Loading...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 a bit more feisty back then…
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I still find it strange that Jesus would choose 12 men and teach and train them, only to appoint some other guy who never met or heard Jesus in person to reach the rest of the world. And he, not the Twelve, becomes the most influential theologian in history. And I hate to put these two in the same sentence, but Paul and Trump seem to share one thing in common: they both like to throw around the name of Jesus without demonstrating any real knowledge of his life and teachings! How strange religion is.
Agree. But not only your excellent point, why would theological and doctrinal topics not have been more clear during the early first and second century. As Bart has written in Lost Christianities, people who called themselves Christians and believed fully, the nature of God, Jesus, redemption, etc. was quite diverse. My conclusion is that even though stories about Jesus existed, they were not restrained by any consistency of what he must have actually said and did. People INVENTED sayings, deeds and miracles.
One of my contentions with Bart, and it is a semantic contention, is that rather than say “Jesus said…” We should state “According to the authors of (pick a gospel) Jesus is supposed to have said…” My rationale is exactly what Bart argues against scholars who wrote claiming to be Paul…We simply don’t have the evidence.
I agree that it is strange and I think it is unlikely that Jesus had 12 men. He had an inner circle of three which I think were two brothers and a friend. James, John and Peter remained faithful to Jesus’ mission. How did James the son of Zebedee become James the brother of Jesus? John the son of Zebedee was Jose the brother of Jesus. The gospel writers were purposely writing out Jesus’ brothers.
My thought is:
James and John are the sons of Zebedee.
James and Jose are the sons of Joseph.
In an attempt to write out Jesus’ brothers, the gospels make James and Jose/John the sons of Zebedee.
But Zebedee is actually Joseph who is Jesus, James and Jose/John’s father.
So of Jesus’ inner three, James, Peter and John…James and John/Jose are his brothers.
Paul enters the scene with such a connection tp Gentiles that he wants to promote the new Jesus Movement to them. But he must alter the requirements in order to convenience any Gentile to join. That necessitates fabricating visions of the Christ giving Paul his own gospel to spread to the Gentiles.
Interesting thoughts. Have you read James Tabor’s ideas about Jesus’s family and the interconnections? His YouTube videos are thought-provoking.
“The gospel writers were purposely writing out Jesus’ brothers.”
Indeed, early Christians were much like members of modern cults.
Those who joined this brand-new movement often faced problems with their pagan families.
That helps explain harsh passages like Matthew 10:34–37 .
1 Corinthians 9:5 clearly shows that James was not the only brother of Jesus to join the movement.
However, Mark 6:1–5 portrays Jesus as being rejected by his own family.
I think the entire Gospel of Mark uses Jesus as a model for Christians,
suggesting that Mark 6:1–5 is not historical, but rather a way of showing that even Jesus
experienced the same rejection faced by new converts.
Regarding the “inner circle of three,” I believe Mark borrowed the idea from Paul’s reference to the “pillars” (Galatians 2:9): Peter, James, and John.
Mark transforms this into an inner circle of three disciples—Peter, James, and John—replacing James
“the brother of the Lord” with a fictional character of the same name.
It’s interesting how Luke deals with the fact that there were two men named James.
In Acts 12:2, he has James the son of Zebedee killed. Then in Acts 12:17, another James suddenly appears out of nowhere,but not a single word is offered to explain who this new James is!
Dr Ehrman & specifically you have increased my precise inquiries:
that’s why Christianity in USA is far from Christianity in Israel. Which is very different from what Jesus or what the 12 disciples taught after the Ascension.
You are very learned. This morning I put in 2 questions into GPT 4.1 & Chatgpt:
How does largely Christianity in the “USA” practiced (not evangelicals) differ from that in Israel 2025?
modern day USA christianity is far from its roman roots & is primarily to hold White non minority people in power
—
& then I continued in ChatGPT: any usa church that takes USA tax deductions & legal protections is a proper USA church despite what it claims otherwise?
you are incorrect ” define its spiritual or doctrinal legitimacy, which is a separate matter.” as they partake ultimately in the same manna!
Thank you Dr Ehrman. Is it possible that the deutero-Pauline letters (or some of them) contain a few sentences of genuine Pauline material, perhaps from letters that have not survived, but in the main consist of later forged writings? My thinking is that the genuine stuff could be used to help make the letters seem genuine even though it may not add much to the point which the letter is attempting to address.
That has been most frequently argued for 2 Timothy, that it contains fragments of Paul that have been incorporated into the letter. With the others, it’s a bit hard to demonstrate because the writing style and substance is pretty consistent throughout.
Reading F&CF convinced me that Ephesians is a forgery. But my perception is that even among critical scholars Ephesians is the letter you will get the most pushback about. I’ve been wondering why that might be. Its reception history in the church? Its importance in Reformation thought? Too influential to let go, maybe?
I think of the Deutero-canonicals there is more debate about 2 Thessalonians than the others; and then Colossians. All of them were undisputed from the fourth century or so until the Englightenment.
Bart writes: “After a diligent search, he locates some eighteen instances of co-authored letters from various ancient sources, mainly the papyri.”
We have many examples of modern co-authored works. Is it really necessary to have ancient ones?
Yup, it absolutely is, as with all things ancient. If someone wrote an ancient “novel,” knowing how modern novels work wouldn’t map well onto the genre. We don’t know what co-authorship even meant in the ancient world and can’t at all assume it meant what it means today. Even today it means different things.
For what it’s worth, my first academic article on the NT was co-authored, and I’ve co-authored five or six books (depending on how you count). I’d be willing to bet that no one could tell the differences with my single-authored writings based on style. disabledupes{62a2cc3a2fee4296569f0c2b9df1cff3}disabledupes
Bart writes: “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.””
Just a thought, and this is totally conjecture, but could 1 Corinthians have been written by someone named Sosthenes, who wanted to claim Pauline authority but also wanted his real name on the letter? No way of knowing, of course.
It’s certainly worth considering. But when you actually read the book, it’s clear in numerous passages that Paul himself is addressing his own converts.
Does any scholar of the NT consider Ephesians as being the summarized version of all the Epistles?
In that manner, Ephesians was originally written to any church as being Paul’s summarized magnum opus .
Yes. That view was once widely held. In fact, on widely held view back in my grad school days was that Ephesians was written by a forger who gathered together the other Pauline letters, precisely to serve as an introduction to the Pauline canon. Other scholars have considered it as authentic and the “most” Pauline letter as one that ties together all of them. When I taught Paul at the beginning of my career at Rutgers I used a book that made maintained that by the great British scholar F. F. Bruce (called Apostle of the Heart Set Free). I used the book both so students could see his point of view AND so they could then see why most scholars (even then in teh mid 80s) thought his view was completely wrong.