Are the Pauline Epistles all forgeries?

[fta]

Cambridge University Press has just published a new book by U.S. biblical scholar Nina Livesey arguing that the NT Epistles of St Paul were in fact all fabricated in the second century. Unfortunately it's horribly expensive, but it sounds interesting.

 

[Politesse]

Ah, formal analysis. You either agree with someone's argument about what "makes the most sense", or you don't.

 

[bilby]

I doubt there were many women called Pauline at the time; And if there were, she probably wouldn't have been allowed to pen scripture.

 

[Bronzeage]

The first question to consider when assessing whether something is a forgery is, what's to be gained by the forger? The gain of counterfeiting money is obvious, and a newly discovered will benefits someone, but I'm trying to imagine the motivation for creating a bunch of letters written by a guy who died a century before.

Was there a prayer meeting where someone declared, "That's not what Paul said!" and someone shows up at the next meeting with a well worn papyrus scroll and says, "Oh yeah. Read it for yourself."

It's certainly plausible that the second century Christians only had copies of copies of Paul's letters, with all the errors inherent in that process, but that's not forgery, however they might diverge from the original.

 

[Jarhyn]

The first question to consider when assessing whether something is a forgery is, what's to be gained by the forger? The gain of counterfeiting money is obvious, and a newly discovered will benefits someone, but I'm trying to imagine the motivation for creating a bunch of letters written by a guy who died a century before.

Was there a prayer meeting where someone declared, "That's not what Paul said!" and someone shows up at the next meeting with a well worn papyrus scroll and says, "Oh yeah. Read it for yourself."

It's certainly plausible that the second century Christians only had copies of copies of Paul's letters, with all the errors inherent in that process, but that's not forgery, however they might diverge from the original.

In a word: authority.

The fact is, a lot of people have sensibilities like Paul's. There are things they find distasteful or influences they wish to exert on a group.

Forgery is a clear path then to establishing a doctrine, especially when that doctrine might be a "minority rule" kind of idea that wouldn't go over well otherwise.

This isn't evidence that someone did not didn't do that, but it is certainly sufficient motive, I think, given how much people would disagree with a lot of the tenants of Jesus's ministry in favor of the tenants of "Paul".

A suddenly appearing letter could be used for all other kinds of political purposes, too, like weakening or improving the authority of a church especially in a structure where adding new material is forbidden.

 

[steve_bank]

Cambridge University Press has just published a new book by U.S. biblical scholar Nina Livesey arguing that the NT Epistles of St Paul were in fact all fabricated in the second century. Unfortunately it's horribly expensive, but it sounds interesting.

The first hing to see is that Christianity is a money making business ta has been running for 2000 years.

The best overall book I read that covers authorship, and translation issues, and inconsistencies is the Oxford Bible Commentary.

https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Bible-Commentary-John-Barton/dp/0199277184/ref=asc_df_0199277184?mcid=df96027862d3360c9761af3c2b9caff8&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693550347078&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17069401376125573388&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9060351&hvtargid=pla-491824353100&psc=1

As to Paul, I like to say Christianity should be called Paulism. Writing attributed to Paul took the Jewish out of Jesus and made it attractive for gentiles.

Fromm the book I cited it was common practice from someone below a leader to write under the top guy's name.

There was nothing like literary integrity we have today. Not fraud as we would say today.

Embellishment was probably common. There was no communications like today. it was mostly word of mouth.

There is no way to know for sure who wrote what and when in the NT.

 

[Jarhyn]

Cambridge University Press has just published a new book by U.S. biblical scholar Nina Livesey arguing that the NT Epistles of St Paul were in fact all fabricated in the second century. Unfortunately it's horribly expensive, but it sounds interesting.

The first hing to see is that Christianity is a money making business ta has been running for 2000 years.

The best overall book I read that covers authorship, and translation issues, and inconsistencies is the Oxford Bible Commentary.

https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Bible-Commentary-John-Barton/dp/0199277184/ref=asc_df_0199277184?mcid=df96027862d3360c9761af3c2b9caff8&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693550347078&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17069401376125573388&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9060351&hvtargid=pla-491824353100&psc=1

As to Paul, I like to say Christianity should be called Paulism. Writing attributed to Paul took the Jewish out of Jesus and made it attractive for gentiles.

Fromm the book I cited it was common practice from someone below a leader to write under the top guy's name.

There was nothing like literary integrity we have today. Not fraud as we would say today.

Embellishment was probably common. There was no communications like today. it was mostly word of mouth.

There is no way to know for sure who wrote what and when in the NT.

More he took the Jesus out of Christianity and created the tradition of doctrinal slide and establishment of authority within the church.

 

[Politesse]

I doubt there were many women called Pauline at the time; And if there were, she probably wouldn't have been allowed to pen scripture.

No Paulines, but Paullas a-plenty.

 

[fta]

The first question to consider when assessing whether something is a forgery is, what's to be gained by the forger? The gain of counterfeiting money is obvious, and a newly discovered will benefits someone, but I'm trying to imagine the motivation for creating a bunch of letters written by a guy who died a century before.

There are similar debates over the so-called Epistles of St Ignatius, whose letters are full of commands to "obey the Bishops". Catholics are very fond of these letters, whereas many Protestants argue they were actually forged a century after the martyrdom of Ignatius in order to back up the system of episcopacy.

 

[Thomas II]

AI Overview
Learn more


There is divided scholarly opinion on whether the letters attributed to Paul are genuine. Some letters, such as Colossians and 2 Thessalonians, are considered questionable. Most critical scholars consider Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) to be pseudepigraphical works. The Epistle to the Hebrews is also generally considered to be anonymous, though it has traditionally been attributed to Paul.


Some scholars believe that Paul may have used a secretary to write some of the disputed letters. However, this solution doesn't explain why the disputed letters appear to have been written at least a decade after Paul's death.


Paul's letters, written between AD 48 and AD 64, are some of the earliest writings about Jesus' teachings and the early Church.

 

[Politesse]

Some scholars believe that Paul may have used a secretary to write some of the disputed letters.

That's not disputed; like a lot of ancient writers, Paul explicitly names his scribe a couple of times. He also finishes one of his letters with a final sentence, presumably written in his own hand, saying "Here is my greeting in my own handwriting—Paul. I do this in all my letters to prove they are from me."

Of course, that letter, II Thessalonians, is one of the alleged forgeries! Plus ce change....

 

[ideologyhunter]

I doubt there were many women called Pauline at the time; And if there were, she probably wouldn't have been allowed to pen scripture.

I personally doubt The Letter to Duane. It is included in very few Bibles, but the Christadelphians accept it as genuine. For me it fits into "Sounds like Paul...not Paul." Duane 3:1-4 shows some of the book's difficulties.

1 I appeal to you, my brother, present your body as a pure bride is presented to the groom, your Holy Father. But you are called in Christ to follow the true gospel.
2 Train yourself in godliness and know that man's gospel is not God's gospel.
3 For the pure bride, giving herself over to man's gospel, is like the kinswoman of Onan: the seed-love of God is withheld from her and spilled on the ground.
4 But the pure bride given over to God's gospel receives Christ's seed-love in good measure, pressed down, shaken aplenty, and running over.

While that has some of the vigor and parallelism of Paul's canonized letters, there is something in the subtext that I find suspicious.
Letter to the Church at Gnocchi, which consists entirely of recipes, I find spurious (as do virtually all commentators.)

 

[WAB]

I don't think Paul did it. I believe it was Ringo.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I don't think Paul did it. I believe it was Ringo.

There is a case for that -- fairly strong, too. "I've got blisters on me fingers!" is taken as a sign of the stigmata, according to Ringotarians. I can't stand their liturgy -- percussive AF -- but I think they're on to something with the blisters.

 

[WAB]

I happen to be the sergeant at arms at my local chapter of Ringotarians.

Hard to believe he's 84! But no worries, he's got till 120.

 

[fta]

In the old days of TalkFreethought or FreeRatio, this question would have resulted in more sober discussion. :-/

 

[Swammerdami]

Cambridge University Press has just published a new book by U.S. biblical scholar Nina Livesey arguing that the NT Epistles of St Paul were in fact all fabricated in the second century. Unfortunately it's horribly expensive, but it sounds interesting.

Is there a summary of her conclusions on-line? The links show "Livesey dates the letters' emergence to the mid-second century and the Roman school of Marcion" which is not quite the same as OP's synopsis ("fabricated"?).

In this hypothesis, I suppose Acts of the Apostles was also part of this 2nd century "hoax"?

 

[fta]

Is there a summary of her conclusions on-line? The links show "Livesey dates the letters' emergence to the mid-second century and the Roman school of Marcion" which is not quite the same as OP's synopsis ("fabricated"?).

In this hypothesis, I suppose Acts of the Apostles was also part of this 2nd century "hoax"?

From the Introduction of Livesey's book:

...this book argues that [Paul's] letters are instead pseudonymous, literary, and fictional, letters-in-form-only. Their likely origin is Marcion’s mid-second-century speculative/philosophical school in Rome, the site and timeframe of our earliest evidence of a collection often Pauline epistles. Deploying the letter genre, trained authors of this school crafted teachings in the name of the Apostle Paul for peer elite audiences.

And yes, she seems to agree with Richard Pervo and Joseph Tyson that Acts was also written in the second century.

 

[DBT]

But why include contradictions like three different versions of Pauls conversion on the road to Damascus?

 

[fta]

But why include contradictions like three different versions of Pauls conversion on the road to Damascus?

You mean the discrepancies in Acts as to whether Paul and his companions "saw" or "heard" a magic voice and/or a magic light? That's not much different from the various contradictions in the Gospels.