Meatros

I'm having trouble locating a source for the general scholarly consensus as to which of Paul's letters in the New Testament are reliably from Paul.

Can anyone help me out with this?

Thanks,

Toto

Peter Kirby's www.earlychristianwritings.com discusses each of the letters and notes whether it is generally accepted.

This "general acceptance" is IMHO less reliable than the Jesus Seminar's voting on the authentic words of Jesus. There are serious scholars who assume all of the letters are later compositions, and there is a "consensus" that about 7 of them are mostly authentic. There are no early texts that throw any light on the question.

ETA - from earlychristianwritings:

these are the presumed authentic letters

1 Thessalonians
Philippians
Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Philemon

Zeichman

I think that's misleading, a scholarly majority also accept Colossians as probably authentic (though I would disagree), and a case can be made for 2 Thess., if a bit contrived.

Ephesians, 1 &2 Tim, Titus are near-universally accepted as later documents from a Pauline school. But yes, Peter Kirby's site is an excellent tool for this.

S.C.Carlson

I think that's about right, except that my sense of the field is that 2 Thess has a bit more proponents of its authenticity than Colossians, and Ephesians is somewhere between Colossians and the Pastorals.

Stephen

yalla

Gidday Zeichman,
You said "...from a Pauline school."

I think that that is misleading.
It implies that there was a group of students, disciples or followers if you wish, who, akin to the situation apropos Socrates et al, provided a continuum of study and thought based on the ideas of "their" teacher.A straight line of development of "Paulists", maybe even a "college'' type situation.
All sorts of implications arise from the word "school".

I do not think there is any evidence for such a phenomena.

Instead what we do have evidence for is something quite different.

Someone, somewhere, later, used the name of Paul to write a political document for his own purposes.
This happened more than once.

That's forgery.
It has no relationship to writing in the name of the teacher as a development of the thought of the teacher.

Zeichman

I think your assesment of what's a forgery and what is a pious writing in the name of a school of thought's founder are two different issues. Colossians and Ephesians, I would certainly not call forgeries- the thinking contained within is some form of Pauline thought, and certainly not strongly deviating from it. I think it's generally accepted that Ephesians is exactly the type of document you say it is not- laying out the general Pauline thought, and covering a few bases the apostle failed to. This, I concede, couldn't be said of 2 Thess and the Pastorals. However, the soterology within each of these is approximately Pauline, and seeks apostolic authority for the church's heirarchical foundations or correcting a problematic doctrine (that of the immediate parousia). I think that these authors wrote in the name of Paul offers evidence of a later Pauline school, as there appears to have been some sort of school for the brothers of Jesus (cf. Jude, arguably James), as there was also a distinct "Johannine" school. Why not of Paul, then?

Kosh

If I write a letter which espouses President Bush's viewpoints, and sign it "W", and try to pass it off being written by him, would I be welcomed as a guest speaker for Young Republicans, or would I be prosecuted as a forger? :devil1:

yalla

Gidday Zeichman,
You wrote: "This, I concede, couldn't be said of 2 Thess and the Pastorals."
That is, they are essentially [only "approximately"] not "Paul", but are falsely signed as such. Nearly a quarter of all "Pauline" writing admitted to be fake nearly unaminously. With about a half a century of time betwen them and the "originals" and no evidence of any connecting group in the interval.

Why?
What could be the motive to tell such a "fib"?
As you say:
"seeks apostolic authority for the church's heirarchical foundations or correcting a problematic doctrine ".

That's propaganda.

It's the stuff of Stalinist writings re Lenin and co., using the revered name from the past for current political purposes. What the revered person "would" have written is irrelevant, it's the name that is being exploited for later political purposes. To gain credibility and authority for that which otherwise may have have had none.

When apologists use the terms "school of'", "deutero", "Pauline'' etc. they are feeding into the propaganda device claim that this is what the revered apostle would have said IF it were him writing.
But it isn't him and that fact [presuming some of the alleged Paul stuff was not written by him] is being hidden from the audience. Deliberate deception for political gain.

Chris I don't think you are being deceptive.
I think you are accepting the claim of the apologists because it is so prevalent. It is difficult not to be "sucked in'' by the ubiquity of such a mind set.

Zeichman

Retrojecting modern standards onto ancient writings does not maketh a good argument. Burton Mack, hardly an apologist, holds the same position I do.


I'm pretty sure my position is in the scholarly majority (though I hardly would be considered a scholar), and, as I previously said, Burton Mack holds the same position. Robert Price is the only scholar that comes to mind who doesn't believe there was a semi-unified-Pauline school- and I think this goes back to the fact he thinks 1 Tim was written by someone other than the dude who wrote 2 Tim and Titus (something which I'm not totally opposed to). If you can argue against a Pauline school convincingly, I'll go to your side, otherwise I'm sticking with the majority.


Edit: and I'm assuming you somehow found out my first name and are addressing me.

yalla

Gidday Zeichman
Quote: "'Retrojecting modern standards onto ancient writings does not maketh a good argument.Burton Mack, hardly an apologist, holds the same position I do."

3 points.
1.Did the ancients really regard "pseudigraphia" benevolently? I have seen it frequently so stated but I have also seen the opposite stated. In 1 case a Christian writer complained of the false writings circulating in his name. Can't remember who but someone here would know.

And the fact remains, writings were forged for political reasons as you have stated.

2.The use by Mack of Q to push back sources re JC to the 30s and 40s is one reason why I, contrary to majority opinion, regard his work as partly apologetic.
I'm not interested in the majority.Virtually all I read on this subject comes from the pen of Christian scholars. And I see the same tactics used frequently. Unsubstantiated appeals to oral tradition to explain all sorts of things and create a line of transmission back to JC. The constant use of Church- given names to anonymous authors is so prevalent even these fora use them as a matter of course. These are debating tactics which by the weight of the words used from habit can create mind sets.
Another thread here asks how are we able to date Paul? The point is made that there is no obviously apparent evidence for giving the range that is almost completely unanimously taken for granted everywhere.
The key question is: is there evidence for a "school" of Paulinism or is it just a case of later forgers using the name for their own purposes?
Beware the mind set of the committed majority whose paradigm I am questioning.

3.Sorry about the first name, I saw it elsewhere whilst we were discussing Q, and it stuck. Apology.