pauline authorship.
  • Arthur Patzia, "The Making of the New Testament", p.97-98, says, "It is only from the second half of the fourth century on... that the Western canon became equivalent to the Eastern, and Hebrews was recognized as the fourteenth Pauline letter"
  • The King James Bible calls it "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews".

Accordingly, I think the article should say that Hebrews is "traditionally" called Pauline. (Of course I'm not saying Paul is the author). Rocksong 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, since I was involved in this edit dispute I'd better explan the reason for my revision - while many have regarded Hebrews as written by Paul, it cannot be said to be "part of the Pauline corpus" - it is not "traditionally attributed to Paul" in the way that the other letters in this article are. And the NBD article notwithstanding, I don't know if we ever get consensus. But what does the phrase "Pauline epistles" actually mean? Written by Paul? Thought by some to have been written by Paul? Explicitly attributed to Paul? I think we should prefer the third definition over the second. StAnselm 06:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
By "traditionally attributed to Paul" I mean throughout most of church history. Anyway, the real answer is to rewrite parts of the article to explain all this. (I actually don't mind StAnselm's edits, but I think we just need to go a bit further). I think it's fair to say that when a modern author refers to a "Pauline epistle" they usually (probably almost always) don't include Hebrews, but the article should also talk about Hebrews, including the "traditional" (pre-Reformation) view of ascribing it to Paul. Rocksong 06:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Criteria

I am sure that the piece of the criteria for admission of an article into the corpus of an author could be applied in many places, but precisely for that reason it is not appropriate here. This kind of didactic article may deserve a separate place in WP but is is excessive in the context. (As for Hebrews, it is confusing to include it under St. Paul. Scarcely anyone can be found who will justify its inclusion, which is understandable given the difference in outlook,concepts and worldview. The only justification for keeping it is that someone might undertake the exercise of relating it chronologically and theologically to St. Paul's work as being from the same mind. As soon as one contemplates the task one realises that it is unhelpful even to suggest that the AV attribution should usefully be perpetuated.) Roger Arguile 11:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with modern encyclicals

Hi ADM, i notice you recently created the page on the authorship of the Petrine epistles. What has led up to this? paulgear (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the article myself actually, I just assembled some relevant information that was found in two separate entries, first Epistle of Peter, and second Epistle of Peter. Regarding petrine authorship, while I think it is quite likely that someone like Silvanus wrote the first (and/or second) epistle on behalf of Peter, I don't believe that this removes the fact that the epistles are petrine in character.
I'll explain a bit : most modern encyclicals on behalf of the Pope are written by ghostwriters like Silvanus. Caritas in Veritate, Mystici Corporis Christi and Pascendi Dominici Gregis are signed by the Pope, but most of these texts were actually written by his curial assistants and theologians. But that's just how the Church writes its own documents. The same phenomenon would most likely occur for the pauline epistles, by the way.
ADM (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, i agree with you on the amanuensis issue. It is interesting that J. A. T. Robinson is almost indistinguishable from John Calvin and most modern Evangelicals on this issue. paulgear (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What, no mention of Tertius in this article, for shame wikipedia.

Romans 16:22

75.14.222.244 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Marcion?

"When Marcion (the 2nd century founder of Marcionism, similar to gnosticism) listed the epistles by Paul, he did not mention the pastorals (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). The author of Ephesians itself draws on most of Paul's epistles in its style but seems to lack any reliance on 2 Thessalonians or the pastorals. For this reason, authorship of many of the epistles traditionally attributed to Paul have been in doubt for many centuries by critical scholars."

Wow. Marcion was opposed by many people. That doesn't even cop a mention. I'm marking this as totally disputed. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he was opposed. But, he was the first person ever to list any New Testament canon. (Which is the significance of his list - i.e. the sentence is basically "When the first list of Canon was drawn up, it did not include the pastorals amongst it"). It was because of Marcion's list's existance that the others decided it necessary to draw up a canon. Marcion's list was first. B.t.w. His list only included the Pauline epistles, and the Gospel of Luke. CheeseDreams 18:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will rewrite that bit so that that is clear CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll tell you what. Why don't we just move this to "The totally false and misleading Pauline Epistles", cause that's the way the article reads. At least this would be honest. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Chill out, man. If Marcion was the first to list them, this is a fact. No problem with facts, surely? It's not at all disputed if it's true. Now if some other guy listed them ten years later and included them all, you put him in and Bob's your uncle. The "disputed" tag is for disputes now, not disputes then! Dr Zen 02:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, actually he didn't. The next person missed out some others, but included certain epistles, and Shepherd of Hermas. Later ones also added 1 Clement and Epistle of Barnabas, still later ones added 3 Corinthians. Shepherd of Hermas, and Barnabas, were held to be canon by the majority for absolutely ages (and discounted Revelations). It was only really sorted out into the exact set we have now at some time in the late 3rd/ early 4th century. I think the first time the actual canon used now was listed was at the Synod of Laodicea (or somewhere with a similar sounding name) at about this time. But since this is about the fact that it is suspicious that they weren't listed at the start of the 2nd century, or in fact even mentioned at all until the end of the second century (by Irenaeus, who is the first to mention the pastorals ever), I don't see how that is relevant. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 27 books we have in the New Testament were first listed as a group by Athanasius in one of his pastoral letters in the mid fourth century. They were then agreed on in a series of synods, and yes I think the Syond of Laodicea was one of those, in the last half of the fourth century. I think it's fine to mention Marcion's canon, but it's also well worth noting that no one else paid much attention to it (besides the Marcionsites) and his list was controversial even then, and not just because of the pauline epistles. I'll do some checking into when the pastorals were first mentioned; do you happen to have a reference saying Irenaeus was the first, just to save me some time? Thanks, Wesley 17:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm considering to elaborate more on the the idea from Radical Criticism that there is insufficient external proof to seriously maintain that the legendary Paul was in fact the author of any of the letters that Marcion was the first to use in his canon. If you strip the teachings in the letters of their later edits, what you are left with are the teachings of bishop Marcion. It seems plausible that Marcion, since he also edited the Lucan gospel in a way to support his theology, would have created these letters himself to give apostolic authority to his own teachings. The central letters could have then been written by Marcion himself and the letters betraying another style by others of the Marcion School.--Brithnoth (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Authorship and Authority section is POV

This section needs to be rewritten so that it does not adopt a particular religious viewpoint, instead ascribing that viewpoint to the sources. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add agreement To Grover cleveland's comments above. Although, it is not clear to me that the section can be rewritten into something that is appropriate. If this was an article that I was significantly involved with I would delete it. Davefoc (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. I couldn't see how to fix this, but it is simply not acceptable in its current form. Hence I've copied it here. The argument seems reasonable (ie. Christians do not require authorship for authority) but "reasonable" and "reliable" are not the same thing, so it needs to be sourced and NPOV'd. Manning (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to adjust the first section to make it clear from the start that none of the Pauline letters can be firmly proven to go back to an apostle named Paul. Even when most christian scholars agree so, this does not mean that it has to be taken for granted as fact in an NPOV article. There is a whole school of theologians who assign these letters in their original form to the school of the excommunicated bishop Marcion who was the first to ever use the letters as scripture in his churches. Within the body of letters only a few may have been written by the most outspoken author but even he is by no means clearly connected to an apostolic legendary figure from the first century. In fact the clearly apologetic and Marcionite nature of the letters rather points to a second century origin. So I want to balance the text to take out the bias towards the accepted viewpoint which lacks a solid base. --Brithnoth (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Authorship and Authority (excised section)

It should be borne in mind that authorship and authority are not necessarily linked when it comes to assessing the value of the Bible for Christian faith. An assertion that the Epistle to the Ephesians, for example, probably did not originate with Paul himself, does not render that document worthless or spurious. If that were so, then we should have to dispense with nearly all of the biblical writings, since few of the books identify their authorship. For example, even though all the prophetic books record the words of the particular named prophet, the only prophetic book to identify its author is Ezekiel. Attaching the name of a revered authority from the past to a sacred and traditional document was a well-recognised and authentic practice signfying the community's endorsement. Indeed, it was the usual practice, and certainly does not imply dishonesty or fraud {ref>Chapter on pseudonymity in McDonald & Sanders, editors. The Canon Debate. 2002.(/ref> (ref links deliberately broken - Manning (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

2 Thessalonians

This sentence seems like original research. Unless someone can provide a citation (which may be easy to do), it needs to be deleted. I'll move forward with this in a week (12/17/11 or so) unless someone has an objection.

Elsteve9 (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This also looks rather non-encyclopedic: "The reasoning is spurious in that it assumes what it tries to prove." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.54.203 (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Pseudepigraphical works

Note this introductory text;

Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four - 2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the "Pastoral Epistles" - have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.

does not align with either Pauline epistles or the referenced source;

The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament by David E. Aune ISBN 1405108258 page 9 "While seven of the letters attributed to Paul are almost universally accepted as authentic (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), four are just as widely judged to be pseudepigraphical, i.e. written by unknown authors under Paul's name: Ephesians and the Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus).

Perhaps(?) it should read;

Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four - Ephesians, as well as the three known as the "Pastoral Epistles" - have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Authorship of the Pauline epistles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please Clean up the sources

Many of the citations are merely the last name of an author and a page number, this is utterly mystifying to me. I don't know who Easton is, and if I did I assume he's written more than one book.

Also seriously what book does 'Easton' refer to? I'm trying to get the context and reasoning of that particular passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.160.118.46 (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Authorship of the Pauline epistles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Deutero-Pauline is a term used in the article but not defined

Not only is the term deutero-Pauline used in this article without any definition or clarifying discussion, but other WP articles point to this one when the term is used elsewhere in WP. There is even a "Deutero-Pauline" WP redirect to this article. Can someone knowledgeable add a brief explanation of this term, or else remove it and substitute a non-technical phrase in its place? Ross Fraser (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Some agree on all letters

The article states as fact that some of the letters are not written by Paul. However, many accept the genuine authorship of all these letters. Therefore, the only correct statement is that they are disputed. 95.229.8.162 (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles/Archive_1&oldid=1241672020"