For those of my readers not familiar with apologetics, I will explain the situation regarding supposed Pseudo-Pauline authorship. In the NT, we have 13 epistles with St. Paul’s name on them. I’m going to be dividing them into three categories.
The first category is the undisputed epistles. These are Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon, and Philippians. Most liberal scholars will accept this as the only books written by St. Paul. There are fringe scholars that think that the authentic Pauline canon is much smaller but they’re so fringe that they really don’t pose a problem at this point. Bart Ehrman wouldn’t even consider their opinion so I don’t think they’re a threat.
The second category is the first disputed group. It contains the 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. If we had to rank these in order of probability of from the most to the least, the highest one would be 2 Thessalonians, followed by Colossians, then Ephesians.
The third category is the second disputed group, also known as the pastoral epistles. This includes 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. This group has a lower probability than the second category according to the liberals.
So those are the three categories. It’s important to know that in the 6 disputed epistles that some are higher than others and I’ve tried to point that out.
Why do Catholics accept the authorship of all 13 epistles? There are many reasons but the two most important are that they contain St. Paul’s name on them and that the Church has said that they’re Pauline.
In Session 4 of the Council of Trent, we get the canon of the entire Bible.
Here is what the section on the NT says:
Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.
It’s important to realize that this statement is infallible and was preceded by other councils of such as Florence, Carthage, Hippo, and Rome. All of these councils had dozens and even hundreds of bishops. Many of them read them in the original Greek such as the Greek bishops in attendance at the Council of Florence. None of them disputed Pauline authenticity and they were just as knowledgeable in Greek as Bart Ehrman and other modern liberals.
The first argument against the six disputed writings is history. There is actually quite a good historical argument to this and it’s way more sophisticated than most of us think. I will be looking at this in my next post.
I think there is a difference between “liberal” and “skeptic” scholars. The former identify themselves as Christians, but at the same time they have no problem considering the Bible as a fallible human book, while the latter are either atheists or agnostics. Examples for liberal scholars are Richard Burridge (who calls the doctrine of biblical inerrancy “that American nonsense”) and James D.G.Dunn, for a critical- Bart Ehrman, Richard Pervo, Elaine Pagels, David Trobisch, etc. As for the arguments against Pauline authorship of the six disputed epistles, I consider the first two categories- stylistic differences and references to a more developed church structure, allegedly non-existent in the 1st century AD- to be very weak. Ehrman himself admits in “Forged” that different vocabulary does not necessarily denote different author. We must also keep in mind that St. Paul was writing under Divine inspiration, which may manifest itself in different forms, including different writing style. Supposed differences in church structure and hierarchy in 1-2 Corinthians as compared to the Pastorals can be easily resolved- the Pastorals were written 6-7 years later, when St. Paul was already aware of the messy state of the Corinthian church, so he may have decided in the meantime to reorganize the functioning of his churches, so they could be kept in line more easily. There is nothing far-fetched here. The third category- alleged theological discrepancies- is the most serious one. I think the key here is one’s understanding of the New Testament as an anthology that exhibits (not) internal consistency. Christians with high view of Scripture simply apply rules like “Scripture interprets Scripture” or “Scripture and Tradition are inseparable” in order to resolve supposed contradictions/discrepancies within the NT corpus. All others adhere to “The Bible is a human book like any other, therefore it certainly does contain falsehood”. It’s all a matter of personal conviction.
May God help us all.
“We must also keep in mind that St. Paul was writing under Divine inspiration, which may manifest itself in different forms, including different writing style.”
Well I tend to think that Paul probably used different secretaries.
The books that comprise the Bible are the works of Man, albeit we consider that they are Divinely inspired. Being a history enthusiast I treat them like any other book, and I consider what kind of writing they are (songs, prayers, re-telling of myths, prophecies, law books and histories etc.). Having said that though what particularly impresses me – and is a source of delight the more I study – is how reliable the testimony of the gospels appears to be, and I have the work of American Protestants to thank for that.
This blog is very good too, and I very much enjoy reading articles such as this.
Hello from Lviv,
Glad you like the article.
God bless,
Allan