Question on Pauline authorship

[mombot]

Is it necessary for a Catholic to believe that letters claiming to be written by Paul were written by Paul? The same question applies to any other claims of authorship. If not then what are some ways to look at the authorship that doesn’t feel like the scriptures are not telling the truth?

 

[Theban]

The many different books that claim to be authored by the Apostles have been thoroughly investigated by the early Church, and the current books of the New Testament have been infallibly declared to be legitimate and sacred texts.

So yes, you are required to believe that Paul indeed wrote the letters attributed to him.

 

[MikeInVA]

Is it necessary for a Catholic to believe that letters claiming to be written by Paul were written by Paul?

The Church believes that Paul was the author, our opinions on way or the other don’t really change that.

I find it odd that modern scholars know more about the books of the Bible than the Church fathers did when they selected them to be part of the Bible. Why do you doubt Paul’s authorship?

Does it matter if Paul wrote the letters by hand or they were written down by a scribe?

 

[Francis]

http://www.stjames-church.com/book8c1.html

From the fear and suspicion of saint Peter and James concerning the perseverance of saint Paul we can likewise deduct that he arrived in Jerusalem in the absence of the most blessed Mary and saint John; for he would have presented himself first of all to Her to allay suspicion against him; and the two Apostles would likewise have first asked Her, whether they could trust saint Paul. All of them would have been set at ease by the most prudent Lady, as She was so solicitous and attentive in consoling and instructing the Apostles, especially saint Peter. But since the great Lady had already left for Ephesus, they had no one to assure them of the constancy of saint Paul, until saint Peter reassured himself of it at seeing him thus prostrate at his feet. Thereupon he was received with great joy of soul by saint Peter and the other disciples. All of them gave humble and fervent thanks to the Most High, and commissioned saint Paul to preach in Jerusalem. This he gladly did, to the astonishment of all the Jews who knew him. As his words were like burning arrows, that penetrated into the hearts of all that heard him, they were struck with terror; and in two days all Jerusalem was roused by the news of his arrival, flocking to see him with their own eyes.

Lucifer and his demons were not asleep on this occasion, for they were visited by the Almighty with an increase of torment at the arrival of saint Paul. The divine power, so evident in him, oppressed and paralyzed the infernal dragons. But as their pride and malice shall never be extinguished through all the eternity of their existence (Ps. 73, 23), they were roused to fury, as soon as they recognized this divine virtue as flowing from Paul. Lucifer, with incredible rage, called together many legions of the demons and exhorted them anew to rouse themselves and exert all the forces of their malice for the entire destruction of saint Paul, and not to leave any stone unturned in Jerusalem and in all the world for the attainment of this object. The demons without delay set about this work, exciting Herod and the Jews against the Apostle, and directing their attention to the burning zeal with which he began to preach in Jerusalem.

 

[Francis]

http://www.stjames-church.com/book8c2.html

After the death of the unhappy Herod the primitive Church of Jerusalem enjoyed some measure of quiet and tranquillity for a considerable time. The great Lady of the world merited this favor through her maternal solicitude and care. During this time saint Barnaby and saint Paul preached with wonderful success in the cities of Asia Minor, Antioch, Lystra, Perge and others, is related by saint Luke in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles and in connection with the miracles and prodigies performed by saint Paul in those cities and provinces. The apostle saint Peter, after his liberation from prison, fled from Jerusalem and retired to another part of Asia not under the jurisdiction of Herod. From that place he governed the faithful accruing to the Church in Asia and those that were in Palestine. All of them acknowledged and obeyed him as the Vicar of Jesus Christ and head of the Church, believing that all he ordained and enacted upon earth was confirmed in heaven. With this firm faith they came to him with all their doubts and difficulties as to their supreme pontiff. Among other matters they asked him to decide the questions raised by some of the Jews concerning the doings and teachings of saint Paul and Barnaby as well in Jerusalem as in Antioch, in opposition to the circumcision and the law of Moses, as I will relate later on and as is recorded by saint Luke in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

On this occasion the Apostles and disciples of Jerusalem begged saint Peter to return to the holy city to settle these controversies and establish order, so that the preaching of the faith might not be hindered; for since the death of Herod the Jews had no one to assist them in their persecutions, and therefore the Church enjoyed greater peace and tranquillity in Jerusalem. On the same grounds they also asked him to request the holy Mother of Jesus to come to that city; for all the faithful longed for Her with loving hearts, expected to be consoled in the Lord and hoped for the prosperity of all the affairs of the Church through her presence. On account of these appeals saint Peter resolved to return at once to Jerusalem, and before setting out, he wrote the following letter to the most holy Queen.

 

[po18guy]

What about those books whose authors have never been known? Where do we stop tearing pages out? We must rely on Mother Church explicitly and implicitly, as there are no - zero, zip, nada - original manuscripts. Not a single one with a signature. Not even Saint Jerome in the 380s had an original. All were copies of copies of copies of copies.

Get a copy of Where We Got The Bible by the Rev. Henry Graham. You will be amazed at the generational labors that continued so that we might have the scripture today. Amazing.

 

[bobperk]

I have read dozens upon dozens of books and articles on the authorship of all the New Testament letters, some arguing for and some against St. Paul’s authorship of his letters. I find the evidence of his authorship not only more convincing but more probable. I do accept the premise that he may have dictated some of his more contested works (especially the Pastoral letters) to a scribe. I am also comfortable in saying that St. Peter was the source of 2 Peter, although he may not have jotted down the letter in his own hand. So I accept apostolic authorship of the entire New Testament. This resource may help, it is one of the most common cited by modern scholars who give fine support to apostolic authorship: http://richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf

 

[mombot]

I will check that out, thanks.

Aren’t the pastorals dated much letter than Paul’s lifetime though?

 

[rose321]

From the fear and suspicion of saint Peter and James concerning the perseverance of saint Paul we can likewise deduct that he arrived in Jerusalem in the absence of the most blessed Mary and saint John; for he would have presented himself first of all to Her to allay suspicion against him; and the two Apostles would likewise have first asked Her, whether they could trust saint Paul.

Respectfully opinion only in questioning and examining, can one give the sources from which one is stating such opinions?

The Temple was not destroyed till 70 Ad, can one give the dates when the Blessed Mother Mary along with John left Jerusalem and the sources from which one is stating this opinion on?

And according to St Paul>> own written Epistle <<<< he tells us, he meets with James brother of the Lord, St Peter on circumcision. St Paul own writings within his own Epistles, and in Acts 15 >> It is this James who is the last to stand up after hearing all sides of the issues of concerns and states>>>>Now listen to me>> Oh my, now I am really confused in all that one has stated, sorry. Can one give the sources?

In all one is stating, it sounds like a whole new Gospel >>I have not read or heard of, respectfully sorry.

Thereupon he was received with great joy of soul by saint Peter and the other disciples. All of them gave humble and fervent thanks to the Most High, and commissioned saint Paul to preach in Jerusalem. T

Great joy? Galatians 5:12 As for those agitators, go and castrate themselves?

St Peter / St Paul did not get along and had some heated discussions,even with James the brother of the Lord >who was head of the Mother Jerusalem Assembly in Jerusalem for 30 years immed after Jesus death, it is this James, who asked St Paul to make the Nazarene vow, on his return back to Jerusalem, why?
St Paul within his own Epistles even tell’s us in the end that >all had left him, he was alone?
Why did everyone leave St Paul in the end? Who put St Paul into prison 2x and on what charges?

The demons without delay set about this work, exciting Herod and the Jews against the Apostle, and directing their attention to the burning zeal with which he began to preach in Jerusalem.

Here we agree and yes demons set out and this James the brother of the Lord was stone to death and by whom and why?

There was issues and St Paul himself admits he set out and persecuted the Apostles written also in his own Epistles? St Paul does not approach James the brother of the Lord or Apostles till almost 14 years later?

Sorry confused:thinking: what is being said is all>new to me>>Would greatly appreciate if one can give >>all your sources > from which one has stated and given ones opinions on?

I will have no problem giving you > all my sources Historically and even by our own early Church Fathers on James the Brother of the Lord, Acts of the Apostles, etc etc etc >>>and more with searching out in seeking out all truths.

Respectfully toward Peace

 

[BartholomewB]

Aren’t the pastorals dated much letter than Paul’s lifetime though?

Some people say they are and some say they’re not. The Protestant churches, as far as I know, don’t make an issue out of it, one way or the other. People are free to make up their own minds. Ben Witherington, a Protestant, and Luke Timothy Johnson, a Catholic, both reach the conclusion that Paul is probably the true author of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Witherington thinks he dictated them when he was already in jail in Rome.

https://www.amazon.com/Hist-Lit-Soc-Book-Acts/dp/0521046289

https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Testament-Luke-Timothy-Johnson/dp/0800663616

 

[Joe_5859]

Is it necessary for a Catholic to believe that letters claiming to be written by Paul were written by Paul?

No, it is not necessary. Catholics can (and do) disagree on this.

I personally favor the idea that Paul wrote the books attributed to him. But there is no Church pronouncement that forbids a person from believing some of the letters were written by a disciple of Paul.

Debates about authorship might be interesting and tell you a bit about the original context, but in the end they don’t make or break anything for me.

If not then what are some ways to look at the authorship that doesn’t feel like the scriptures are not telling the truth?

I think this is an important question. I think we first need to acknowledge that the way that we 21st century Americans look at writing history is not the only way to look at it, nor is it the way to look at how Scripture was written.

Even today, though, you have famous people who employ “ghost writers” to write things on their behalf. It doesn’t mean they are “lying” or being dishonest by claiming authorship. It is their thoughts, even if someone else drafted it.

Similarly, we might think that a disciple of Paul sought to put Paul’s thoughts and words on paper. Even though (if we subscribe to the notion that Paul did not write some of his letters) Paul would not have been the one to sit down with a quill in his hand, they still represent Paul’s teachings and Paul’s thoughts. So it would still be accurate to think of Paul as the origin of those works.

In any case, it’s not something to get overly concerned with. I generally come down on the traditional view of authorship of the various books of the Bible, but those who claim that Catholics must subscribe to the traditional view are simply wrong. The Church does not require that.

 

[Francis]

i have already mentioned the source.yes Acts 15 Acts 15: with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. 3 So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the believers. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.

6 The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, **(It is Peter’s authority as the vicar of Christ)**Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. 10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’12 The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘My brothers,[c] listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. here James is saying the words of Peter.

the other post you said Catholic worship Mary ,now you have problems with Peter’s Authority as the Vicar of Christ,then sola Scriptura, Sola Fide ,Eucharistic and the real presence of Christ,sacraments, the list. goes on …

Primacy of Peter
• Mt 16:18 – upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
• Mt 16:19 – give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
• Lk 22:32 – Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
• Jn 21:17 – given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
• Mk 16:7 – angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
• Lk 24:34 – risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
• Acts 1:13-26 – headed meeting which elected Matthias
• Acts 2:14 – led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
• Acts 2:41 – received first converts
• Acts 3:6-7 – performed first miracle after Pentecost
• Acts 5:1-11 – inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
• Acts 8:21 – excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
• Acts 10:44-46 – received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
• Acts 15:7 – led first council in Jerusalem
• Acts 15:19 – pronounces first dogmatic decision
• Gal 1:18 – after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
• *Gal 2:11-14 – I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy
• Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
• “Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
• Spoke for Apostles – Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
• Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

 

[bobperk]

The document that I linked presents the theory that every single book of the New Testament could plausibly have been written before 70AD.

None of the NT authors provided actual dates in their letters.

Some scholars, for various reasons, present their theories that the Pastorals and 2 Peter were written after the lives of Sts. Peter and Paul. However, there is equal evidence that they were written within their lifetimes. The early Church accepted these letters as originating with the apostles.

Paul especially is known to have used a scribe; in Romans, the scribe Tertius greets the recipients of the letter at the end (Romans 16:22). Many of Paul’s letters are also presented as being from Sts. Timothy and Silvanus as well (or Sosthenes in the case of 1 Corinthians). St. Peter may have used St. Silvanus or St. Mark as a scribe for 1 Peter.

I have many documents saved discussing the authorship of various letters, so if you’d like one, just message me.

I would also suggest you get a copy of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament which gives very good introductions to all the books which discuss authorship. The Zondervan NIV Study Bible or the ESV Study Bible (both Protestant translations) also provide very good introductions.

 

[rose321]

the other post you said Catholic worship Mary

Respectfully can one give that post where I said Catholic Worship Mary? Thank you! And this topic title is about Question on Pauline authorship is it not about our Blessed Mary?

When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.

This also was in the early beginnings all did not go smoothly afterwards with St Paul, James the Brother and the Lord and St Peter, leaving in the end St Paul all alone where all Apostles left him, all written by St Paul himself, is it not?

The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, (It is Peter’s authority as the vicar of Christ) Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers.

All who gathered James the Brother of the Lord, St Peter, St Paul, Barnabas, Jerusalem Council, Elders, stood up where all voiced their concerns, did they not?

James after hearing all including St Peter was the last to stand up stating>>Now listen to me, this James known also today >>>as being the first Bishop of the Mother Church Assembly in Jerusalem as head for 30 yrs>>>who makes the finally decision gives instructions to all the disciples sending them out, and it is this James who gives out the 4 Noah Covenant Laws for gentles to obey and stating gentles do not need to be circumcised, for the Covenant of Circumcision>> was made with Abraham and his descendants. Heavy yoke?

St Peter makes his point going into the Holy Scriptures OT and James agrees with the point St Peter made as being valid?

Acts 15 12 -21 >>St Peter speaks before>>then The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentles. After they finished speaking >>>> James replied, My brothers, now listen to me. Simeon has related how God first looked among them a people for his name. This agrees with the words of the prophets as it is written.
After this I will return
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
from its ruins I will rebuild it and I will set it up,
so that all other peoples may seek the Lord –
even all the Gentiles over whom my names has been called.
Thus says the Lord, who has been
making theses things known from long ago.
Therefore I ( James) have reached the decision that we should not trouble
those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to
abstain only from things polluted, by idols and from fornication and
from what ever has been strangled and from blood.

All the other verses you have given does not back up what was said within your post above>>about our Blessed Mother dealings with St Paul. Peace

 

[rose321]

Many of Paul’s letters are also presented as being from Sts. Timothy and Silvanus as well (or Sosthenes in the case of 1 Corinthians). St. Peter may have used St. Silvanus or St. Mark as a scribe for 1 Peter.

Respectfully opinion only 1 Clement 95 AD 1st letter dates from 80 AD to the 2nd century ranks with Didache as one of the earliest if not the earliest of extant Christian documents outside of Canonical New Testament and a scribe writing for St Peter maybe and 9 of the 13 lost books of the bible?
Clement one is speaking of 69 Ad.

Jerome in his letter Augustine Letter 75 talks about the believing Jews speaks of the Nazarenes? Matthew 2:23 Spoken of him by the prophets, will be a Nazarene?

Clementine Homilies 3,4,6,7,12 45? Did St Peter train Clement of Rome? Barnabas meets with this Clement of Rome in Rome and brings him to meet with James and did James give Clement instructions to travel with St Peter and write for him maybe?

Were there Doctrines of the Nazarenes in the writings of Clement compared to the >>Panarion of Epiphanuis of Salamis? Book 1 Sect. 1-46, 3, 15,16,30,18,17?

The Recognitions of Clement ( aka Nazarene Acts) 5, 10, 1, 22, ?

Various quotes about the Gospel of the Hebrews ( sometimes refer to the Gospel of the Ebionites which the Nazarenes are sometimes referred to and later became known as the most noble Ebionites also?

And what about James the brother of the Lord>>> writings James Epistle could of been written as early as >>44 AD ?>>because of other early church fathers writings on this James the brother of the Lord etc and historically writings also, such as Josephus writings on this James the Brother of the Lord>>> who ruled as head of the Mother Church Assembly in Jerusalem for 30 years>>>this is a long time not to have such writings on also?

Do some scholars question maybe not all Epistles or Letters were written by St Paul for they contradict such as St Paul is for woman speaking out and later St Paul is against woman speaking out?

One would think there would be hundreds of writing out there Qumran? Nag H writings found etc? Then there was the 7 churches in the time of Apostles St Paul etc? James the brother of the Lord writings giving instructions to those in Pella and Alexander> Hellenistic Greek Jews? Historical writings? Early church Father writings? Greek philosophers, theologians on religious matters in such times? Alexander Library was huge, so does it not tell us, even thou it got destroyed there were many many authors out there writing? etc

St Paul being a Jew why was most if not all written in Greek?
Is it true there is no original copies on earth, only copies of copies of NT Gospel authors written decades later?
Peace

 

[po18guy]

There are not all that many books of scripture whose provenance/authorship is known. No “autograph” manuscripts exist. Not even Saint Jerome in 380 had a single original. His manuscripts were copies of copies of copies. The only - only - point that matters is that the Church, with God-given authority, has definitively ruled on the content and the collection of the books.

 

[Spyridon]

So yes, you are required to believe that Paul indeed wrote the letters attributed to him.

It’s not that simple.

A Catholic is bound to believe that the Holy Spirit, God Himself, is the primary author of Sacred Scripture, and that Scripture is infallible.

That is Catholic dogma. Unquestionable as far as Catholic faith is concerned.

But regarding the human authorship of the Sacred Texts there is much more latitude to be enjoyed, the only thing a Catholic is bound to believe is that the Books accurately hand on all that was preached, taught, and lived by the Prophets, the Apostles, and especially Our Lord.

It is the tradition (small t), and a commendable thing to believe (and my personal belief) that Moses wrote the Torah, Isaiah wrote Isaiah, David wrote most of the Psalms, Solomon wrote Proverbs, Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, Timothy, Tertius, Silvanus and Sosipater the Holy Apostles wrote the New Testament, etc. But it is not dogma, not doctrine, not Sacred Tradition, not required belief, not infallible, none of that. It is a pious theolegumena - theological opinion.

And spare me of any declarations of the PBC from the early 1900’s. Those teachings have been superseded by later Magisterial teaching, especially Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum, but also later teachings of the PBC itself.

 

[Theban]

It’s not that simple.

Sorry, but I think it is.

Every one of the Pauline letters says black on white that Paul is the author. If Scripture is without error then it couldn’t lie about something like that.

As for the other authors I have made no statement because I don’t know. But Paul definitely wrote Paul’s letters.

 

[Spyridon]

But Paul definitely wrote Paul’s letters.

Go to the USCCB website and look at the official Bible they use.

It disagrees with that notion. I personally disagree with that disagremeent, as I believe the traditional theological opinion. But let us not attempt to bind our brethren and sistren in ways which the Church Herself does not bind them.

Catholics are not bound to believe in Pauline authorship. They are bound to believe in Pneumatine authorship and infallibility. They are bound to believe those infallible and Pneumatically Inspired Scriptures accurately reflect the preaching of the Prophets and Apostles, and the acts of Our Lord. They are not bound to believe any particular person authored any particular book of the Bible, though the traditional beliefs of authorship are most venerable and commendable.

@Theban have you read Dei Verbum in full?

 

[bobperk]

The deficient introductions of the New American Bible by no means reflect official Church teachings, but only scholarly opinions (one-sided and skeptical in the case of the NAB) produced by liberal 20th century academics.

Now, those scholarly opinions may be believed, but by doing so, one admittedly takes a liberal and skeptical view of the authorship of the Sacred writings.