Are some of the Pauline Epistles Gnostic forgeries?

[Gettingtalents]

I do believe Paul was a genuine brother, but there are things in "his" epistles that look like they are contrary to other things in the Bible.

He evidently knew that people were forging letters in his name, because he writes:

"That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by LETTER AS FROM US, as that the day of Christ is at hand." (2 Thessalonians 2:2)​

And later in the same epistle:

"The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." (2 Thessalonians 3:17)​

He seems to be saying that letters are circulating in his name that are not his, and then at the end gives a distinguishing mark to identify his genuine epistles.

So, how do we know which are genuine?

It seems to me that, at first glance, "John" is contrary to "Paul" because he says that those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are anti-Christ:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist" (1 John 4:3)​

And Romans 8:3 seems to say that Christ had something similar to the flesh:

"God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3)

And elsewhere:

"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" (Philippians 2:7)​

This seems to suggest something similar to man, but not genuine man...

Compare this:

"And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." (Acts 14:11)​

Did those of Lycaonia think they were genuine men? or only appearing as men?

What is more, the epistle of James seems to be directed at "Paul," and contrary to him...

Compare "Paul" here:

"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in... For before that certain came from James... For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse...I would they were even cut off which trouble you." (Galatians)

With James:

"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He ("Paul"?) that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." (James 4:11)​

And:

"Ye ("Paul"?) have condemned and killed the just (Steven?); and he doth not resist you." (James 5:6)​

And, regarding the death of Steven, compare what Jesus says here:

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert (on the road to Damascus?); go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is (Steven the Martyr), there will the eagles be gathered together ("Paul"? and those scheming against Christ)." (Matthew 24:24-28)​

Also, you all are aware of the "Justified by faith without works" theme of "Paul" vs. the Justified by works and not faith only by James (which can possibly be reconciled by saying that Paul was speaking of the works of the Law, but James was speaking of faith works, but at face value, it seems at odds to some degree IMO)

Then, Jesus warns of ravening wolves in sheep's clothing, and "Paul" claimed to be of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5). Now look what is said regarding Benjamin by Jacob (Israel):

"Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." (Genesis 49:27)​

Furthermore, "Paul" says that "all they that are in Asia have forsaken me":

"This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me" (2 Timothy 1:15)​

And then, in Revelation, written to the churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4, 11), Jesus says:

"thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:" (Revelation 2:2)​

So a church in Asia tested the ones who claimed they were apostles and were not and found them liars, and then 2 Timothy 1:15 says that all of Asia were turned away from "Paul." Also, "Paul" had close ties with the church in Laodicea (Colossians 4:14-16), and we know how they were...

I think that perhaps an (or multiple) imposters wrote in the name of Brother Paul, and assumed his identity.

I love Paul, and believe there was a genuine brother under that name, but to me it seems like many of "his" writings have gnostic tint to them. Hoping this is not the case... Also, it seems that the account in Galatians contradicts the account in Acts... Both in his immediate post conversion experience, and also in his dealings with Peter... On the one hand, Peter is rebuked by Paul for not supporting the Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-13), and yet in Acts we see no mention of Peter in Antioch, but contrariwise, they go to the Apostles in Jerusalem to get the matter resolved, and, lo and behold, Peter is the main advocate for what Paul is saying (Acts 15:7-11). It could be reconciled perhaps, but it seems very different...

Even in the first century we have pseudo Christians like "BarJesus" (son of Jesus)(Acts 13:16), and Simon Magus, who was an ongoing opponent to Peter in the extra Biblical history (Acts 8:9). I think these men may have assumed his identity. Notice how BarJesus had his eyes blinded, and groped about for someone to help him... compare that with Galatians 4:15. Dunno what to say.... Just seems like there are some red flags and I'm trying to put the pieces together.

Furthermore, the tomb of Peter was located in Jerusalem (along with many other 1st century Biblical Christian ossuaries) but this has been suppressed because the Vatican (Catholic, i.e., Universal, i.e., what Simon Magus called the church) says that Peter was the first Pope in Rome and that his body was buried there. Yet, from my research, Simon magus went to Rome, and went by the title Simon Peter, and it was he who founded the Catholic movement.

 

[lesliedellow]

The authenticity of some of them is debated, but none of them sound like gnostic productions.

The ones whose authenticity are questioned are: Ephesians, sometimes Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.

Questioned by nobody are: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians.

It is not difficult to find conservative scholars to defend the authenticity of all of them, if that is what you want.

 

[ananda]

I do believe Paul was a genuine brother, but there are things in "his" epistles that look like they are contrary to other things in the Bible...

What books do you believe are genuinely written by Paul?

 

[pshun2404]

Liberal critical scholars are mostly fake Christians...they often deny the only actual historical documentary evidence there is and do not believe many of the most basic Christian doctrines (like Crossan, Borg, Levine, even Ehrman).

So to me a most powerful witness are the quotations and inferences from the earliest church writers (like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others)....

For example in my study of the writings of Irenaeus (a student of Polycarp who was a student and appointed to his office as Bishop by John the Apostle)...in just Against Heresies he quotes from Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy...so IMHO at least all of these were legitimate letters written by Paul circulating among the churches...

Ignatius to the Ephesians…(a student of John who sat at the feet of Peter in Antioch)…listen to his language…

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which ye have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Savior. Being the imitators of God (Ephesians 5:1), and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God (2 Timothy 1:6), ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him “who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God,” (Ephesians 5:2). I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus (mentioned only by Paul), a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop.

This is from around 110 A.D. and he makes inference to things mentioned only in Ephesians...so can those who teach the gospel of doubt (did God REALLY say?) be correct in their assessment? I do not think so...

I have many other examples I could give but I gleaned 19 pages of New Testament quotes just from Irenaeus and 12 from Justin in his dialogues with Trypho...(and far more OT quotes than you could imagine)...and many more paraphrases and inferences like these found in Ignatius...

Just something to think about????

In His love

Paul

 

[ananda]

Liberal critical scholars are mostly fake Christians...they often deny the only actual historical documentary evidence there is and do not believe many of the most basic Christian doctrines (like Crossan, Borg, Levine, even Ehrman).

The same can be claimed of "conservative scholars".

So to me a most powerful witness are the quotations and inferences from the earliest church writers (like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others)....

Are these "earliest church writers" infallible?

 

[drstevej]

The same can be claimed of "conservative scholars".

Can you cite examples for your critical assessment?

 

[Unix]

I view Ephesians as genuine, see: Practical Commentary on Scripture - In fact meta-studies have... - contributions to that thread are very welcome!:

The ones whose authenticity are questioned are: Ephesians, sometimes Colossians,

EDIT: I changed my mind, see Thanks hedrick, that made me... in this thread.

 

[hedrick]

Liberal critical scholars are mostly fake Christians...they often deny the only actual historical documentary evidence there is and do not believe many of the most basic Christian doctrines (like Crossan, Borg, Levine, even Ehrman).

The use of ad hominem is one of the classic failures in argumentation. It suggests someone whose handling of evidence is sufficiently biased that their judgements aren't credible. Somewhat surprisingly, even Tektonics thinks it wasn't written by Paul himself. (Authorship of Ephesians) I trust you would consider them Christian. (While they believe it was made under Paul's authority, they agree with many of the assessments of theological differences from genuine Pauline letters, suggesting that it was written by Timothy, and that he was influenced by Johonnine theology in addition to Paul.)

Are you aware of anyone before Tertullian who attributes Ephesians to Paul? Occurrence of phrases from Ephesians doesn't count. First, there's no guarantee that they actually came from the the source you think they do. They could have been in common use among Christians. Second, many people think the pseudonymity was an accepted custom, so one could quote Ephesians even while knowing that it wasn't written by Paul. Third, use of someone else's expression doesn't necessarily mean that you accept them as a Biblical author.

There are competent critical scholars on both sides. However if I had to guess I'd guess against its authenticity.

I have qualms personally about whether writing in someone else's name discredits the author. But 1st Cent custom isn't the same as modern custom. There seems to be evidence that it was sometimes accepted, but also evidence that some people considered it misleading. If the most common critical view of Ephesians is right, it would have been produced after Paul's death. It's certainly possible that the circumstances of its distribution would have made it clear to the recipients that Paul himself didn't write it. That would relieve my concerns about the ethics of the author.

With respect to the OP, I don't think any of the letters attributed to Paul (or any other book in the NT) is Gnostic as that term is normally used. There are things in at least Paul and the Johannine letters that might have been directed against views that are similar to later Gnosticism, as noted in some of the postings above.

 

[Unix]

Thanks hedrick, that made me change my mind. My view is now the one You cited: Ephesians was made under Paul's authority, it agrees with many of the assessments of theological differences from genuine Pauline letters, suggesting that it was written by Timothy, and that he was influenced by Johannine theology in addition to Paul:

The use of ad hominem is one of the classic failures in argumentation. It suggests someone whose handling of evidence is sufficiently biased that their judgement aren't credible. Somewhat surprisingly, even Tektonics thinks it wasn't written by Paul himself. (Authorship of Ephesians) I trust you would consider them Christian. (While they believe it was made under Paul's authority, they agree with many of the assessments of theological differences from genuine Pauline letters, suggesting that it was written by Timothy, and that he was influenced by Johannine theology in addition to Paul.)

Are you aware of anyone before Tertullian who attributes Ephesians to Paul? Occurrence of phrases from Ephesians doesn't count. First, there's no guarantee that they actually came from the the source you think they do. They could have been in common use among Christians.

 

[ananda]

Can you cite examples for your critical assessment?

I would say virtually all "conservative scholars", especially among Protestants and Catholics. They deny the evidence and most basic Messianic doctrines that shows that Messiah lived under the Law and called others to do the same.

 

[Truthseeker1971]

I do believe Paul was a genuine brother, but there are things in "his" epistles that look like they are contrary to other things in the Bible.

He evidently knew that people were forging letters in his name, because he writes:

"That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by LETTER AS FROM US, as that the day of Christ is at hand." (2 Thessalonians 2:2)​

And later in the same epistle:

"The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." (2 Thessalonians 3:17)​

He seems to be saying that letters are circulating in his name that are not his, and then at the end gives a distinguishing mark to identify his genuine epistles.

So, how do we know which are genuine?

It seems to me that, at first glance, "John" is contrary to "Paul" because he says that those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are anti-Christ:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist" (1 John 4:3)​

And Romans 8:3 seems to say that Christ had something similar to the flesh:

"God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3)

And elsewhere:

"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" (Philippians 2:7)​

This seems to suggest something similar to man, but not genuine man...

Compare this:

"And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." (Acts 14:11)​

Did those of Lycaonia think they were genuine men? or only appearing as men?

What is more, the epistle of James seems to be directed at "Paul," and contrary to him...

Compare "Paul" here:

"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in... For before that certain came from James... For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse...I would they were even cut off which trouble you." (Galatians)

With James:

"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He ("Paul"?) that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." (James 4:11)​

And:

"Ye ("Paul"?) have condemned and killed the just (Steven?); and he doth not resist you." (James 5:6)​

And, regarding the death of Steven, compare what Jesus says here:

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert (on the road to Damascus?); go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is (Steven the Martyr), there will the eagles be gathered together ("Paul"? and those scheming against Christ)." (Matthew 24:24-28)​

Also, you all are aware of the "Justified by faith without works" theme of "Paul" vs. the Justified by works and not faith only by James (which can possibly be reconciled by saying that Paul was speaking of the works of the Law, but James was speaking of faith works, but at face value, it seems at odds to some degree IMO)

Then, Jesus warns of ravening wolves in sheep's clothing, and "Paul" claimed to be of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5). Now look what is said regarding Benjamin by Jacob (Israel):

"Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." (Genesis 49:27)​

Furthermore, "Paul" says that "all they that are in Asia have forsaken me":

"This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me" (2 Timothy 1:15)​

And then, in Revelation, written to the churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4, 11), Jesus says:

"thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:" (Revelation 2:2)​

So a church in Asia tested the ones who claimed they were apostles and were not and found them liars, and then 2 Timothy 1:15 says that all of Asia were turned away from "Paul." Also, "Paul" had close ties with the church in Laodicea (Colossians 4:14-16), and we know how they were...

I think that perhaps an (or multiple) imposters wrote in the name of Brother Paul, and assumed his identity.

I love Paul, and believe there was a genuine brother under that name, but to me it seems like many of "his" writings have gnostic tint to them. Hoping this is not the case... Also, it seems that the account in Galatians contradicts the account in Acts... Both in his immediate post conversion experience, and also in his dealings with Peter... On the one hand, Peter is rebuked by Paul for not supporting the Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-13), and yet in Acts we see no mention of Peter in Antioch, but contrariwise, they go to the Apostles in Jerusalem to get the matter resolved, and, lo and behold, Peter is the main advocate for what Paul is saying (Acts 15:7-11). It could be reconciled perhaps, but it seems very different...

Even in the first century we have pseudo Christians like "BarJesus" (son of Jesus)(Acts 13:16), and Simon Magus, who was an ongoing opponent to Peter in the extra Biblical history (Acts 8:9). I think these men may have assumed his identity. Notice how BarJesus had his eyes blinded, and groped about for someone to help him... compare that with Galatians 4:15. Dunno what to say.... Just seems like there are some red flags and I'm trying to put the pieces together.

Furthermore, the tomb of Peter was located in Jerusalem (along with many other 1st century Biblical Christian ossuaries) but this has been suppressed because the Vatican (Catholic, i.e., Universal, i.e., what Simon Magus called the church) says that Peter was the first Pope in Rome and that his body was buried there. Yet, from my research, Simon magus went to Rome, and went by the title Simon Peter, and it was he who founded the Catholic movement.

You have to remember one thing. Men were moved as the Spirit moved them to accurately record His word and accumulate all the right works into the bible we have today. God is not incompetent. He is, and was, perfectly capable of inspiring His followers to ensure only the most accurate texts whose authorship cannot be disputed, made it into our bible.

There is absolutely nothing in Paul's epistles that contradicts the gospels/OT in any way.

I do agree though that Peter was never anywhere near rome. I too have read about how his ossuary was discovered in Jerusalem in the 1950's (I think); and even besides that, the bible makes it clear that his mission was to the Jews only, AND HE WOULD NEVER HAVE ASSUMED A PAGAN TITLE LIKE 'POPE' not the Gentiles and though he did travel to a few places in Italy PETER WAS NEVER ANYWHERE NEAR ROME

 

[Unix]

hedrick, I'm quoting You in another thread, where I also mention a sale, $87.95 for Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible: A Synopsis and Index
See: http://www.christianforums.com/t7541241-post66492506/#post66492506

 

[Petruchio]

The same can be claimed of "conservative scholars".

No, it cannot be claimed of conservative scholars, unless one attacks them personally. "You don't act like a Christian!" But that's subjective, not factual. Their doctrines are Orthodox, and, thus, the definition of Christianity. Liberal scholars (not all) are often heterodox, and are thus not Christians on a factual level. Maybe as Christian as a New Ager, who might quote some favorable things Jesus said, but get rid of all the rest.

Are these "earliest church writers" infallible?

They are certainly strong witnesses with writings going back to within the 1st century, or having contact with those who lived during that century. Ignatius was fed to the lions as an old man sometime between 95AD and 115AD. Polycarp, another Martyr, lived and died around the same time frame. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, writing into the second century. All of these people quoted heavily from Paul's letters, and there is no record of any controversy, even when cults attempted to coopt Paul's writings, about the authenticity of these texts.

 

[ananda]

No, it cannot be claimed of conservative scholars, unless one attacks them personally. "You don't act like a Christian!" But that's subjective, not factual. Their doctrines are Orthodox, and, thus, the definition of Christianity. Liberal scholars (not all) are often heterodox, and are thus not Christians on a factual level. Maybe as Christian as a New Ager, who might quote some favorable things Jesus said, but get rid of all the rest.

Who is the Authority that defines "conservative scholars" as "orthodox" and "defines Christianity"?

They are certainly strong witnesses with writings going back to within the 1st century, or having contact with those who lived during that century. Ignatius was fed to the lions as an old man sometime between 95AD and 115AD. Polycarp, another Martyr, lived and died around the same time frame. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, writing into the second century. All of these people quoted heavily from Paul's letters, and there is no record of any controversy, even when cults attempted to coopt Paul's writings, about the authenticity of these texts.

I don't need external witnesses to dispute Paul's writings ... Paul's writings themselves brings up more than enough questions on their own.

 

[Petruchio]

The use of ad hominem is one of the classic failures in argumentation.

Speaking of ad hominems, I'm glad you're posting here in the Unorthodox section Hedrick! It certainly suits you better rather than haunting the Presbyterian forum.

Are you aware of anyone before Tertullian who attributes Ephesians to Paul? Occurrence of phrases from Ephesians doesn't count.

They do count, especially when the writer expressly identifies them as "scripture". From Polycarp:

"... as it is said in these Scriptures "be angry but sin not" and 'let not the sun go down on your anger'" (St. Polycarp, The Letter to the Philippians 12:1, f. Eph 4:26)

Mind you, the latter part of that is similar to a Jewish phrase, but the only scripture the whole thing, or any part of it, appears in is Ephesians. Nor can something identified as "scripture" have been a "common usage" of something, as it must be, number one, a written work, and, number two, be written by someone acknowledged to be a writer of scripture.

 

[Petruchio]

Who is the Authority that defines "conservative scholars" as "orthodox" and "defines Christianity"?

Christians themselves, and you yourself!

I don't need external witnesses to dispute Paul's writings ... Paul's writings themselves brings up more than enough questions on their own.

Hence your tag line: "An unorthodox thinker."

 

[ananda]

Christians themselves, and you yourself!

No, I do not, and millions of liberal Christians would vehemently deny your opinion.

 

[Petruchio]

No, I do not...

Yes you do. You self-identify as Unorthodox. It's in your very tag! Thus you do acknowledge the existence of Orthodox and Unorthodox, and what these things probably mean. You know, at least, that your beliefs certainly aren't "Orthodox." Whatever the case, Christians certainly have authority in and of themselves to determine who isn't part of their group. The heterodox can certainly make faces and complain about it, but when they want large parts of the Bible thrown out or deny the very basics of historical Christianity, those parts even Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox and Protestants agree on, we do not have to take them very seriously.

 

[ananda]

Yes you do. You self-identify as Unorthodox. It's in your very tag! Thus you do acknowledge the existence of Orthodox and Unorthodox, and what these things probably mean.

I self-identify as an Unorthodox thinker ... not Unorthodox Christian.

Whatever the case, Christians certainly have authority in and of themselves to determine who isn't part of their group. The heterodox can certainly make faces and complain about it, but when they want large parts of the Bible thrown out or deny the very basics of historical Christianity, those parts even Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox and Protestants agree on, we do not have to take them very seriously.

As a non-Pauline Messianic, I consider Catholics, EO, and Protestants unorthodox .. so they are "thus not Christians on a factual level."

 

[Petruchio]

As a non-Pauline Messianic, I consider Catholics, EO, and Protestants unorthodox .. so they are "thus not Christians on a factual level."

And you are free to engage in such thoughts, as long as it remains in the Unorthodox section of the website .