Why are all Pauline letters in the Bible?

[AnalogJoe]

Most scholars agree that not all of Paul's epistles were written by Paul. Almost all scholars think that Hebrews wasn't written by him, even Luther and Calvin believed it wasn't written by Paul. Luther thought it was written by Apollo.

So if most agree that Hebrews was forged by someone claiming to be Paul, why is it in the Bible?

The argument can be "it is inspired by God even if it wasn't written by Paul", but then again, I could argue that many apocryphal books could be included in the Bible based on that argument, for example, we know that 1 Enoch wasn't written by Enoch and many say it was Spin-off literature from ancient times, however, it is referd to by some of the authors of the NT, so, who is then to claim that its not inspired? or The Gospel of Thomas, it also wasn't written by Thomas and has a protognostic vibe, could be inspired thou....

But the biggest problem I see is: how can a letter be inspired by God if someone is comitting fraud by claiming he is Paul? and Hebrews is not the only letter in dispute...

I like the idea from early Christianity that the letter was written by Paul in hebrew and translated into greek by Luke, but still, many say that the letter is very different from Luke's other work.

Or maybe Paul told one of his disciples to write a letter whilst giving him some pointers on what the letter should cover.

Thomas Aquinas defended Paul's authorship, and some (very few) modern scholars claim it was written by Paul.

Either way, it is something that makes me doubt the infalibility of the Bible.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Most scholars agree that not all of Paul's epistles were written by Paul

They are in the Bible because the Early Church believed them to be legit. The opinions of modern scholars mean nothing when it comes to canonization. The fact that the Apostolic fathers grew up with them, and all the other Church fathers were raised with them is all that counts.

 

[Paidiske]

Nowhere in the letter of Hebrews does the author claim to be Paul.

As to the Pauline letters whose authorship is disputed, I don't necessarily think that a letter written by one or more of Paul's followers, as an attempt to set out Paul's thought on something, is "fraud" as we would understand it in the contemporary sense. It was a common practice in the ancient world (perhaps similar to ghost writing today).

While authorship was one consideration when defining the canon, it wasn't the only one. The church has received, prayed, believed and tested these works for two millennia and found them inspired. It seems to me that there is something sound there which we can trust.

 

[St_Worm2]

Most scholars agree that not all of Paul's epistles were written by Paul. Almost all scholars think that Hebrews wasn't written by him ... most agree that Hebrews was forged by someone claiming to be Paul, why is it in the Bible?

Hello @AnalogJoe, we have no idea who the human author of the Book of Hebrews was. The Book of Hebrews does not tell us who he was (and nowhere in its 13 Chapters does it insinuate, much less claim, that the Apostle Paul is the author).

Also, please give us some of the names of these many "scholars" who do not believe that he wrote his own Epistles (the various Epistles that announce that he 'is' the author from the outset, the Epistles where he also refers to himself in the first person).

Thanks!

--David

 

[AnalogJoe]

Nowhere in the letter of Hebrews does the author claim to be Paul.

As to the Pauline letters whose authorship is disputed, I don't necessarily think that a letter written by one or more of Paul's followers, as an attempt to set out Paul's thought on something, is "fraud" as we would understand it in the contemporary sense. It was a common practice in the ancient world (perhaps similar to ghost writing today).

While authorship was one consideration when defining the canon, it wasn't the only one. The church has received, prayed, believed and tested these works for two millennia and found them inspired. It seems to me that there is something sound there which we can trust.

Maybe not in Hebrews, but for example, 2 Thessalonians is definitely signed by Paul and many think it wasn't written by Paul, same with 1st Timothy, and others

 

[AnalogJoe]

They are in the Bible because the Early Church believed them to be legit. The opinions of modern scholars mean nothing when it comes to canonization. The fact that the Apostolic fathers grew up with them, and all the other Church fathers were raised with them is all that counts.

Some Church fathers don't think it was written by Paul

 

[HTacianas]

Most scholars agree that not all of Paul's epistles were written by Paul. Almost all scholars think that Hebrews wasn't written by him, even Luther and Calvin believed it wasn't written by Paul. Luther thought it was written by Apollo.

So if most agree that Hebrews was forged by someone claiming to be Paul, why is it in the Bible?

The argument can be "it is inspired by God even if it wasn't written by Paul", but then again, I could argue that many apocryphal books could be included in the Bible based on that argument, for example, we know that 1 Enoch wasn't written by Enoch and many say it was Spin-off literature from ancient times, however, it is referd to by some of the authors of the NT, so, who is then to claim that its not inspired? or The Gospel of Thomas, it also wasn't written by Thomas and has a protognostic vibe, could be inspired thou....

But the biggest problem I see is: how can a letter be inspired by God if someone is comitting fraud by claiming he is Paul? and Hebrews is not the only letter in dispute...

I like the idea from early Christianity that the letter was written by Paul in hebrew and translated into greek by Luke, but still, many say that the letter is very different from Luke's other work.

Or maybe Paul told one of his disciples to write a letter whilst giving him some pointers on what the letter should cover.

Thomas Aquinas defended Paul's authorship, and some (very few) modern scholars claim it was written by Paul.

Either way, it is something that makes me doubt the infalibility of the Bible.

That the letter to the Hebrews may not have been written by Paul doesn't make it any less valuable. It is an early letter containing the early teachings of Christianity and those teachings are authentic regardless of who wrote it. Paul need not be the author for it to be canonical. If it was known to have been written by someone else it would likely still be in the new testament but attributed to the actual author.

Personally I think it was written by Paul but using a different scribe than for his other letters. Origen wrote circa 220 AD that the language was more polished than in Paul's other letters, so even then the difference was known.

 

[AnalogJoe]

That the letter to the Hebrews may not have been written by Paul doesn't make it any less valuable. It is an early letter containing the early teachings of Christianity and those teachings are authentic regardless of who wrote it. Paul need not be the author for it to be canonical. If it was known to have been written by someone else it would likely still be in the new testament but attributed to the actual author.

Personally I think it was written by Paul but using a different scribe than for his other letters. Origen wrote circa 220 AD that the language was more polished than in Paul's other letters, so even then the difference was known.

Yes, again, maybe Hebrews is an exception, what about 1Timothy, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, etc.. Like I said, is not the only letter that is not attributed to Paul, almost half of all Pauline Epistles are not attributed to Paul

 

[HTacianas]

Yes, again, maybe Hebrews is an exception, what about 1Timothy, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, etc.. Like I said, is not the only letter that is not attributed to Paul, almost half of all Pauline Epistles are not attributed to Paul

They do not have to be authentic to Paul. They may not be from Paul. They could be from some other apostle, or someone else who knew and apostle, or someone who knew Paul. At the time the new testament was compiled the idea was not "find everything written by Paul" but "find everything written early on that is free from error". The letters are free from doctrinal error regardless of who wrote them.

 

[AnalogJoe]

That the letter to the Hebrews may not have been written by Paul doesn't make it any less valuable. It is an early letter containing the early teachings of Christianity and those teachings are authentic regardless of who wrote it. Paul need not be the author for it to be canonical. If it was known to have been written by someone else it would likely still be in the new testament but attributed to the actual author.

Personally I think it was written by Paul but using a different scribe than for his other letters. Origen wrote circa 220 AD that the language was more polished than in Paul's other letters, so even then the difference was known.

There are many books, letters that have a lot of early teachings of Christianity, yet they are not in the canon.

 

[AnalogJoe]

They do not have to be authentic to Paul. They may not be from Paul. They could be from some other apostle, or someone else who knew and apostle, or someone who knew Paul. At the time the new testament was compiled the idea was not "find everything written by Paul" but "find everything written early on that is free from error". The letters are free from doctrinal error regardless of who wrote them.

So if they weren't written by Paul, yet claim to be written by Paul, forgery, they are still Inspired by God?

 

[HTacianas]

So if they weren't written by Paul, yet claim to be written by Paul, forgery, they are still Inspired by God?

They are not forgeries. They are letters believed to have been written by Paul. They may well have been written by someone else but they are attributed to Paul.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Some Church fathers don't think it was written by Paul

Origen of Alexandria (c. 240), as quoted by Eusebius (c. 330) had this to say on the matter: "That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts."[64]

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia

 

[AnalogJoe]

They are not forgeries. They are letters believed to have been written by Paul. They may well have been written by someone else but they are attributed to Paul.

Many letters at the beggining say that it is Paul writting them, if its not Paul, then how shall we call the act of someone who claims is Paul but who isn't?

Listen, I love the Bible, I am not trying to disprove it, I am just asking questions...

 

[AnalogJoe]

Origen of Alexandria (c. 240), as quoted by Eusebius (c. 330) had this to say on the matter: "That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts."[64]

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia

What about the other 6 epistles that are not attributed to Paul? Particularly 1 and 2 Timothy

...with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but rather are unattributable Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd centuries.[1] Most scholars now affirm this view.[2][3] As evidence for this perspective, they put forward that the Pastoral Epistles contain 306 words that Paul does not use in his unquestioned letters, that their style of writing is different from that of his unquestioned letters, that they reflect conditions and a church organization not current in Paul's day, and that they do not appear in early lists of his canonical works.[4]

 

[Pavel Mosko]

What about the other 6 epistles that are not attributed to Paul?

Those do not seem to have caused the Church much trouble as far as canonization goes. If you study the history of NT canonization it was 5 of the Catholic epistles and the book of Revelation that were the last ones to be accepted by the church at large. The Syriac Peshitta NT shows what the earlier canon list where those were not admitted into the earlier versions of the NT.

"This New Testament, originally excluding certain disputed books (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become a standard by the early 5th century. The five excluded books were added in the Harklean Version (616 AD) of Thomas of Harqel.[5][6][7]


Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia


I would also reference the heretic Marcion, who actually indirectly started the whole canonization project by being the first person to come out with an official NT list of accepted books. Which basically started the orthodox believers to think about that...

Besides having his own Gospel based on Luke he had...

• Galatians
• 1 Corinthians
• 2 Corinthians
• Romans
• 1 Thessalonians
• 2 Thessalonians
• Laodiceans1
• Colossians
• Philippians
• Philemon

Marcionism - Wikipedia


This link gives a history of canonization of NT books. Check it out.
Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia


It's possible that some of the books you mentioned may have been excluded in the very 1st canon of 50 bibles commissioned by Constantine in 320 or so since Codex Vaticanus does not have 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon. But nobody knows for sure what the exact book list was for it.

 

[Philip_B]

So if they weren't written by Paul, yet claim to be written by Paul, forgery, they are still Inspired by God?

Canonicity and Pauline Authorship are two separate questions. Authorship as a thing became much more important following the invention of Mr Caxton's Machine, as this made it possible to make money out of intellectual property rights. The canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament is settled, and has been settled for 1600 years or so.

My New Testament Lecturer held that we knew Romans was written by Paul, because we defined Paul as the writer of the Letter to the Romans. Pauline Authorship of any letter does not change the position that it is or is not part of the canon.

I would also like to point out that there are many things in the New Testament that were clearly not written by Paul and have a great deal of value for us, and I would site the Gospel of John as an example.

 

[timothyu]

The point is that a gentile oriented church would favour writings geared to the gentiles

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Most scholars agree that not all of Paul's epistles were written by Paul. Almost all scholars think that Hebrews wasn't written by him, even Luther and Calvin believed it wasn't written by Paul. Luther thought it was written by Apollo.

So if most agree that Hebrews was forged by someone claiming to be Paul, why is it in the Bible?

The argument can be "it is inspired by God even if it wasn't written by Paul", but then again, I could argue that many apocryphal books could be included in the Bible based on that argument, for example, we know that 1 Enoch wasn't written by Enoch and many say it was Spin-off literature from ancient times, however, it is referd to by some of the authors of the NT, so, who is then to claim that its not inspired? or The Gospel of Thomas, it also wasn't written by Thomas and has a protognostic vibe, could be inspired thou....

But the biggest problem I see is: how can a letter be inspired by God if someone is comitting fraud by claiming he is Paul? and Hebrews is not the only letter in dispute...

I like the idea from early Christianity that the letter was written by Paul in hebrew and translated into greek by Luke, but still, many say that the letter is very different from Luke's other work.

Or maybe Paul told one of his disciples to write a letter whilst giving him some pointers on what the letter should cover.

Thomas Aquinas defended Paul's authorship, and some (very few) modern scholars claim it was written by Paul.

Either way, it is something that makes me doubt the infalibility of the Bible.

Hebrews doesn't claim to be written by Paul. It's authorship is not claimed by anyone, though most scholars think that the theology is Pauline in nature, suggesting it was written by someone close to Paul - Apollos, Priscilla, etc.

It was attributed to Paul fairly early on, which is why it was included in the canon very quickly.

As for the other letters only the Pastorals are widely thought to be of another author. The other disputed texts have mixed views from scholars, but the reasoning also concludes that it is possible that they were written by someone else (e.g. Silas) under Paul's supervision (this was a common practice in Roman times - where a letter was composed by the author and polished by the scribe and then wen through other editing by other people.

It shouldn't make you doubt the infallibility, however. If infallibility is your thing, just think that God is sovereign and could have engineered it so that Paul's name was on it so that it was accepted and included in the scriptures.

So it is a question of God's omnipotence... and if you don't believe in that, then the authorship of the Pauline letters isn't much of a problem for you.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

There are many books, letters that have a lot of early teachings of Christianity, yet they are not in the canon.

Have you tried reading them? Some have some valid claim to be part of the canon (Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement), everything else is so obviously non-orthodox that it is no wonder it wasn't included.