Disputed authorship of Pauline letters

For each disputed letter, briefly summarise the reasons why critical scholars question whether Paul was the author, and then explain why it remains plausible to believe it is a genuine Pauline letter.

According to Asumang (2009) the following Pauline letters have disputed authorship:

Ephesians

The dispute of Pauline authorship of Ephesians has occurred over the last three centuries suggesting that a disciple of Paul assembled theological themes and ideas from Paul’s letters after the apostle’s death in order to summarize it for the universal church. The self-identification of Paul in 1:1 and 3:1 are taken as literary device by the author and the argument is based on the style and content of the letter itself. The letter is seemingly impersonal to recipients with whom he had spent the last three years in Ephesus. Another argument is that the style and literary features of the letter are different to Paul’s other letters. A third argument is that a copyist may have written Ephesians by using Colossians as a blueprint. This argument points out the number of similar words in both books. The final argument refers to the theological arguments of the letter being too advanced for the time of writing.

In favour of the Pauline authorship we see Paul identify himself as the author in 1:1 and 1:3. The post apostolic church fathers provide external evidence of the Pauline authorship. The letter may be purposely impersonal in order for it to be circulated to a wider audience than just the Ephesians. As far as literary content is concerned, it is possible that either Paul allowed his amanuensis greater freedom or shows how his writing style was flexible and changed over time as with many authors. With regard to the similarities between the literature in Ephesians and Colossians this is to be expected in letters from a similar time period, however these similar words are predominantly used in different senses and it would have taken a brilliant copyist to perfect this. The final argument of the theology of the letter is flawed in that we can see evidence of Paul’s theology developing through previous letters.

Colossians

The arguments made against Pauline authorship are all related to vocabulary, style and theology. Many words used are unique to the letter and the style reveals complex sentences and phraseologies which are not common with Paul. It is argued that the theology of the letter places different emphasis on the areas of Christology, the church and eschatology.

In favour of Pauline authorship we find that Paul’s signature is evident (1:1, 4:18) and details are given about his time in prison (4:3-4). Paul names specific people (4:7-18), and all external evidence accepts Pauline authorship. With regard to the unique words used in the letter we must realise that if we examine the “undisputed” letters of Paul, they also contain a large amount of new words not used elsewhere. The argument of style is explained by the use of different amanuensis as with Ephesians. The theological argument of the letter can be answered if we consider the specific audience Paul was addressing, a growth in his theology of the church universally due to his time in prison, and the spatial eschatology is not unique to Colossians (Rom 6) and is combined with temporal eschatology which is a typical Pauline style.

2 Thessalonians

The argument against Pauline authorship is based largely on the difference in style and language when compared to 1 Thessalonians. Arguments range from the use of a different amanuensis to the possibility of a copyist attempting to copy 1 Thessalonians; or perhaps simply that the two letters were for different congregations. Paul’s tone is different in 2 Thessalonians in that it is more formal with less feeling.

In defence of the authorship, once again we must note that Paul, an intellect, would not have been confined to one particular writing style, especially when addressing a particular audience. There is no evidence that the letters were to two different churches but perhaps instead is to the same church with further questions. Other arguments such as suggested eschatological differences are explained by the situational context of the letter and indeed bring harmony between the two letters of Thessalonians and favour Pauline authorship.

The Pastoral letters (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus)

The initial argument against Pauline authorship is that they were written long after Paul’s death. Further arguments are based on vocabulary, style and theology as well as implied situation, as discussed with Colossians and Ephesians. Many unique words are present but as we know, we cannot assume that Paul’s vocabulary did not change. The style is different to the other letters, but we should recognise that these letters were semi-private in nature and thus calls for a different style of writing. Another argument is that the theology would have been too advanced for Paul’s time, specifically based on the church offices laid out in the letters. However we know that there was such structure evident in the synagogues as well as the Philippian church at the time. Some further argue that the nature of the heresies addressed in the letter were Gnostic in character and thus would have been more probable later in the first century and that the doctrine set forth by Paul is too concrete for such an early date. However, we see that similar heresies were already present in surrounding regions and these heresies pressed Paul for concrete doctrine.

Finally we must conclude that while we can examine these arguments against authorship, there is no substantive evidence which could prove Paul was not the author of the pastorals.

Cited:

Asumang A 2009. Paul and his letters. SATS Press

Holman Illustrated Pocket Bible handbook 2004. Holman Bible publishers

Spirit Filled Life Bible concordance 1991. Thomas Nelson Publishers