So I heard one of Bart Lectures on the letter of Paul. He mentioned how scholars believe some of the letters traditionally ascribed to Paul were probably forged in his name. One of the ways Bart said scholars come to this conclusion is by writing style analysis. Some letters differ in writing style from those we are confident Paul wrote. But how would this be an adequate criterion if we do not have the original writings of Paul? These letters were copied many times over throughout the ages. Wouldn’t that affect the style of writing? Moreover, Paul’s letters were supposedly dictated by a scribe, so what if he used more than one scribe? Wouldn’t that explain why a letter would differ in writing style?
I’m an agnostic, so I do not care if the Bible has forged writings. I am just confused about this and would appreciate it if someone could help me out here.
I’ve read Forgery and Counterforgery and it’s an amazing resource. Ehrman guides you down in the weeds without ever getting lost in them. (Convinced me finally that Ephesians and Colossians are non-Pauline.) If you are truly interested in a deep dive I would definitely recommend it over the popular version.
Christian, at a very basic level, on stylistic grounds alone we can say that 1Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, 1&2Corinthinians, Philemon, and Philippians were written by the same person. A person who claims to be the apostle Paul and has singular theological views. These letters share a cultural situation that would reflect what we can know (not much) about the situation among believers a couple decades after Jesus’ death.
Both Ephesians and Colossians claim to be written by Paul but not only are they stylistically different, they have ideas that contradict some of the views in the seven “authentic” letters. Now you can claim, as fundamentalists do, that they are Pauline but you would not only have to account for the stylistic issues you also have to claim that Paul changed his mind on some core ideas. Possible but how likely? As I said Ehrman convinced me that they are not Pauline.
The so-called “Pastoral Epistles”, 1&2Timothy and Titus, claim to have been written by Paul but I don’t know of anyone outside hardcore fundamentalists who think so. Not only stylistically but because they reflect cultural situations that would have been completely anachronistic in Paul’s time.
The sad part is that in the long history of Pauline interpretation the forged letters have been more influential in church theory and practice in many ways than the “authentic” letters. For example when people talk about Paul’s “misogyny” they are mostly drawing from the forgeries. Paul was no feminist certainly but for his day he was remarkably egalitarian.
Seriously, read Ehrman’s book.
Stephen said
Christian, at a very basic level, on stylistic grounds alone we can say that 1Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, 1&2Corinthinians, Philemon, and Philippians were written by the same person. A person who claims to be the apostle Paul and has singular theological views. These letters share a cultural situation that would reflect what we can know (not much) about the situation among believers a couple decades after Jesus’ death.
Stephen’s quote is a complete base for Paul’s letters early dating. That is all. Nothing more.
I think it will be good to read Bart’s book mentioned above and after that Detering’s “Fabricated Paul”. After that, I am on Detering’s side.
Stephen said
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
Exactly. Words are just words. Nothing less but nothing more. This is a better starting point then inerrant word of god.
“The most important reason why ancient writers provided their productions with false authorial attributions was probably that in this way they could invest them with greater authority. In a very conservative society, like that in antiquity, which had especially high esteem for traditions and values from ancient times, a writing stemming from ancient times and moreover one that had been written by a legendary, mythically-elevated figure, would naturally have great importance. With regard to Christian literature, the previously mentioned perspective of apostolicity played a great role. It was, above all, the Catholic church that quickly recognized that it was important to possess a solid and reliable foundation in its struggle against other churches (e.g., the Gnostics, Marcionites, and Ebionites). To justify themselves and in order to controvert the legitimacy of the other churches, they developed not only the principle of right belief (confession) and the apostolic succession of bishops, but for this purpose also created their canon of writings, in which only writings that were apostolic (or at least made this claim) found entry. Because the Catholic church could now claim to be the rightful heir of Jesus and the apostles, it was able to drive its opponents from the field, who, even though they made the same claim, were less successful. These then became ”heretics.” The Catholic church, on the other hand, being the most powerful ”sect,” held the upper hand and henceforth defined what Christian ”orthodoxy” had to mean for all the faithful. If one recognizes that the idea that something must be truly apostolic in order to be divinely inspired and canonically legitimate is historically conditioned and arose from a struggle for power in the church, it is much easier to comprehend the concept and phenomenon of literary forgery in early Christianity. Historical understanding makes it possible for us to evaluate a writing independent of its apostolicity or non-apostolicity. We recognize that the value of a New Testament writing’s contents does not depend on whether it is authentic or not. A forgery could contain more ”original” ideas than a supposed original. The person who has learned to pay attention to content and who regards content, not authorship, as the final and decisive authority to which one feels obligated will be less disturbed by the problem of forgery. Nevertheless, I am naturally aware that it is not easy for many Christians to live with the fact that we find ”forged” writings in the New Testament canon. One is taken aback and asks, How is it possible that a religion with a high moral claim like Christianity can be based on writings that do not derive from those persons in whose name they were written?According to their individual temperament, origin, and religious background, each person/Christian reacts very differently to the knowledge that most writings in the New Testament are falsifications. Basically, two different reactions are possible. The first could be called churchly-apologetic. Its representatives are all too inclined to play down or make light of the matter of forgery. One should ”not really” speak of forgery, since the intention of the pseudepigraphical author (e.g., in the case of the Pastoral Epistles) was ”to allow the voice of the apostle be heard even after his death, to insure his continuing ‘presence’ (cf. Col 2:5 with 1 Cor 5:3)” — so the theologian Andreas Lindemann, with regard to the author of the so-called deutero-Pauline writings.[21] Moreover, the concept of ”authenticity” is said to be vague. Since for the Catholic New Testament scholar Norbert Brox ”the ‘authenticity’ of a writing is shown by its Christian content, not by historical traces of the actual author,”[22] even an ”inauthentic” writing—depending on the amount of Christian content—can prove to be authentic. Against such attempts to soften or obscure the fact of literary forgery, it continues to be important to always call things by their right names. Thus, Ranke-Heinemann states: ”It should not be denied that… forgeries were a wide-spread practice in the early church. This does not make them legitimate. It is and remains religious counterfeiting.”[23]
(from “The Fabricated Paul. Early Christianity In The Twilight.” by Hermann Detering, Darrell Doughty)
”Paul, slave of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God…” ”Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God…” ”Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God…” ”Paul, a prisoner for the sake of Christ Jesus…” – Does someone write here about himself or about someone else? Do we have to do here with a statement about one’s self or with a statement about the (revered) apostle (of a legendary past)? – Consider this: The greetings employed by Greeks and Romans were very unpretentious. Even the great Cicero could simply write: ”Cicero greets Atticus” (Cicero Attico salutum dicit)[79]. – Gal 1:1: ”Paul… to the churches in Galatia.” 1 Cor 1:1: ”Paul, to the church of God which is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. The poor letter carrier! – Gal 1:11: ”I want you to know, brethren, that the gospel preached by me was not of men.” Had Paul left the Galatians ignorant of this central point of his teaching until now? – Gal 2:6: ”And from those who were reputed to be something—what they once were (san) makes no difference to me.” Why were? ”Are” the apostles then no longer present when the author of Galatians writes his letter? Have they already died? Does the author of Galatians by this time look back on the apostolic age as closed? – In Galatians 6:11 Paul calls attention to the large letters of his handwriting: ”See with what large letters I am writings with my [own] hand.” Why? Obviously because he wants to provide his readers with an indication of the authenticity of the letter. Question: Why must the apostle already protect his letters from falsification? Were forged letters already in circulation in his lifetime? Hardly. – If already in his own lifetime Paul represented such an authority that is was worthwhile to produce false letters in his name, why then do we hear nothing about the great apostle and his letters for another 100 years? – The writer’s reference to his handwriting in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 —”I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write”—is regarded by most exegetes as a sign of the letters inauthenticity. Why is the corresponding reference in Galatians not so regarded?” (from “The Fabricated Paul. Early Christianity In The Twilight.” by Hermann Detering, Darrell Doughty)
Sometimes a book is just a book. Cheap and short experience offering you the choice between strengthening your current position or changing it
This is a better starting point then inerrant word of god.
I agree but it is still a simpler explanation that Paul is an authentic author writing at more or less face value than these labyrinthine conspiracies. I don’t take Detering seriously. Read Forgery and Counterforgery.
Simpler explanation with black hole for +50 years. Marcus Vinzent (Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011) convincingly, in my opinion, showed that the Pauline Letters and the idea of the resurrection he promoted were basically forgotten after the death of Paul himself. At the end of the 1st and at the beginning of the 2nd century practically no one referred to it. The doctrine was proved either by an argument from Scripture (exegesis of the OT, Barnaba) or by mythological examples such as: the phoenix as evidence of the resurrection (Clement). Or new revelation – Sheppard of Hermas.
Written, Forgotten, Born Again or Resurected by Marcion. Not so simple.
The problem with theoretical physics and biblical studies is that they cannot be confirmed and cannot be denied. It is impossible to throw off unnecessary luggage because everything has the same status – unverifiable theories. Bart’s book is about something other than Detering’s. I’ve read both.
Our first copy of Plato’s works dates from the 9th century. Do you suppose that Plato and his works are Medieval forgeries? This is the situation with most ancient literature. We have few if any originals.
It is impossible to throw off unnecessary luggage because everything has the same status – unverifiable theories.
Ok but the proper response to a question for which we have no answer is “I don’t know” not “insert favorite explanation”.
Consistency is key. Style often means grammar, word choice, and well “style”. The way an author writes. If you follow a blogger or journalist you may eventually catch onto how they write. Their method of citation or use of certain words or phrases. You also want consistent theological attitudes. Sudden changes in views or attitudes as opposed to gradual ones with no explanation can be a red flag. Other tips might be Paul(or another author) saying something they wouldn’t be able to know. Suppose there was a letter attributed to Paul referring to a Persian or Roman Emperor from 250 AD. Well, you would know it’s fake. You can check out this source for some basics on how scholars try to decipher this.
“The letter to the Colossians also espouses a theology that contradicts Paul’s teachings in other letters. In the Corinthian correspondence, Paul argues that Christians have died with Christ through baptism, but they have not yet been raised with him. Colossians, on the other hand, makes the opposite argument: believers have died with Christ and been raised with him. The author of Colossians teaches that an exalted status is already available to believers.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen said
Our first copy of Plato’s works dates from the 9th century. Do you suppose that Plato and his works are Medieval forgeries? This is the situation with most ancient literature. We have few if any originals.It is impossible to throw off unnecessary luggage because everything has the same status – unverifiable theories.
Ok but the proper response to a question for which we have no answer is “I don’t know” not “insert favorite explanation”.
Proper answer is not “insert” but “choose favorite explanation”. This is common practice. Pick a side. You have biblical consensus and radical critic. Free choice. You have inflation, the most popular cosmology and cycles of time Penrose’s supported by few guys. It is not a sin to pick a side.
Again
Stephen said
Christian, at a very basic level, on stylistic grounds alone we can say that 1Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, 1&2Corinthinians, Philemon, and Philippians were written by the same person. A person who claims to be the apostle Paul and has singular theological views. These letters share a cultural situation that would reflect what we can know (not much) about the situation among believers a couple decades after Jesus’ death.
I agree with this 100% as I said before. But Paul’s letters were lost for almost 80 years and rediscovered already in the corpus by Marcion. Content of the letters – theological treatises shaped in “invented tradition”(R. F. Walsh). The story of Paul’s churches is nice but detach from reality like Marcion’s story in Rome.
Detering’s position is not his invention – Pierson Loman discuss on Gal started in 1878.
LukaPNW said
Consistency is key. Style often means grammar, word choice, and well “style”. The way an author writes. If you follow a blogger or journalist you may eventually catch onto how they write. Their method of citation or use of certain words or phrases. You also want consistent theological attitudes. Sudden changes in views or attitudes as opposed to gradual ones with no explanation can be a red flag. Other tips might be Paul(or another author) saying something they wouldn’t be able to know. Suppose there was a letter attributed to Paul referring to a Persian or Roman Emperor from 250 AD. Well, you would know it’s fake. You can check out this source for some basics on how scholars try to decipher this.“The letter to the Colossians also espouses a theology that contradicts Paul’s teachings in other letters. In the Corinthian correspondence, Paul argues that Christians have died with Christ through baptism, but they have not yet been raised with him. Colossians, on the other hand, makes the opposite argument: believers have died with Christ and been raised with him. The author of Colossians teaches that an exalted status is already available to believers.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Consistency may be suspect if it relates to different pieces of the same written over many years. Practice makes perfect, there are changes related to one’s own development or solutions observed from others. Based on this, Wincenty Lutoslawski arranged the chronological order of Plato’s works, using the stylometry he had invented (“Principes de stylometrie”.)
@Jarek, you have to excuse some of the blog’s members here. They are like parrots and are not really into critical thinking.
I can recall Bart Ehrman saying in public: the two sets of letters are different in vocabulary, grammar, and theology. I think it’s a matter of fact. But how do we explain it? There are roughly two theories, both do have different probabilities to occur. For instance, it’s possible that Paul over time changed completely his way of writing, his vocabulary, and his idea of the role of women in the Church. People change their minds over time. In fact, the mind is defined exactly as a bundle of moving thoughts. Even the great Bart D. Ehrman changed his mind. Read, for instance, (1) the post: -In What SENSE is Jesus “God” in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? My Change of Mind.-
Or maybe the letters were forged later on, for some particular theological goal. There are many examples of forgeries in the early centuries of holy Christian scriptures so it’s not unlikely.
What’s interesting about Bart Ehrman’s speech is that he concludes: “Well, since there are two sets of letters, and the first is widely acknowledged as Paul’s letter, we think that he wrote them!”
You can see now that your question is a compelling, real question. But here you can find only people like the Aristotelians who argued about how many teeth a cow had without having the guts to go and see for themselves.
(1)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
janmaru you didn’t pick up on my point anymore than Jarek did. This situation obtains with every piece of ancient literature we have! There’s nothing special about Paul. You’re either going to study ancient history or you’re not. If not, fine, but some of us are no longer enamored of silly conspiracy theories and “brain in a vat” arguments. Hell, read Ehrman’s book. Having to explain why it’s highly likely that Colossians and Ephesians are forgeries forces him to explain why the “seven” letters are likely not. Then if you disagree come up with a well thought out alternative. I’ll listen.
Stephen said
janmaru you didn’t pick up on my point anymore than Jarek did. This situation obtains with every piece of ancient literature we have! There’s nothing special about Paul. You’re either going to study ancient history or you’re not. If not, fine, but some of us are no longer enamored of silly conspiracy theories and “brain in a vat” arguments. Hell, read Ehrman’s book. Having to explain why it’s highly likely that Colossians and Ephesians are forgeries forces him to explain why the “seven” letters are likely not. Then if you disagree come up with a well thought out alternative. I’ll listen.
It is difficult to argue with someone who compares Ehrman's book, he has read, to Detering's book, he has not read.
Each of them is about something different. And Detering would agree with Ehrman's book.
The difference between them concerns the authorship of Paul's 7 epistles and the date of their writing.
For Detering, Paul's attribution is Marcion's invention.
Letters are theological treatises artificially put back in time to build a tradition.
A form adopted by Christian writers to put theology into the mouths of real
or fictional heroes.
And today it is taken seriously that these writings are "real" letters despite the fact that
they are 9,000 words long and have no equivalent in all ancient literature.
Discovered by a man after 80 years who thought they would be the basis of his teaching.
Whole 1st century Pauline tradition is build only on premises,
presented by You in one sentence, due to the lack of proven facts or strong testified accounts.
This is the base of this paradigm
@Jarek, you already put in comedy, while it’s a farse.
Between Colossians and Paul’s other works, there is a distance. The conclusion that we have two different authors follows the Occam’s razor rule, so the simple explanation would be that we have two authors.
The problem with the simplest explanation is that it is not always the right one. In a scenario where we do not know much about those different probabilities, it’s reasonable to go with it. But to question such a choice is ok. And any question about the issue, should not be dismissed with contempt (as Stephen did.)
@Jarek, you posed a sensible question. The style and language of a text can vary for reasons other than differing authorship. For instance, the subject of a letter, the recipient, or a different “amanuensis”, or a change of heart of the author. Many historians think that even the undisputed letters appearing in the Marcion canon were written in Paul’s name by members of the Marcionite Church.
Or were forged later by the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
But the problem with Bart D. Ehrman is even deeper. He does not think that History is a science. He doesn’t think that giving quantitative weight to different probabilities or using the Bayesian Theorem is of any help.
So science is not given much credit. And historians look like Nero playing the lyre while Rome burns.
I am a Historian, but I am young and vital because I enjoy the bullshit on this blog. True or not? Cheap answers make us feel good inside: a lot of sophistry, while death is outside.
Ehrman talking about Philippians underlines some very interesting points:
1) The letter appears originally to have been two letters so that it’s hard to know whether the original of each separate letter is to be the original or if the final edited version which Paul himself did not produce is the original;
2) Paul dictated his letters, and the scribe who wrote down his dictation would typically have made a fresh copy of the letter after Paul had made a few corrections – so which is the original: what the scribe originally wrote or the fresh copy he made after the corrections?
3) And if Paul made corrections to what the scribe wrote, then which is the original – what the scribe originally wrote (that’s the oldest form of the written text) or the correction Paul made (that’s what he intended to say)? How do you choose which is the “original”? One of these forms of the text is the original thing written, but the other is what the author (Paul) originally meant.
So many of Paul’s letters are a collage of different papers.
But, there is also a philosophical problem with the definition of an “original”.
Bart Ehrman seems to suggest that there is no platonic archetype of a letter, but that in reality what you read is an actualization of the whole meaning of people who read it.
In other words, Paul is just a projection.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)