In this post I give an executive summary (“At a Glance”) of the Deutero-Pauline letters (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians) and then provide some questions for deeper reflection on these books that claim to be written by Paul but are widely considered by critical scholars to be penned by later followers claiming to be him.   AT A GLANCE: The Deutero-Pauline Epistles The Deutero-Pauline epistles are 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians. Critical scholars debate whether or not Paul wrote these books. 2 Thessalonians sounds like 1 Thessalonians in some ways, but its understanding of eschatology—particularly when the end will come (not right away, according to this book)—does not sound Pauline. Colossians responds to a group of false teachers who promote a kind of Jewish mysticism; its writing style and theology seem quite different from Paul’s—especially with respect to its understanding of the resurrection of believers (which it takes to be a past event). Ephesians is a circular letter dealing with the relationship of Jew and Gentile in the church. Again, the vocabulary, [...]

I now conclude this short thread and who wrote the Pastoral epistles, when, and why by picking up on my previous argument: that aspects of these letters reveal a church situation after Paul’s day when proto-orthodox Christians were appealing to the authorities of the clergy, the creed, and the canon of Scripture to support their views, in contrast to those of “false teachers. The Creed Proto-orthodox Christians of the second and third centuries felt a need to develop a set of doctrines that were to be subscribed to by all true believers. As was the case with the proto-orthodox clergy, the proto-orthodox creed was acclaimed as a creation of the apostles themselves: hence the name of the most famous of these statements of faith, devised in the fourth century and known today as the Apostles’ Creed. The proto-orthodox creeds affirmed beliefs that were denied by other groups who claimed to be Christian, and they repudiated beliefs that these other groups affirmed. For example, Gnostic Christians claimed that there were many gods, not just one; and [...]

In my previous post I showed why the vocabulary of the Pastoral epistles and the kinds of problems they address suggest that they were written after Paul’s time, by a follower who was using his name.  As I indicated there, of particular importance for establishing they do not come directly from Paul is the way in which “false teachings” are attacked in the Pastorals, for the author’s basic orientation appears to be very much like what we find developing in second-century proto-orthodox circles. In some ways, to understand this different orientation we have to think about how it is that one kind of Christianity came to be dominant within the rising religion.  Christianity of the second and third centuries (long after Paul) was widely diversified, with all sorts of teachers teaching all sorts of things (with numerous questions unresolved:  how many gods are there? Was Christ human? Divine? Both somehow?  How?  What books are Scriptural authority?  How should the church be organized? Etc. etc.).  But out of that wild diversity one Christian movement of the [...]

In my previous post I explained the major theses and emphases of 2 Thessalonians, and pointed out that in many ways it is very similar in its concerns and themes to 1 Thesssalonians.  But I also said that it is commonly considered by scholars to be "Deutero-Pauline," that is, written by a later author only *claiming* to be Paul.  How can we know?  As I said there, the problem from a historian’s point of view is that someone who had decided to imitate Paul would no doubt try to sound like Paul. If both Paul and an imitator of Paul could sound like Paul, how could we possibly know whether we are dealing with the apostle himself or one of his later followers? Here's how I deal with the matter in my textbook on the New Testament (Oxford University Press, ch. 23). ****************************** There is, in fact, a way to resolve this kind of historical whodunit, and it involves looking at the other side of the coin, that is, at the parts of 2 Thessalonians [...]

A few days ago I published a post trying to show why many critical scholars do not think Paul wrote the letter to the Colossians even though its author claims to be Paul.  It's pretty easy to put the matter in simple, easy-to-understand terms for non-experts: all you have to say is that the writing style, theology, and presupposed historical circumstances don't match up with what we know about Paul otherwise.  But, well, that's really not very convincing.  It's just informative. So I provided a few of the details connected with writing style and theology, but tried to do it still in fairly simple terms.  As I've done sometimes before, I thought it might be useful to (some of?) you to see how I would argue that for scholars without having to mince words, just so you can see how it might be done.  To do it fully would take many pages, but here is the discussion I devote to the matter in my academic book Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deception in [...]

Now that I have summarized the major themes and emphases of Colossians, I can talk about who wrote it, when, and why.   The book, as we have seen, claims to be written by Paul.  But there are good reasons for doubting it. In a number of ways, this letter does look very much like those that Paul himself wrote. The prescript written in the names of both Paul and Timothy, the basic layout of the letter, and the closing all sound like Paul; and a number of important Pauline themes are sounded throughout: the importance of suffering in this world, Jesus’ death as a reconciliation, and the participation of believers in Jesus’ death through baptism.  On these grounds, one might think that Paul may well have written this letter. There are, however, solid reasons for questioning Paul’s authorship of this letter. One of the most compelling arguments depends on a detailed knowledge of Greek, for the writing style of Colossians differs markedly from that found in Paul’s undisputed letters. Whereas Paul tends [...]

Here is an annotated list of books on Ephesians, most of them relevant to all the Deutero-Pauline epistles (that is, the letters that are assigned a “secondary” standing in the New Testament collection of Paul’s letters because scholars doubt they were actually composed by Paul himself) with a couple of commentaries specifically on Ephesians.  One benefit of serious commentaries is that they always begin by discussing major critical issues in understanding a book: authorship, date, historical context, major themes, disputed issues, and so on. ****************************** Beker, J. Christiaan. The Heirs of Paul: Paul’s Legacy in the New Testament and in the Church Today. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1991. A clear assessment of the theology of the Deutero-Pauline, especially in light of the views embodied in the undisputed Paulines. Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Biblical Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. San Francisco: Harper One, 2010. An account of the phenomenon of literary forgery (pseudepigraphy) throughout the early Christian tradition that asks how and why a [...]

When I have talked about the “disputed” Pauline letters, the ones that scholars have argued were not written by Paul (even though the author claims to be Paul), I have pointed out that one reason for thinking so is that the writing style of, say Ephesians, is significantly different from what you find in Paul’s “undisputed” letters, such as Romans and 1 Corinthians. Some readers have asked whether this argument is compromised by the fact that so many of Paul’s letters claim to be “co-authored.”  Colossians, for example, claims to be from Paul “and Timothy” but 1 Corinthians from Paul “and Sosthenes.”  If they were jointly authored, wouldn’t we expect differences in writing style?  So how convincing is this argument? Good question.  I deal with it in my book Forgery and Counterforgery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013) pp. 212-13.  The book is written for scholars, but this particular discussion is not particularly difficult.  Here is what I say about the issue there.  You’ll notice that I adopt a rather polemical tone!  Ah, I was [...]

Now that I have summarized the major themes and emphases of Ephesians (in the previous post), I can move to the issues of who wrote it, when, and why. The “Who” is the big question in this case, with the “when” and “why” depending on our answer. As I indicated in the earlier post, broadly speaking Ephesians sounds like something that Paul could have written, since it addresses a number of themes known from Paul’s seven undisputed letters:  salvation coming by the death and resurrection of Jesus, the unity of Jew and gentile in the church, the need for strong ethical standards and behavior, etc.  There would, of course, be differences with a letter of this sort, since unlike Paul’s other letters that are addressed to specific situations of specific churches, and this appears to be  a circular letter in which the author addresses no specific problem, such as moral improprieties or false teachings, and therefore offers no specific resolutions. But even taking into account the different kind of letter it is, is it likely [...]