In his book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, Bart Ehrman talks about the range of scholarly opinion regarding the authorship of the New Testament epistles attributed to Paul. He wrote: "There are three groups of Pauline letters (also known as epistles): (a) the Pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus - most scholars are reasonably certain that Paul did not write these; (b) the Deutero-Pauline epistles of Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians - there are more debates about these three, but the majority of scholars still think Paul probably did not write them; and (c) the Undisputed Pauline epistles - that is, the remaining seven, which everyone more or less agrees Paul wrote. These are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon." (p. 316, Oxford University Press, 2018).
Now, while I do not dispute Professor Ehrman's characterization of the scholarly opinion on this subject, my own evaluation of the available evidence has convinced me that all of the disputed epistles of Paul were indeed authored by the apostle. Nevertheless, my respect for Ehrman (and the scholars who share his views) demands some justification for the fact that I've reached different conclusions. However, before moving on to those justifications, I would also like to state that most of the treatises that I looked at which defended Pauline authorship of the disputed epistles were not very convincing or useful to me in reaching my own conclusions on the subject.
Indeed, instead of an objective evaluation of the available evidence, I found that most of the defenses of Pauline authorship were premised on the scholars' Fundamentalist beliefs about Scripture and took on the guise of traditional apologetics. For me, concluding that Paul wrote these epistles demands that one be open to the possibility that someone else may have authored them! In other words, if one is predisposed not to entertain their arguments in favor of an alternative authorship for these epistles, their arguments cannot be given the same weight as the views of the scholars which they are challenging. After all, an argument that is based on the belief that Scripture is without error or contradiction is by its very nature an exercise in circular reasoning! "Paul must have authored these epistles because Scripture says that he did" is simply NOT logically sustainable as an argument.
Broadly speaking, the arguments against Pauline authorship of the disputed epistles can be summarized as 1) obvious departures from the language of the accepted epistles (vocabulary, grammar and style), 2) the presence of teachings which appear to contradict or refute those presented in the accepted epistles, 3) the presence of concepts or teachings which appear to be anachronisms (belonging to the era after Paul's death), and 4) the presence of passages which appear to be flagrant attempts to copy Paul's style and teachings. Now, while it is useful to understand the kinds of evidence which Ehrman (and others) have employed in reaching his/their conclusions and to evaluate them collectively, it is also important that we give specific examples of how these broad categories apply to the individual epistles being considered. Hopefully, this treatise will do both (general and specific).
First, in addressing those issues related to language (vocabulary, grammar and style), it is important that we understand that Scripture itself informs us that Paul did not personally write most of the epistles attributed to him with his own hand. For instance, in his letter to the saints of Rome, we are informed near the end of the epistle that someone named Tertius wrote the letter for Paul (see Romans 16:22). Likewise, in his first letter to the saints at Corinth, we are informed that only the greeting was actually penned in Paul's own handwriting (see I Corinthians 16:21). Moreover, at the very beginning of the epistle, we are informed that it was co-authored with someone named Sosthenes (see I Corinthians 1:1). In similar fashion, his second epistle to the saints of Corinth was co-authored with Timothy (see II Corinthians 1:1), his epistle to the Philippians and Philemon were also co-authored with Timothy (see Philippians 1:1 and Philemon 1:1), and his first epistle to the church in Thessalonica was co-authored with Silas and Timothy (see I Thessalonians 1:1). In Paul's letter to the Galatians, we read: "Notice what large letters I use as I write these closing words in my own handwriting (see Galatians 1:11, NLT). Thus, according to Scripture, NONE of Paul's "genuine" epistles were solo projects.
As for the disputed epistles, the second letter to the saints of Thessalonica and the one to those of Colossae also claim to be co-authored (see II Thessalonians 1:1 and Colossians 1:1). Interestingly, only the Pastoral epistles (I and II Timothy and Titus) and the letter to the Ephesians fail to mention any other contributors to the compositions. Hence, as the epistles themselves indicate that there were a number of hands involved in the process of actually writing these epistles, it is not unreasonable to suppose that there would be numerous differences in vocabulary, grammar and style among them! Indeed, based on the internal evidence provided by the epistles themselves, I would be more suspicious if we didn't find these differences among the various writings!
Next, Ehrman confronts us with the evidence that the disputed letters sometimes contradict Paul's teachings in his "genuine" epistles. Before we get into a particular example of this phenomenon cited by the professor, I think a few general observations are in order here. First, as brilliant as the Apostle Paul appears to have been, it is inconsistent with his having been human to imagine that his mind never harbored any contradictory thoughts, views or precepts. Indeed, for me, the propensity of humans to be irrational and inconsistent is one of the primary arguments against the acceptance of biblical inerrancy! Moreover, I have never personally met anyone whose views did not evolve over the course of his/her lifetime. In other words, I believe it is much more unlikely that Paul's theology would have remained static over the entire course of his ministry/lifetime (his experiences within both the Jewish and Christian faiths certainly suggest otherwise). And, in light of the experiences of all Apocalyptic Christians over the last two thousand years in confronting their own mortality, it seems highly unlikely to me that Paul never had to confront the likelihood that he wasn't going to live to see the return of Jesus (especially relative to the various persecutions which we are told he had to endure). In other words, reality almost certainly served to modify some of Paul's views as he lived his life.
Having said all of that, Ehrman cited what he considered to be glaring proof of these contradictory teachings in the epistles addressed to the Colossians and Ephesians. According to Ehrman, Paul refuted the notion that Christians had already experienced the resurrection in the fifteenth chapter of his "genuine" epistle to the Corinthians. From my perspective, Paul appeared to be underscoring the fact that there would be a yet future and literal resurrection and how that would work. At any rate, it is clear that Paul was discussing the future resurrection and transformation of the Christian dead. Ehrman contends that the author(s) of these two epistles (Colossians and Ephesians) was/were teaching that Christians were currently experiencing Christ's resurrection - thus contradicting the teaching in his "genuine" epistle.
In Colossians, we read: "When you came to Christ, you were 'circumcised,' but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature. For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead. You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins. (see Colossians 2:11-13, NLT) It is clear to me that the author is talking about death and resurrection in symbolic terms - NOT in the literal sense. In other words, when the believer comes up out of the waters of baptism, he/she will experience a new life in Christ.
Indeed, the continuation of the thought into the next chapter makes the symbolic nature of the language plain. Continuing, we read: "Since you have been raised to new life with Christ, set your sights on the realities of heaven, where Christ sits in the place of honor at God’s right hand. Think about the things of heaven, not the things of earth. For you died to this life, and your real life is hidden with Christ in God. And when Christ, who is your life, is revealed to the whole world, you will share in all his glory. So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Don’t be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world. Because of these sins, the anger of God is coming. You used to do these things when your life was still part of this world." (see Colossians 3:1-7, NLT)
Similarly, in Ephesians, we read: "Once you were dead because of your disobedience and your many sins. You used to live in sin, just like the rest of the world, obeying the devil—the commander of the powers in the unseen world. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God. All of us used to live that way, following the passionate desires and inclinations of our sinful nature. By our very nature we were subject to God’s anger, just like everyone else. But God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so much, that even though we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he raised Christ from the dead. (It is only by God’s grace that you have been saved!) For he raised us from the dead along with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ Jesus." (see Ephesians 2:1-6, NLT) Again, for me, the differentiation between the symbolic vs the literal resurrection is clear. Nevertheless, if this isn't convincing enough, Paul employs very similar symbolism and language in his "genuine" letter to the saints at Rome.
In Paul's epistle to the Romans, we read: "Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death? For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives. Since we have been united with him in his death, we will also be raised to life as he was. We know that our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin. And since we died with Christ, we know we will also live with him. We are sure of this because Christ was raised from the dead, and he will never die again. Death no longer has any power over him. When he died, he died once to break the power of sin. But now that he lives, he lives for the glory of God. So you also should consider yourselves to be dead to the power of sin and alive to God through Christ Jesus." (see Romans 6:2-11, NLT) Thus, after a careful review of all of the texts cited by Ehrman, I am just not seeing the contradiction. Indeed, for me, the teaching in Colossians and Ephesians appears to be entirely consistent with the teachings in I Corinthians and Romans!
The third argument that Professor Ehrman employs against Pauline authorship of these epistles is the appearance of apparent anachronisms in the texts - things that properly belong to the years after Paul's death. For Ehrman, the most glaring example of this kind of anomaly is found in the letters to Timothy. In particular, the professor sees the well-defined nature of leadership positions and church organization implied in the author's remarks to Timothy as belonging to a later period of Church history. However, the writings of the "Church Fathers" (Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius) from early in the Second Century suggest that Church leadership and organization were already well-developed by their time. In other words, their writings suggest notions about these things that had already been in place for many years and had achieved wide acceptance within the Christian community (usually associated with the passage of time). Hence, it is not hard to imagine that, as Paul confronted heretical teachings and discord within the numerous congregations which he had founded, the apostle would have taken an active interest in developing a structure and leadership to combat those problems and help to protect his precious "children in the Lord." In fact, it is inconceivable to me that Paul's thinking wouldn't have evolved over time in an attempt to confront and rectify these continuing kinds of problems.
Finally, the last argument employed by Ehrman against Pauline authorship of these epistles appears to me to be the weakest of the four. He challenges what he considers to be flagrant attempts to copy Paul's language, style and teachings. The professor's favorite example of this kind of anomaly is found in the second epistle to the saints of Thessalonica. For Ehrman, this epistle simply sounds too much like Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians! In this context, I'm not sure why the professor doesn't have the same problem with Paul's second letter to the saints of Corinth (many of the same issues addressed in the first letter are revisited in that one). Moreover, I would think that we would expect a letter to the same congregation (same people and problems) to elicit similar language and a discussion of some of the same topics which had been previously addressed.
Ehrman, however, uses this similarity between the two letters (I and II Thessalonians) to pivot to his argument of dissimilarity. He points out that the author of the second letter cautions the congregation against supposing that Christ's return was imminent. After all, in the first letter, Paul had warned the congregation to stay alert because he didn't want them to be caught off guard. Perhaps, the difference between the two letters in this regard might be explained by the presence of false prophets and the fact that some people in the congregation had apparently given up on this life (were refusing to work)?
For me, there are a number of additional points which argue against attributing these epistles to someone other than Paul. First, most of these epistles are very personal and address very specific problems relative to the parties being addressed. One would expect a forger to avoid such details and attempt a more general approach. Second, these letters are referenced and quoted rather extensively in the Second Century suggesting that they had been in circulation for sometime prior to this. Third, it is evident that Paul and his writings were revered by Early Christians, and the strong impulse to preserve them is demonstrated by the fact that they are available to us in 2021. And, finally, the recognition by both the ancients and modern scholars that pseudepigraphal writings from this era do exist suggests the ability to differentiate between them and the genuine articles.
I have acknowledged that Moses could not possibly have authored all of the material in the Torah. I have also refuted the Fundamentalist and Literalist view of the Bible in numerous posts on this blog over the years (there is no personal vested interest in maintaining Pauline authorship of these epistles). Moreover, I have lauded Professor Ehrman's work in other areas in previous posts. In fact, my favorite book in the New Testament canon is the anonymous book of Hebrews (we don't know who wrote it). Hence, I think that my claim of being open to wherever the evidence led on this subject has some credibility. For me, the evidence which Professor Ehrman presented simply did not convince me that Paul is not the author of the books attributed to him in the New Testament canon. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment