Paul and the Gospels

[Radagast]

Yeah, and his letters make it clear that his acceptance by the Apostles was sort of mixed.

Are you challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ or arguing against the inclusion of his writings in the New Testament canon?

 

[disciple Clint]

Some don't. Some do. The evidence against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is weak. The evidence for is strong.

I would not agree but then that is part of what makes Theology interesting.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Paul knew the apostles and spent time with them. Read the letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 1:18
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days.

Paul would have been an expert on the life of Jesus. As well as having his own revelations.

Paul would have met many eye witnesses of the risen Christ, during his many years of travelling.

 

[disciple Clint]

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

It is believed by some scholars that Paul received instruction directly from Jesus.
Paul's Revelation of Jesus Christ

 

[hedrick]

Are you challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ or arguing against the inclusion of his writings in the New Testament canon?

No. I’m making a statement about his relationship to other key apostles.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Scholars believe that Timothy was not written by Paul.
Who Wrote the Letters to Timothy and Titus? | Biblical Foundations

Not all scholars.

 

[The Liturgist]

Scholars believe that Timothy was not written by Paul.
Who Wrote the Letters to Timothy and Titus? | Biblical Foundations

Some scholars believe that, specifically, a subset of liberal scholars using so-called “higher criticism.” The majority of Orthodox, Catholic and traditional Protestant scholars recognize the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles; indeed, their provenance has been undisputed since the fifth century, when Pope Gelasius promulgated the canon of Pope St. Athanasius into the Roman church, resulting in all of the ancient Patriarchates including the Pastoral Epistles on the basis that they were authored by St. Paul.

Indeed, there is only one canonical epistle the provenance of which is not entirely certain, that being Hebrews, a work generally attributed to St. Paul, but written in a style dissimiliar to that of the rest of the Pauline corpus.

I do also feel obliged to take a brief moment to criticize so-called “higher criticism.” Unlike textual criticism, which is an interesting and valid field which deals in empirical data and which is incredibly useful when dealing with historical works preserved chiefly in manuscript formaf (but which is generally useful in analyzing any works where there exist a multitude of textual variants, for example, the plays and poems of Shakespeare), “higher criticism” dates back to the German enlightenment in the 18th century, and basically amounts to nothing more than a glorified opinion about the work being studied. It is not science; it is not even academically rigorous compared to many other fields within the humanities.

Indeed, I would argue that the sole effect of higher criticism seems to be to churn out voluminous amounts of unfalsifiable (and thus unprovable) opinions masquerading as hypotheses, on various Scriptural text, for example, the three source “hypothesis” one commonly encounters in discussions of the Torah.

 

[hedrick]

Not all scholars.

Not all, but most who don’t have an ideological commitment that would prevent them from taking the possibility seriously.

 

[Radagast]

Not all, but most who don’t have an ideological commitment that would prevent them from taking the possibility seriously.

More accurately: a minority of scholars, being those with an ideological commitment against the reliability of the Bible and against Church tradition and (in some cases) against Christianity itself

 

[Radagast]

and basically amounts to nothing more than a glorified opinion about the work being studied

Exactly right. There is not a shred of evidence that Paul didn't write the Pastorals.

On the other hand, early Christian authors (e.g. Irenaeus) and the text itself (1 Timothy 1:1, 2 Timothy 1:1, Titus 1:1) indicates that he did.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Exactly right. There is not a shred of evidence that Paul didn't write the Pastorals.

On the other hand, early Christian authors (e.g. Irenaeus) and the text itself (1 Timothy 1:1, 2 Timothy 1:1, Titus 1:1) indicates that he did.

Of course that isn't the reason for the skepticism - it relates more to do with the different writing style on display.

Personally that doesn't give me good enough reason as people change over time, Paul was writing to individuals rather than churches and was writing from the difficult position of being in prison.

So there is sufficient reason to support the idea that Paul wrote them. The alternatives are.... well none - If Paul didn't write them, who did and why? The naysayers don't really give a viable alternative.

 

[JackRT]

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul.

 

[The Liturgist]

Exactly right. There is not a shred of evidence that Paul didn't write the Pastorals.

On the other hand, early Christian authors (e.g. Irenaeus) and the text itself (1 Timothy 1:1, 2 Timothy 1:1, Titus 1:1) indicates that he did.

Indeed. Who, objectively, should one believe? The modern liberal proponents of “higher criticism,” which is itself a German enlightenment philosophical construct which represents basically an abstract reality, opinion as fact, or the historical-factual statements of people like St. Irenaeus of Lyons who were bishops in the very early church, who were connected by just a few generations to the Apostles, and who had a vested interest in proving which works were in fact genuine (since it was the genuine apostolic works which contained the true doctrine, and the Gnostic forgeries which contained the distortions; there was no middle ground - the early church happily accepted works not of apostolic provenance that contained true doctrine, like The Shepherd of Hermas, but classified them separately from those works known to be of apostolic origin, like the Pastoral Epistles).

When in doubt, we should always look to the early church for guidance, because it was the early church that wrote the new testament, implemented the liturgical rites, developed the canons of normal Christian behavior and appropriate pastoral conduct, and also decreed the definitive New Testament canon.

 

[hedrick]

Indeed. Who, objectively, should one believe? The modern liberal proponents of “higher criticism,” which is itself a German enlightenment philosophical construct which represents basically an abstract reality, opinion as fact, or the historical-factual statements of people like St. Irenaeus of Lyons who were bishops in the very early church, who were connected by just a few generations to the Apostles, and who had a vested interest in proving which works were in fact genuine (since it was the genuine apostolic works which contained the true doctrine, and the Gnostic forgeries which contained the distortions; there was no middle ground - the early church happily accepted works not of apostolic provenance that contained true doctrine, like The Shepherd of Hermas, but classified them separately from those works known to be of apostolic origin, like the Pastoral Epistles).

When in doubt, we should always look to the early church for guidance, because it was the early church that wrote the new testament, implemented the liturgical rites, developed the canons of normal Christian behavior and appropriate pastoral conduct, and also decreed the definitive New Testament canon.

Simple. We should believe people who don't have a precommitment to a traditional answer, but who have a history of careful study of the Scriptures.

 

[The Liturgist]

Simple. We should believe people who don't have a precommitment to a traditional answer, but who have a history of careful study of the Scriptures.

What gives those people more knowlege than people who were actually involved in the early church? I am more inclined to believe St. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of St. Ignatius the Martyr, who was in turn a disciple of St. John the Beloved Disciple, than any contemporary scholar.

Forgive me, but I just don’t see anything approaching scientific rigour in the higher criticism being used to say which epistles Paul wrote or did not write. Indeed, I think the three-source substrate hypothesis for the Torah, as problematic as it is, is actually more credible. Whereas textual criticism is extremely helpful in evaluating manuscript traditions, higher criticism often comes across as entirely subjective and is also, in the case of the Pauline epistles, divorced from the historical context in which they were written.

 

[Radagast]

Simple. We should believe people who don't have a precommitment to a traditional answer, but who have a history of careful study of the Scriptures.

But when it turns out that these people have a precommitment to devaluing Paul (and sometimes Christ as well), this is seen to be a biased approach.

 

[Radagast]

The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death.

There is not the slightest evidence for those bold assertions.

Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used

That's begging the question. There are minor vocabulary differences between Paul's letters, but that's explained by variation in subject matter. Similar differences occur between the works of any prolific author.

each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith

False.

each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms

Because their purpose is to provide formal advice.

They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time.

Mere supposition. If you ignore the evidence of the early Church, there remains zero evidence on the structure of the early Church.

Scholars generally believe

A minority of scholars.

 

[Radagast]

The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death.

And that's obviously false, since Ignatius of Antioch quotes from the Pastorals, and he died before then.

 

[hedrick]

And that's obviously false, since Ignatius of Antioch quotes from the Pastorals, and he died before then.

I think you'll find that these are "allusions", which may or may not actually be from the Pastorals. From the Word commentary (Mounce):

"Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 116), has no quotations from the PE, but there are “coincidences in phraseology [that] can hardly be accidental” (so Bernard, xv, citing seven passages and also several “peculiar” words that occur in Ignatius and elsewhere only in the PE; also Kelly, 3; cf. Spicq, 1:163). Hanson ([1983] 12–13) rightly points out that the Roman persecution reflected in Ignatius’ writings does not correspond to the background of the PE."

Mounce, incidentally, accepts their genuineness. (Not surprising for a faculty member at Gordon-Conwell.) Mounce says the judgement has changed in the last 20 years. However the only example he cites is Fee, a former faculty member at Gordon-Conwell. (The issue with Gordon-Conwell is that it's an evangelical institution. Before accepting a change in the consensus I'd like to see non-evangelicals also.) I have Fee's commentary. It's a semi-popular work that doesn't give any explanation. Unfortunately there aren't many recent technical commentaries on the pastorals that I could find to check.

 

[JackRT]

If you ignore the evidence of the early Church, there remains zero evidence on the structure of the early Church.

Could you rewrite this so that it makes sense?