As a disclaimer, I believe that all of the currently accepted scriptural canon is divinely inspired by God and this post is in no way intended to cast doubt on whether Paul's authorship can be trusted. At the same time, I've always found it quite interesting that the majority authorship of the New Testament is comprised, not of the core group of men who spent several years in intimate proximity with Christ, but of one random fella who comes out of nowhere, and yet arguably has the greatest impact on historic Christian doctrine of anyone in history aside from Jesus himself.

So, entertain the question, if you will. Imagine that Paul got laughed out of Damascus and never became an apostle: What major, unique doctrines do we lose if we throw out the epistles written by Paul?

What is the accepted order in which Paul is said to have written his epistles?

Hello!

A few weeks ago I asked r/AcademicBiblical what some applications of AI or NLP to the Bible could be, given that I have a bit of time and access to good NLP models at work. There were good ideas in the comments and I thought u/kromem's was interesting and simple enough: what can AI tell us about the authorship of the Pauline epistles? Or, from the point of the view of the model: Is this text written by Paul?

A disclaimer: I'm not as familiar with Bible scholarship as others, and it's likely that there are excellent English translations of the original texts. That said, I'm most comfortable and familiar with the KJV translation. (This is also not serious research, but a chance to try and share something interesting.)

tl;dr When we ask AI to determine if Paul wrote the disputed epistles, the findings suggest that Paul wrote some of the disputed Pauline epistles, but there's a very good chance that he didn't write all of them. Titus, especially, doesn't appear written by Paul.

When we label each verse with an authenticity score (i.e., the probability that Paul wrote that verse), we see the following results:

https://preview.redd.it/vwdhw7trg8l71.png?width=912&format=png&auto=webp&s=8217f1e5e3914cff4ab58938497bb00ac322e3e0

https://preview.redd.it/ncdbo1wsg8l71.png?width=1036&format=png&auto=webp&s=dfe9c50fd435adf59764a06dc30eacce3649c540

The x-axis shows the authenticity score which is really just the likelihood (in percent) that a text is written by Paul. The y-axis describes the count of texts.

A few notes on training:

• The classifier was trained on epistles we definitely know are written by Paul and those we definitely know aren't written by him.
• I used a randomized sample of data from both sets to avoid biasing the model toward specific parts of the epistle (opening, body, closing).
• To establish a baseline of performance, I validated the model with verses from Pauline and non-Pauline epistles that weren't in the original training set.
• Those results are below

The Y-axis is adjusted to proportionally represent the results

The model seems to predict Paul's writing with a bit more confidence, which makes sense given the variety of authors for the

So most of you might be familiar with the claim that at least half of the Pauline epistles were forged.

How true is this?

And if it is true, who do you think forged them? And why? These epistles don't seem to contradict any of the New Testament doctrines.

I ask this because it's one of my biggest sources of doubt, despite still appreciating their truth.

Many thanks in advance!

Context

I have been in a debilitating mental condition because of religion for quite some time now. My family was worried about my dysfunctionalities and tried to show me that christianity was false. The arguments and videos presented where insufficient, but they helped me to realise that maybe there was a way to get out of my existential dread, and so i entered the rabbit hole of the fundamental flaws of christianity, and I managed to find satisfactory answers for nearly every topic, but I started to have problems when I got to the pauline letters. I am yet to find a satisfactory answer to the little conundrum I found. Obviously my fear of being christian again doesnt allow me to think about anything else, so I want to see if you guys have any thoughts on the matter.

Points of interest

1. The apostoles preached at the early church (at least 3 of the twelve plus 2). The early church had one of the first doctrinal developments that the disciples had seen risen Jesus. It would at least be odd that they would preach arround those churches if they had not seen anything .
2. Paul knew John, Peter and James. In 1 Corinthians 15 he cites a creed that states that they had seen risen Jesus, so at the very least they didn't denied it to him, and with he spending 15 days with Peter, is at least odd that they wouldn't talk about the biggest thing in both of their lives when that is what is connecting them.
3. While not backed up by evidence, the statement of 500 is separated (to my knowledge) of the rest of the creed, and it seems weird that Paul would made up something so specific
4. 2 corinthians 12:12 is where Paul states that the miracles and wonderful deeds that and apostle is expected to fulfill in order to be an apostle, were fulfilled by him to the interlocutors of the letter. He couldn't be lying about what they saw to themselves. Plus, this comes to fit and imply the general stories of apostles performing miraculous deeds.
5. (Just a minor thing, mostly anecdotal) although legendary development might riddle most of the new testament, is easier to adulterate the histories and deeds than the actual teachings. Jews passed down their teachings for generations. So is possible that the influences of the new testament tend to be more in line with Jesus, even if the stories aren't. As for the epistiles, they were written in a very early context, and in contact with people that met Jesus.

REFERENCES

1 Corinthians 15 creed (NIV)

Now, brothers and siste

Having nothing to do with Matthew, I was surprised (and disappointed in myself for not knowing) to recently discover that there is some question regarding the authenticity of 6 of the Pauline Epistles.

Do any of you know if there is any validity to these questions?

I know with the passage in John about getting the first stone, and most Bibles have notation regarding three origin of the passage, and that it doesn't change the narrative or character Christ.

Does knowing that some of these letters may have been misattributed change how you view them?

I recognize that the traditional Protestant reconciliation interprets James to be speaking about a certain type of faith (one that does not produce good works and is merely intellectual assent) as non-salvific, while still teaching that faith alone is what saves us. I think this is a tenuous explanation.

While it is true that James, at times, seems to reference a certain type of faith ("What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?"), he also writes of all faith in general: "You see that his faith was working with his actions, and his faith was perfected by what he did" and "As you can see, a man is justified by his deeds and not by faith alone."

He doesn't say "a man is justified by his deeds and not by a certain type of non-works-producing faith" but rather "not by faith alone." And the prior verse also seems to make clear that the arrow doesn't point from faith to works, but rather also from works to faith, as his "faith was perfected by what he did."

I don't see how this view can be reconciled with the Pauline epistles. Examples include Romans 3:28: "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" and "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

I can understand why Martin Luther himself, at least at one point, did not have a high view of the book. A plain reading of James clearly seems to clash with the core Gospel message... What am I missing?

Hi. Can anyone help me with the strong reasons we have to assign the range of dates for composition of Paul's epistles? Personal views welcome, so long as you give evidence.

I believe that all of the traditionally attributed letters of Paul are from his hand, and also Hebrews, and am interested in evidence for dating all of these.

Thanks so much.

(2) St. Paul.—Much has been written on the relations of the teaching of St. Paul to our Lord—how far Christianity would have succeeded in becoming the world-religion but for St. Paul, how much of the Gospel teaching is genuinely Christ’s teaching and not due to Pauline influence. The present writers are not here concerned with these questions. They believe that our Lord was conscious of the establishment of communion between God and man through Himself; and that this was apprehended by St. Paul. The present question is simply how St. Paul assists in interpreting this stupendous fact. To St. Paul, God is endowed with all the essentials of the absolute, eternal, transcendent, yet immanent, Godhead. But, first and foremost, St. Paul presupposes the Fatherhood of God, the fundamental article of our Lord’s teaching, without which communion between God and man would have been impossible.

This Fatherhood is characterized by (a) righteousness, (b) wrath. Righteousness is the ethical ground of God’s dealings with His children, the norm of their admission to communion with Him. Wrath is called forth by their refusal or failure to make the best use of pre-Christian means of communion. It was the righteous curse of God under which they lay when Christ ‘in the fulness of the time’ (Gal 4:4) manifested God. But, as righteousness is of the essence of the Father who reveals Himself to man, so righteousness is the sine qua non, the presupposition and postulate, of the possibility that man should come into communion with God. Here it is that St. Paul sees the necessity for Christ, even on the negative side. Man had been created in the image and glory of God (1 Co 11:7), but the guilt of the Fall became hereditary in man (Ro 5:12), and so man was dominated, not by righteousness, but by sin in his flesh. Man’s vision of God and his sense of communion with Him were dimmed. He was in a state of unrighteousness (Ro 1:18). How was this unrighteousness to be done away? How was the possibility of communion (righteousness) to be re-established? St. Paul answers—through Christ Jesus, and through Him alone. He emphasizes this point by contrasting Christ’s removal of the obstacles with (not, be it noted, by deriding) two earlier attempts to restore man’s righteousness—two attempts which, in the long run, had only led man to wallow still deeper in the mire of sin, and to wander still further from communion with God.

(α) The first attempt had been in the possibilities of partial comm

I’ve believed that of our traditional 13 Pauline epistles only 7 are actually by him, 1&2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and Romans. However, I’ve seen in some differing opinions , such as Ephesians or Colossians being Pauline. I am not incredibly well versed so any help is appreciated, thank you!

If we assume that gLord has priority over gLuke (Vinzent, Klinghardt, Tyson, etc.), and thus the early church figures that accused Marcion of editing gLuke were either wrong or lying, what reason do we have to suspect that these figures are more honest/correct when it comes to the Pauline Epistles?

Marcion's versions of the epistles were lacking certain verses and he was accused by these figures of purposefully removing these verses, but what reason do we have to believe these statements? Could these verses have not just as easily have been later interpolations and the church figures are making false accusations about Marcion in the same vein as their accusations about him editing gLuke?

Again, if we assume the theory of Marcion priority, what reasons are there to think it was, in fact, Marcion that edited the Pauline Epistles?

I hear scholars say that 7 of the Pauline epistles are by Paul. Such as Romans, Galatians and 1 Corinthians. They also come to find dates for these such as 53-54 AD for 1 Corinthians. How do they come to these conclusions about the authorship and dating and how can we be certain their conclusions are correct?

I do understand that the subject matter and usage of the Greek language differs in the Pastoral Epistles from Paul's 'undisputed' Epistles (i.e. 1 Thes, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Rom, Phil, Phlm).

What I do not understand is:

(A) Why a reasonable scholar would feel comfortable presuming that a shift in subject matter, even if dramatic, would necessitate differing authorship. Generally speaking, Paul's letters seem highly specialized to his audience and their present troubles and concerns. Paul also demonstrates skill at jumping from topic to topic, yet still producing a coherent overall message. What is so anomalous within the Pastoral content that gives critical scholars unabashed certainty in non-Pauline authorship? (And is there a risk of overconfidence here among such scholars?)

(B) Also, isn't it pretty widely accepted that Paul sometimes employed scribes to compose the bodies of his letters? Why couldn't the use of unfamiliar Greek be the consequence of a new scribe or series of scribes? Additionally, couldn't an evolution in Paul's personal theological focuses, over time, lead to his using new vocabulary for clearer expression/emphasis?

I apologize if I'm not asking the right questions here. If I'm asking the wrong questions, then please feel free to ignore them and address the more relevant issues instead! Lastly, I'm not at all trying to be hostile or combative -- only trying to make sense of the apparent boldness of modern critical scholarship on this subject, which eludes me.

I sincerely appreciate everyone's time and thought! God bless you.

This deliberation stems from me trying to understand what salvation by grace (as in Eph 2:8) means. The most common meaning of by in English, as in "this painting was painted by Rembrandt" doesn't seem to work here. But being aware of idiomatic uses in English (by the grace of God, saving grace) I thought that as a non-native speaker I might not have a good grasp of phrase by grace, so I decided to consult translations in Polish (my native language).

The most popular, catholic translation (BT), has χαριτι translated as with grace (actually without the preposition, since we have noun cases, similarly to Greek) , as in "I nailed the nails with a hammer". So grace here is an instrument of salvation.

The evangelical translation (NP) yields a phrase that, by analogy to a common idiom, seems to mean as an act of grace.

So quite different meanings. Let's create these 2 hypothetical "definitions" of grace, which would correspond to those*:*

1. something substantial, that can be used as an instrument, sort of a magical force, that God can give to a person for their benefit (e.g. salvation)
2. (God's) disposition to somebody, which makes them do favours to that person; goodwill

I did some amateur research and I have found some pros and cons for those:

ad 1:

• + some (e.g. Mounce) say that χαριτι is an instrumental dative or dative of means. But why then it isn't translated "with grace"?
• + those verses seem to say that grace is something substantial, that can even work on its own:
  • Rom 5:15: (...) have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
  • 1 Cor 15:10: (...) I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
• - the BT translation also translates χαριτι as in 2. in a different place. Also as: due to grace, after grace. WTF. All these cases could be well translated as 2.
• +? catholic church speaks of graces that you can receive, e.g. sanctifying grace, but I don't think that's biblical

ad 2:

• + this translation seems more parsimonious; no need to introduce the "magical force"
• - however, verses cited in ad. 1. seem to speak against this. Or are these some bold metaphors?

So I guess my question is, are there multiple meaning of grace in the epistles? And specifically, how to understand by grace in Eph 2:5,8.

Bonus question:

The more I dig into this, the more I feel like Paul didn't care about logic at a

I've been realizing more and more of late how divisive of a figure Paul seems to be among... well, everyone, but usually you only see arguments erupt among people who frequently talk about metaphysics or suchlike. I'm currently in the early stages of performing a survey of a number of subs in an attempt to better understand people's opinions of Paul and his writings, and this looks like a good place to start. So, without further ado: What is your opinion of Paul's epistles, and of Paul himself?

Questions in the title.

Many scholars have called the disputed six letters of Paul the “deutero-Pauline” epistles. It is believed by some that these letters may have been written by someone who was influenced by Paul’s doctrine and wrote what they thought Paul would have said on certain issues. Whether or not all of the epistles traditionally attributed to Paul were in fact written by him is a matter of ongoing discussion among biblical scholars. There are traditionally thirteen epistles attributed to Paul.

https://crossexamined.org/paul-write-thirteen-letters-attributed/

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha (NOAB), Fifth Edition*,* states:

>Of the twenty-one letters in the New Testament, thirteen are from Paul or his missionary associates: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. These letters are arranged not chronologically but in rough order of length, with Romans being the longest and Philemon the shortest.(Introduction to the Letters/Epistles in the New Testament, in the *New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha (Fifth Edition),*Kindle Edition, Loc. 116716.)

There are three letters among these termed Pastoral Epistles:

>The term “Pastoral Epistles” has been applied, since the eighteenth century, to the three letters from Paul to his two co-workers and envoys, Timothy and Titus. The name reflects the central concern in these three epistles for the internal life, governance, and behavior of Christian communities and their members. Scholars have long debated whether these letters were written by the apostle Paul himself, or by a later disciple who sought to provide guidance for Pauline churches in new times and places. While most scholars today regard them as pseudepigraphical (that is, ascribed to the authority of a major figure but not actually written by him, a custom well attested in ancient literature), there is not complete unanimity on the question. The conclusion that these three epistles were not written by Paul is based upon literary, historical, and theological criteria.(Ibid, from Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles.)

According to the commentary in the aforementioned NABRE,

>The three letters, First and Second Timothy and Titus, form a distinct group within the Pauline corpus. In the collection of letters by the Apostle to the Gentiles, they differ from the othe

How do critical scholars respond to the various arguments in the article put forth in defense of genuine Pauline authorship , based on the external evidence and internal evidence? This question is aimed at the "Deutero-Pauline" epistles and Pastoral epistles.

https://capturingchristianity.com/is-bart-ehrman-right-when-he-says-half-of-pauls-letters-are-forgeries/

From Wikipedia:

>Several additional letters bearing Paul's name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether or not Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are genuine letters of Paul. The remaining four contested epistles – Ephesians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) – have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars

>On the basis of their language, content, and other factors, the pastoral epistles are today widely regarded as not having been written by Paul, but after his death.

I'm kind of skeptical that Paul wrote the pastorals but this article definitely gave me some food for thought. The arguments against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians and Ephesians seem pretty weak though.

There's wide scholarly consensus that several of them are forgeries, such as 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy. They're clearly not written by Paul, though they go to pretty ridiculous lengths to try to reassure their readers that they are.

What's your take on them? Do they belong in the Bible? If not, how did they end up being accepted into it?

It's my understanding that those books are considered to be the final and complete works. Are the Hadith considered explanations of the Koran? If so, wouldn't they be fundamentally flawed since Muhammad was the Last Prophet?

Should Christians view the Epistles with suspicion, given that Paul was interpreting the gospel through the lens of his upbringing? IMO, they shouldn't be included in the New Testament at all.

Both the Pauline epistles and the epistle of James use comparable examples to make their respective points about the relationship between faith, works, and justification/righteousness. For instance, they both mention Abraham’s justification (compare, e.g., Rom 4:1-5,13-22 with Jam 2:20-24).

However, Paul focuses in on the point that Abraham’s justification occurred before he was circumcised (Rom 4:9-12), when Abraham believed God’s promise regarding the forthcoming birth of Isaac and the multitude of offspring Abraham would bear through Isaac (Gen 15:1-6). On the other hand, James focuses in on what occurred years later, when Abraham was prepared to offer Isaac as a sacrifice and did not distrust the LORD’s command (Gen 22:1-18).

Interestingly, though, both Paul and James ground their central theses on the words of Gen 15:6 (“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”) (see Rom 4:3, Jam 2:23).

Questions:

• Are the Pauline epistles and the epistle of James referring to the same concepts when they use the terms “faith”, “works”, and “justification/righteousness”? (For example—concerning the term “works”—does Paul mean specifically “works of the law” such as circumcision, while James means something closer to “general Godly conduct”?)

• How do Biblical scholars and Christian theologians reconcile Paul’s message with James’ message?

Thank you so much for your time and effort. I really value your guys’ opinions. God bless you and be well.

as the title asks, how come paul wrote around 20 years after Jesus death and pauls own conversion (33-36 AD)?

Was it because he was busy preaching to other communitys? If so how come still he didnt write about Jesus or any of his events?

Its just odd he wrote most of his epistles (that we have) in a short span of around the early to late 50s and not any time before. Unless he did write about Christianity earlier but they were either lost of not considered scripture, Im kinda wondering why so few letters so late?

According to scholars, which Pauline epistles are authentic (that is, written by Paul the Apostle) and which are written by someone else? Also, by what evidence is this conclusion reached: is it a matter of the kind of writing, or is it the source of the original documents (or scrolls)?

Hey, so I've heard people say of "Paul's" letters that have disputed authorship that Paul haf gone blind and dictated the letters to someone who wrote them down. Do we have evidence for and against this that I could read up on? Thanks!