Question about the Pauline epistles

  • Thread starter Thread starter frenchbeatle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

frenchbeatle

Guest
At my parish, before the first two readings, the lector reads an excerpt from a source giving background and explanation about the reading. (And no, I don’t know what this source is.) For the epistles, there have been times when the source says that the author is unknown.

For the past few weekends, when we hear the letters to Timothy, the source says “the author” as opposed to saying Paul, and the first weekend of the Timothy readings, the source says Paul probably didn’t write this letter, but it has been traditionally assigned to him. The Letter to the Hebrews is the same way, the author is unknown.

The reason I’m confused is that my bible, the Douay-Rhiems version, titles both these letters as “The Epistle of St. Paul to…” either Hebrews or Timothy. Plus, the first lines of both letters to Timothy both identify that Paul wrote them.

So who is right? Who wrote these letters? Do we even know with any degree of certainty?
 
One thing we do know for a certainty is that lectors should read the scriptures and shut up talking about anything else!
 
…So who is right? Who wrote these letters? Do we even know with any degree of certainty?
It is true that many modern scholars question Paul’s authorship of some of the epistles traditionally attributed to him. However, when some people read “scholars say” they presume that all biblical scholars would agree, which is not the case. Modern scholars tend to discount the witness of the early Church in these matters because they consider their historical recollections suspect, and prefer to date these books by using the internal evidence in the biblical books themselves. However, there are compelling reasons both ways. Many good scholars in our time see good reason to accept the traditional attribution of the Biblical books. Here is what Antonio Fuentes, editor of the well regarded Navarre Bible Commentary says about it:
Some critics have questioned the Pauline authorship of these pastoral letters (an attribution confirmed by tradition and by the magisterium of the Church) on the grounds of their literary style and doctrinal content, arguing also that the Church’s organization evidenced in the letters is much more advanced than that to be seen in other letters of the apostle. They also point out that the frequent references to “sound doctrine” (1Tim. 1:10, 2 Tim. 1:13) or the advice he gives about guarding “the truth that has been entrusted to you” (1Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim. 1:14) do not seem to fit in with Paul’s style.
These objections disappear if one bears in mind that the differences of style–the style is simpler and less rich than that of other letters–fit in with Paul’s being already an old man, as can be deduced from internal textual evidence. The new teaching which these critics see in the letters–the apostle puts special emphasis on good works–can also be explained by the practical or pastoral character these letters have. If he makes much of the need for “sound doctrine” and for guarding the deposit of faith, it is because he realizes that his end is near and he wants to put Timothy and Titus on their guard again erroneous and very dangerous new doctrines which threaten to make “shipwreck of their faith” (1Tim. 1:19).
There is no sign here of Gnostic teachings which would appear much later on, in the second century. It is, rather, a matter of “a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words” (1 Tim. 6:4), favored by certain Judaizing Christians, the result of influences emanating from hellenized Judaism and syncretism, which Paul had to deal with years before, as he says himself in his letter to the Colossians. (see source here)
My guess is that whoever is preparing the lector notes at your parish is uncritically repeating information they got from a source that itself relied on modern scholarship, perhaps even from the New American Bible, the Bible used by most American Catholics (see the NAB introduction to 1 Timothy). That’s why I’m not a big fan of the NAB-- especially the footnotes and introductions.

A lot of people (many, unfortunately, in charge of liturgy and catechetics) have the mistaken idea that more modern is equal to better, which is not always the case. Scholarship and speculation is ever-changing; what passed for state of the art biblical knowledge 150 years ago is considered almost laughable today. And thus the scholarly speculation of today may so appear not many years from now.
 
=frenchbeatle;7172701]At my parish, before the first two readings, the lector reads an excerpt from a source giving background and explanation about the reading. (And no, I don’t know what this source is.) For the epistles, there have been times when the source says that the author is unknown.
For the past few weekends, when we hear the letters to Timothy, the source says “the author” as opposed to saying Paul, and the first weekend of the Timothy readings, the source says Paul probably didn’t write this letter, but it has been traditionally assigned to him. The Letter to the Hebrews is the same way, the author is unknown.
The reason I’m confused is that my bible, the Douay-Rhiems version, titles both these letters as “The Epistle of St. Paul to…” either Hebrews or Timothy. Plus, the first lines of both letters to Timothy both identify that Paul wrote them.
So who is right? Who wrote these letters? Do we even know with any degree of certainty?
Uderstanding that God cannot lie; 2 Tim. 3:15-17 that spesaks specifically as “ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD.”

Many exergesis disagree on specifi authors and times and dates’ NONE IF WHICH altrs the message.

In Paul’s case most of his teachings were copied down by others. MOST but not All.

This is human intelect applying to what seemingly cannot be known with certitue, nor does it really matter.
 
Yes, we can know with certainty that St. Paul is the author of the 14 canonical epistles traditionally attributed to him. The Navarre commentary is correct that the Magisterium has already judged the matter:
DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
Do keep in mind that, according to tradition, St. Paul may have dictated some or all of his letters (take note of scriptures like Colossians 4:18), and this, along with possible translations into Greek, could account for differences in style. But don’t listen to false teachers, or better yet, correct them with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). And be confident in knowing the truth, as our Lord Jesus promised His people (John 8:32). God bless.
 
The norms of the Church do not permit a lector to read a commentary prior to the Scripture readings. That practice is a liturgical abuse.

Hebrews does not state that it was written by Paul. The Fathers disagreed on whether it was written by Paul or by one of his disciples.

However, the letters to Timothy explicitly state that these are letters from Paul. So to claim otherwise is to reject the definitive teaching of the Magisterium that Scripture contains no errors.

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.” In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.” When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules. (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)
 
At my parish, before the first two readings, the lector reads an excerpt from a source giving background and explanation about the reading. (And no, I don’t know what this source is.) For the epistles, there have been times when the source says that the author is unknown.

For the past few weekends, when we hear the letters to Timothy, the source says “the author” as opposed to saying Paul, and the first weekend of the Timothy readings, the source says Paul probably didn’t write this letter, but it has been traditionally assigned to him. The Letter to the Hebrews is the same way, the author is unknown.

The reason I’m confused is that my bible, the Douay-Rhiems version, titles both these letters as “The Epistle of St. Paul to…” either Hebrews or Timothy. Plus, the first lines of both letters to Timothy both identify that Paul wrote them.

So who is right? Who wrote these letters? Do we even know with any degree of certainty?
Get Navarre

scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=127

or

scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=349

and get catholicscripturecommentary.com/

there is one on the two letters to Timothy

It is a theory held by many exegetes…(others do not) …but still not per se what the Church holds. It is a debated thing. I hold Paul wrote them…

That source though…I would say…should not be read at Mass… it is “theory” even if held by many it is not “per se” held by the Church… theories should not be stated as “fact” in liturgy in this way…such is my thought…and I think the Church would agree. I would address this with the Pastor. The Lectionary itself reads: “a reading from the Letter of Paul to …” (hence this is how the Church wants it read in Liturgy)
 
However, the letters to Timothy explicitly state that these are letters from Paul. So to claim otherwise is to reject the definitive teaching of the Magisterium that Scripture contains no errors.
This is not quite the understanding or way of the Church. Who wrote the various letters of Paul is not “the definitive teaching of the Magisterium”…

(secondarily…I mean…God of course is the primary author and such is taught by the Church!)

But it is the teaching of the Church that they are all Sacred Scripture…the Written Word of God.
 
Regardless of the specifics of authorship, my first concern was whether this is even permissable. A couple of people have pointed out that it is not. Therefore, perhaps this needs to be called to the attention of the pastor, and if necessary the bishop.

Peace
James
 
Regardless of the specifics of authorship, my first concern was whether this is even permissable. A couple of people have pointed out that it is not. Therefore, perhaps this needs to be called to the attention of the pastor, and if necessary the bishop.

Peace
James
Wow, I must say that this and the other replies stating it’s not allowed to do this really blow my mind! I was not expecting it at all. Not to drag my own thread off on a tangent, but would it be permissable for the priest to do this instead of a lay lector? I ask for two reasons: 1. it would be a quick remedy to this issue at my parish and 2. at my former parish, there was a retired priest who would sub a lot when our pastor was on vacation. Before each reading, even the Gospel, he would do a similar thing; give a background and explanation of the reading. His version seemed extemporaneous. Is this OK, or is it not allowed for anyone to do?

Also, can someone please provide a source for why this is not allowed in case I decide to show it to my pastor? Thanks.
 
Wow, I must say that this and the other replies stating it’s not allowed to do this really blow my mind! I was not expecting it at all. Not to drag my own thread off on a tangent, but would it be permissable for the priest to do this instead of a lay lector? I ask for two reasons: 1. it would be a quick remedy to this issue at my parish and 2. at my former parish, there was a retired priest who would sub a lot when our pastor was on vacation. Before each reading, even the Gospel, he would do a similar thing; give a background and explanation of the reading. His version seemed extemporaneous. Is this OK, or is it not allowed for anyone to do?

Also, can someone please provide a source for why this is not allowed in case I decide to show it to my pastor? Thanks.
I’m not sure about the priest issue. If he chose to give this background as part of his homily, I don’t know that it would be “disallowed”.

Lectors are not permitted to “preach”. They are there to do the readings of the Holy Word from Scripture and that is all.

I agree that having good sources for this is necessary before going to your priest. I’m not well versed enough on the particulars of the Rubrics etc, to offer specific source material. I’m sure others here can. If no one comes forward with sources fairly quickly, I would suggest starting a thread in the “Liturgy” forum to address this.

Peace
James
 
I’m not sure about the priest issue. If he chose to give this background as part of his homily, I don’t know that it would be “disallowed”.

Lectors are not permitted to “preach”. They are there to do the readings of the Holy Word from Scripture and that is all.

I agree that having good sources for this is necessary before going to your priest. I’m not well versed enough on the particulars of the Rubrics etc, to offer specific source material. I’m sure others here can. If no one comes forward with sources fairly quickly, I would suggest starting a thread in the “Liturgy” forum to address this.

Peace
James
Contact Catholic Answers directly. They have all the sources…give em a ring.

But yes…I would think a Priest could perhaps speak to certain theories in his homily (with due care)…but he should not make “fact” what is not established as such…
 
I just opened up a thread in the Liturgy/Sacraments forum, so we’ll see what posters there come up with. Thanks for all the replies about who wrote Hebrews and Timothy. I think I’ll stick to what the lectionary says; after all, it says St. Paul wrote them all.
 
I just opened up a thread in the Liturgy/Sacraments forum, so we’ll see what posters there come up with. Thanks for all the replies about who wrote Hebrews and Timothy. I think I’ll stick to what the lectionary says; after all, it says St. Paul wrote them all.
ACTUALLY…such is not the case with Hebrews. I was commenting only on Timothy…

The Lectionary for the Roman Rite does not say it was…just “A Reading from the Letter to the Hebrews…”

There is much more weight on Hebrews not being from Paul…(even debated from very early on among the Fathers of the Church)

I myself could see how it is not…or at least “penned by a different secretary”…certainly I leave it up to the exegetes to fight it out…
 
ACTUALLY…such is not the case with Hebrews. I was commenting only on Timothy…

The Lectionary for the Roman Rite does not say it was…just “A Reading from the Letter to the Hebrews…”

There is much more weight on Hebrews not being from Paul…(even debated from very early on among the Fathers of the Church)

I myself could see how it is not…or at least “penned by a different secretary”…certainly I leave it up to the exegetes to fight it out…
Doh! So much for my reading comprehension. Thanks for the correction. Looks like Hebrews seems to be a mystery as to who wrote it.
 
During the “Year of St. Paul”, Pope Benedict dedicated many of this weekly audiences to discussion Paul and the Pauline epistles. The week that he discussed Timothy, he said:
The Letters addressed to these two Pastors occupy a very particular place within the New Testament. Most exegetes today are of the opinion that these Letters would not have been written by Paul himself, but would have come from the “Pauline School”, and that they reflect his legacy for a new generation, perhaps including some words or brief passages written by the Apostle himself. Some parts of the Second Letter to Timothy, for example, appear so authentic that they could have come only from the heart and mouth of the Apostle.
Here is the whole address: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html

I highly recommend reading Benedict’s addresses. They are short and simple and contain great teaching and explanation.
 
During the “Year of St. Paul”, Pope Benedict dedicated many of this weekly audiences to discussion Paul and the Pauline epistles. The week that he discussed Timothy, he said:

Here is the whole address: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html

I highly recommend reading Benedict’s addresses. They are short and simple and contain great teaching and explanation.
Yes they are Splendid!

One can read em online or buy the book…

I should note though that he does not say they were not written by Paul or that such is is thought …he is only noting that there are a number of exegetes who think they were not…
 
It is the definitive teaching of the Magisterium that Sacred Scripture is without error.
Sacred Scripture states that Paul wrote the letters to Timothy.

The claim that Paul did not write the letters to Timothy implies that Scripture contains a falsehood. This implication is contrary to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on the infallibility of Scripture.

Furthermore, the Fathers of the Church unanimously held that the Pauline Epistles were actually written by Paul (though they did not agree on Hebrews). The Council of Trent forbid anyone to interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

“It [the same sacred and holy Synod] decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers…”

Who wrote the Pauline Epistles?
According to Sacred infallible Scripture:

Romans - Paul
1 Corinthians - Paul and Sosthenes
2 Corinthians - Paul and Timothy
Galatians - Paul and “and all the brothers who are with me”
Ephesians - Paul
Philippians - Paul and Timothy
Colossians - Paul and Timothy
1 Thessalonians - Paul and Sylvanus and Timothy
2 Thessalonians - Paul and Sylvanus and Timothy
1 Timothy - Paul
2 Timothy - Paul
Titus - Paul
Philemon - Paul and Timothy
Hebrews - [no direct statement as to who wrote this letter]
 
It is the definitive teaching of the Magisterium that Sacred Scripture is without error.
Sacred Scripture states that Paul wrote the letters to Timothy.

The claim that Paul did not write the letters to Timothy implies that Scripture contains a falsehood. This implication is contrary to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on the infallibility of Scripture.

]
Such interpertation is not the understanding of the Catholic Church…

(though I for one think the Timothy letters were written by Paul…)
 
It is the definitive teaching of the Magisterium that Sacred Scripture is without error.
Sacred Scripture states that Paul wrote the letters to Timothy.

The claim that Paul did not write the letters to Timothy implies that Scripture contains a falsehood. This implication is contrary to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on the infallibility of Scripture.
From Vatican II Dei Verbum:

SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION
  1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
  1. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

If the writer was writing according to contemporary literary forms where it makes use of the names of important figures to convey important ideas of their school of thought…then that writer was not intending to assert that the person named was actually writing the letter…but was making use of the name as was the custom of the time…

Now I personally do not think this is the case with these too letters…but in any case…the Church does NOT teach that they were written in fact by Paul. Such is open for debate… but as Pope Benedict XVI noted: “Some parts of the Second Letter to Timothy, for example, appear so authentic that they could have come only from the heart and mouth of the Apostle”…which I think points to them being from him…or written under his direction. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top