Did Paul Write the Letters to Timothy?

[Deacon_Ed]

itsjustdave1988:

Deacon Ed,
I’m betting if these same textual critics read some of my writings from just a few years back, they would conclude that they were not consistent with my writings today. I don’t find such criticism to be error-free. I especially find such criticism skeptical when their conclusions are contrary to ancient tradition.

Dave,

I’m certainly not suggesting that their conclusions are without error. We do have to be careful, however, about what consider “ancient tradition” to say. For years people bought the stories about the early popes that were found in the Liber Pontificalis. The problem is, the firsd half of that book contained material that was, for the most part, the invention of the author – it was not factual. The problem lay in that the last half of the book was quite accurate!

Deacon Ed

 

[T.More]

“I’m betting if these same textual critics read some of my writings from just a few years back, they would conclude that they were not consistent with my writings today. I don’t find such criticism to be error-free. I especially find such criticism skeptical when their conclusions are contrary to ancient tradition.”

Dave: This is a great point. I remember a few years back a textual critic analyzed the written works of another textual critic and determined that the second critic did not write his own works! It was, of course, humorous but illustrates how absurd their techniques are.

 

[T.More]

Hmmm… I think I understand what you are saying. It is, however, not correlated to reality in this case. For example, we know that if Paul simply used a scribe and gave him a message: “Tell the Collosians not to do XYZ.” and the scribe then wrote a letter to that effect. Is Paul the author?

I think there are a couple of issues that are being confused here. One issue is how scribal involvement constitutes authorship. I am not saying that a scribe or secretary’s transcription of a letter means that the person dictating the substance is not the author or co-author. I would not even say that the having someone ghostwrite parts of a document for a second person would mean that the second person is not an author or co-author in some sense, so long as the second person ratified it.

You go beyond this, as is illustrated by your statements. You cannot rule out that Paul did not author the letter in spite of express biblical statements saying he did. This is grievous error and implies that parts of the Bible are not true, or may not be true (such as the statement of Pauline authorship). Similarly, you believe that there are errors in the Gospel of Matthew. This is serious error and, again, I think highlights one source of weakness in the Catholic Church today (along with a majority of Protestant churches) and necessarily undermines confidence in the Scriptures.

I am not going to get into a discussion with you on Mt 21:5-7 or other specific passages. However, I do think your inference is wrong and the result of serious methodological error. The author (or, perhaps under your view authors) of Matthew would have to be more than mistaken, as you suggest. He would have to be a complete idiot (using that term in the technical sense). Even secular documents are not normally treated that way.

T. More

 

[Deacon_Ed]

T. More:

I think there are a couple of issues that are being confused here. One issue is how scribal involvement constitutes authorship. I am not saying that a scribe or secretary’s transcription of a letter means that the person dictating the substance is not the author or co-author. I would not even say that the having someone ghostwrite parts of a document for a second person would mean that the second person is not an author or co-author in some sense, so long as the second person ratified it.

Then we are in agreement. We cannot rule out Pauline authorship, even if it is somewhat removed (such as throught the use of a scribe or ghostwriter).

You go beyond this, as is illustrated by your statements. You cannot rule out that Paul did not author the letter in spite of express biblical statements saying he did. This is grievous error and implies that parts of the Bible are not true, or may not be true (such as the statement of Pauline authorship). Similarly, you believe that there are errors in the Gospel of Matthew. This is serious error and, again, I think highlights one source of weakness in the Catholic Church today (along with a majority of Protestant churches) and necessarily undermines confidence in the Scriptures.

As I see it, there are two approaches that one can take. One can ignore the discrepancies in Scripture, bury one’s head, and simply proceed with a black-and-white view of Scripture that is not consistent with the best of Scriptural scholarship. On the other hand, one can examine Scripture using the best research available with as complete an awareness as possible of the historical and social setting in which the author worked, the literary genre and the rules that were applicable to writers in that period. In other words, one does not attempt to employ anachronistic thinking with regard to Scripture. As with science, there can be no discrepancy between true Scripture and the teachings of the Church since the Church can only teach Truth.

I am not going to get into a discussion with you on Mt 21:5-7 or other specific passages. However, I do think your inference is wrong and the result of serious methodological error. The author (or, perhaps under your view authors) of Matthew would have to be more than mistaken, as you suggest. He would have to be a complete idiot (using that term in the technical sense). Even secular documents are not normally treated that way.

So, rather than really look at the issue you are going to resort to what amounts to ignoring the problems and asserting you are correct in any case.

Deacon Ed

 

[T.More]

Deacon Ed:

[1] I think you are missing the point on Pauline authorship. I am 100 percent certain that Paul authored 1 Timothy. That is different from saying that Paul handwrote 1 Timothy or that he did not give final edits and approval to what went out, if he was working with a draft.

[2] You are again confusing issues regarding textual analysis. You lump into one indistinguishable mass many discrete issues, such as historical setting, mistakes in memory, and scribal customs. There is nothing wrong with using historical background to inform our understanding of scripture. To approve of that does not imply that the the scripture contains error, as you believe.

[3] On debating particular passages (such as your Matt. 21 example), I frankly don’t see the value if we don’t agree on method. People who approach the Bible wrongly (as you do) will always misunderstand it. It judges us, not the reverse. No matter how many items I could convince you of, there would be no end to the number of other items you could ask about. Of course, critics don’t always agree with each other, as the Jesus Seminar and scholarly literature indicates.

Regarding Matthew 21 it is facially absurd to suggest that the issue you raise could result from error in memory. Was Matthew (or whomever you think wrote the book) (mis)remembering Jesus straddling two animals at once?

[4] The extent to which textual criticism, German idealism, Enlightenment philosophy, and other issues have infected the Cathlolic Church is deeply saddening. It does not surprise me that The Cathlolic Churhc is going the way of Mainline Protestantism.

T. More

 

[T.More]

BTW, it is interesting that many textual critics doubt the authenticity of many passages orthodox Catholics rely on. For example, I understand that many in the Jesus Seminar doubted the authenticity of Matthew 16:19 (the giving the keys to Peter).

 

[Deacon_Ed]

T. More:

Deacon Ed:

[1] I think you are missing the point on Pauline authorship. I am 100 percent certain that Paul authored 1 Timothy. That is different from saying that Paul handwrote 1 Timothy or that he did not give final edits and approval to what went out, if he was working with a draft.

I didn’t misunderstand or miss the point. I am fully aware that you think Paul wrote 1 Tim. I do not deny tht he could have been the author and was certainly the inspiration behind the letter. Whether or not he wrote it/dictated it/inspired it/approved it is not something I am 100% certain of.

[2] You are again confusing issues regarding textual analysis. You lump into one indistinguishable mass many discrete issues, such as historical setting, mistakes in memory, and scribal customs. There is nothing wrong with using historical background to inform our understanding of scripture. To approve of that does not imply that the the scripture contains error, as you believe.

I agree that there are numerous methods that allow us to get a better understanding of Scripture. Historical and Literary criticism are among the most useful, textual criticism offers us some insights, but is not (by itself) useful for determining much more than issues relating to date of composition (and even then it is rarely useful without a fuller knowledge of the various writing styles at different periods).

[3] On debating particular passages (such as your Matt. 21 example), I frankly don’t see the value if we don’t agree on method. People who approach the Bible wrongly (as you do) will always misunderstand it. It judges us, not the reverse. No matter how many items I could convince you of, there would be no end to the number of other items you could ask about. Of course, critics don’t always agree with each other, as the Jesus Seminar and scholarly literature indicates.

Frankly, I don’t consider the work of the Jesus Seminar to be scholarly since it appears to put forth an agenda rather than actually doing scholarly research.

Regarding Matthew 21 it is facially absurd to suggest that the issue you raise could result from error in memory. Was Matthew (or whomever you think wrote the book) (mis)remembering Jesus straddling two animals at once?

The point is, Matthew has Jesus riding both animals. Why? Most scholars suggest it is because whoever wrote Matthew was not Jewish and, therefore, did not understand that in the original prophecy the “colt” and the “***” (3 letter word for donkey should go here) are the same animal. Matthew, however, makes them separate animals. The fact that it is present in Scripture reflects an error – probably Matthew’s understanding was in erroe, but that error is perpetuated in Scripture. You can make all the claims you want about my not understanding Scripture, but as long as you refuse to even look at the Scriptures in this regard your claims are empty.

[4] The extent to which textual criticism, German idealism, Enlightenment philosophy, and other issues have infected the Cathlolic Church is deeply saddening. It does not surprise me that The Cathlolic Churhc is going the way of Mainline Protestantism.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion which, fortunately, is not that of the Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Actually, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that Paul did write the Letters to Timothy.

On June 12, 1913, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC0 declared that “it is to be held as certain” that Paul is the author of the Pastoral Epistles, and that they were written between the time of Paul’s liberation from his first imprisonment and his death.

This declaration, “On the Authenticity, Integrity, and Time of Composition of the Pastoral Epistles”, can be found in the book Rome and the Study of Scripture, published by Saint Meinrad Archabbey.

We have to remember that, before 1968, the PBC was an organ of the Magisterium (not it’s only an advisory body of scholars, some even non-Catholic), and so its decrees prior to this date remain in force, since none of them has been rescinded.

This is not to say that these declarations are infallible (they’re not), or that Catholic scholars cannot hypothetically contradict these decrees. It’s just that no Catholic may lawfully put forward an opposite hypothesis as factual.

Since scribes have been mentioned on this thread, am I correct that St. Peter, while in Rome, used St. Mark as his scribe?

Yes.

On june 26, 1912, the PBC ruled that “it cannot prudently be called into question” that Mark wrote according to the preaching of Peter.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

(not it’s only an advisory body of scholars, some even non-Catholic)

That should read, "now it’s only an advisory . . .)

 

[Deacon_Ed]

DV:

And since that time the Church has stated that Paul did not write the “Letter to the Hebrews” (actually a collection of homilies and not a letter) which previously had been attributed to Paul. The teaching today is that Paul is “most likely” the author of the Pauline corpus.

Deacon Ed

 

[T.More]

Deacon Ed:I read through Divino Afflante Spiritu and don’t think it supports your position or the methods you affirm. It does not condone the presence of error, historical or otherwise, in the original autographs of the scriptures.

Paragraph 38, as one example, states that the job of the Catholic commentator is to “explain] the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrat[e] and prov[e] its immunity from all error.” This is the opposite of what you are doing. BTW, Paragraph 38 later expressly includes “historical accuracy” in its concern.

There is nothing that I saw in the ecyclical that would allow for errors in the biblical text, whether based on memory lapses or whatever. Indeed, the encyclical expressly takes the opposite position.

You reproached the Sacred Writer of Gospel of Matthew with error here, among other places:

The fact that it is present in Scripture reflects an error – probably Matthew’s understanding was in error, but that error is perpetuated in Scripture.

I would suggest that the last half of paragraph 38 applies to some of your concerns and the mthodological attitude that one should adopt in studying scripture:

Not infrequently - to mention only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients, which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.

It is also wrong for you, according to the terms of the encyclical, to charge the Gospel of Matthew with error as you have done.

T. More

 

[T.More]

You are certainly welcome to your opinion which, fortunately, is not that of the Church.

Where is it not the opinion of the church? Neither Divino Afflante Spiritu nor the even sterner Providentissimus Deus support your methods.

I am curious, what is your position on ordination of women and birth control?

Thanks

 

[Deacon_Ed]

T.More:

As long as you refuse to even look at the passage I cited, I don’t see how we can have any discussion at all. I fully support all Church teachings, including those that state that Scripture is without error. Of course, Scripture is also about Truth and not about facts. Just as Aesop’s Fables provide truth without providing facts, so too does Scripture, in places, provide Truth without factual material.

This is not to say that Scripture is a fable – don’t mistake the analogy for an equation. There are allegories in Scripture, and we must read them as such. It appears, however, that you want to read all of Scripture as factual account – and this we cannot do. This is where literary criticism comes into play. It allows us to look at each book in the library we call The Bible and know what we are reading.

Surely you wouldn’t want your daughter to be shaped like a temple (Ps 144:12).

Truth is Truth and it can be expressed in many different ways.

BTW, I am opposed to the ordination of women and absolutely in favor of birth control, as is the Church. What the Church, and I, oppose is artificial birth control – please at least ask the question correctly.

Deacon Ed

 

[itsjustdave1988]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Actually, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that Paul did write the Letters to Timothy.

Thanks for that fine bit of research. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Deacon Ed:

DV:

And since that time the Church has stated that Paul did not write the “Letter to the Hebrews” (actually a collection of homilies and not a letter) which previously had been attributed to Paul.

Can you quote the magisterial text? It seems to me that Catholic exegetes have asserted that Hebrews was not written by Paul. I’ve not yet seen this declaration positively made by magisterial texts, however. There’s a difference. The PBC decisions referred to by DV above were approved by the pope and published in the AAS, having the force of doctrinal teachings. While not infallible, they are official doctrine and not merely a non-magisterial Catholic opinion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As I see it, Catholic doctrine asserts that the Pauline epistles are Pauline (in the authorial sense that Deacon Ed describes), whereas many Catholic exegetes assert as opinion (sometimes rather incorrectly as fact), that Paul did not author some of the Pauline epistles.

 

[T.More]

Deacon Ed: Again, you are confusing discrete issues and you are outside the teaching of the encyclical you cited. As to talking about the Matthew passage, again this would be fruitless. Even if we ultimately agreed on that one passage, you could just pull a list from Internet Infidels, some resource by other biblical skeptics, or higher critics. There would be no end. People who do not approach the Scriptures with the humility and patience required by Divino Afflante Spiritu (see especially paragraphs 44 and 45) will always perceive errors that are not there. This thread is on Timothy, and I have discussed that passage expressly.

BTW, there is also no need to be testy - my question about birth control was perfectly fine and was exactly the question I wanted to ask. I will craft my questions in the way I see fit, as I trust you will. You can answer as you choose and make the distinctions you want.

 

[T.More]

As I see it, Catholic doctrine asserts that the Pauline epistles are Pauline (in the authorial sense that Deacon Ed describes), whereas many Catholic exegetes assert as opinion (sometimes rather incorrectly as fact), that Paul did not author some of the Pauline epistles.

I would be cautious with this assessment. Deacon Ed equivocates allot and mixes many discrete issues. The epistle expressly says it is from Paul (in whatever authorial sense this means). The best Deacon Ed can say is “I would hesitate to assert that Paul was not the author.” That is a not the same an unqualified affirmation of the truthfulness of epistle’s express affirmation of Pauline authorship.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As I understand it, Pauline authorship according to the PBC was in the same sense of Mosaic authorship of the Pentaeuch. This is not to deny that a pupil of the author may have written portions (accounting for the disimilarity in grammatical form). This understanding is not opposed to Catholic doctrine. Consequently, the most probable view of the authorship of the Epistle of Hebrews, for example, is one that takes into proper consideration both internal and external evidence and the tradition of the Catholic Church. This seems to be still the one asserted by the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm

Most Probable Solution

From what has been said it follows that the most probable solution of the question as to the author is that up to the present time the opinion of Origen has not been superseded by a better one. It is, consequently, necessary to accept that in the Epistle to the Hebrews the actual author is to be distinguished from the writer. No valid reason has been produced against Paul as the originator of the ideas and the entire contents of the letter; the belief of the early Church held throughout with entire correctness to this Apostolic origin of the Epistle.

The writer, the one to whom the letter owes its form, had apparently been a pupil of the Apostle. It is not possible now, however, to settle his personality on account of the lack of any definite tradition and of any decisive proof in the letter itself. Ancient and modern writers mention various pupils of the Apostle, especially Luke, Clement of Rome, Apollo, lately also Priscilla and Aquila.

Origen’s opinion, as described by the article:

Origen, on the other hand, distinguishes between the thoughts of the letter and the grammatical form; the former, according to the testimony of “the ancients” (oi archaioi andres), is from St. Paul; the latter is the work of an unknown writer, Clement of Rome according to some, Luke, or another pupil of the Apostle, according to others.

If memory serves me correctly, the PBC insist upon Pauline authorship, but does not condemn the above sense of Pauline authorship. I can check the exact wording of the PBC from a book I have at home, once I unpack my household goods (I just moved). If someone else has the exact wording, that would be helpful.

From the other postings I’ve read from Deacon Ed, he is quite orthodox (Byzantine Catholic, if I’m not mistaken) and obedient to the Roman Pontiff.

This view held by the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the result of modernism or historical-critical exegesis run a-muck, but that of the Church in ancient times.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

itsjustdave1988:

Can you quote the magisterial text? It seems to me that Catholic exegetes have asserted that Hebrews was not written by Paul. I’ve not yet seen this declaration positively made by magisterial texts, however. There’s a difference. The PBC decisions referred to by DV above were approved by the pope and published in the AAS, having the force of doctrinal teachings. While not infallible, they are official doctrine and not merely a non-magisterial Catholic opinion.

Dave,

The closest you’ll get is that the lectionary used at Mass no longer attributes Hebrews to Paul. Since the Lectionary is an authentic teaching of the Church, we can conclude that the Church no longer considers Paul to be the author of Hebrews.

Deacon Ed