Who wrote Romans?

[Tolle_Lege]

A case can be made for authentic authorship of St. Paul for every letter in the New Testament ascribed to him. Obviously, by even his own admission in some letters, a scribe or companion wrote the letter dictated by him. But to think that someone “wrote in Paul’s name” 30-40 years after his death and wasn’t trying to deceive anyone amounts to having fraudulent letters in Sacred Scripture. Trying to sugarcoat or justify such a thing as, “well, they were Paul’s thoughts” or “from the Pauline school” or some other made-up contemporary “scholarship” doesn’t solve the problem.

Many modern scholars smugly state, as if it were an open-and-shut case, that we have only 7 actual letters from St. Paul. And these ideas permeate the corpus of popular Biblical scholarship as if they were the only opinions that existed, and that it is with 100% certainty that they are correct. Well, they are not correct.

Read John A.T. Robinson (“Redating the New Testament”), Ben Witherington III, and other contemporary Protestant scholars (Bock, Evans, Keener, Blomberg, Wallace), as well as Catholics (Hahn, Mitch, Pitre) who give very balanced treatment to both opinions, but advocate for authentic Pauline authorship. Not to mention the centuries upon centuries of Saints and others who upheld the authenticity of his letters.

So, St. Paul wrote Romans. As well as Ephesians, Colossians, both letters to the Thessalonians and St. Timothy, to St. Titus, etc. St. Peter is the author of both his letters (see M. Kruger for 2 Peter). Same with the epistles of Sts. James and John.

Skeptical scholarship which explicitly doubts or denies the stated author of books listed in Sacred Scripture can be a great scandal to the Church, and since the Bible is the Word of God, is tantamount to doubting God Himself.

 

[billsherman]

How about the Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude. Are they similar to James in this way?

1 & 2 Peter are broadly considered to be pseudoepigraphical. Various clues suggest that they were written after Peter’s alleged death (although, yes, there is no actual historical evidence to say for certain when, where, or how he died). There is also near unanimous scholarly agreement that they were written by two different people.

John’s epistles are generally considered to have all been written by the same person, although that person most likely was not John. Because of internal evidence, most scholars believe they were written by a member of a community strongly influenced by the Gospel of John in the early second century. Some scholars do argue that John is the author, but the majority hold them to be pseudoepigraphical.

Jude presents a different problem. Scholars aren’t certain who Jude actually is claiming to be (was he the brother of James the Just, James the Greater, or some other James?). It’s most likely he wasn’t Jude the Apostle, because he never mentions that he was an Apostle, but some scholars think he was being humble. In the end, this epistle might prove the hardest to answer.

If this sort of thing interests you, I suggest looking into James Dunn or Raymond Brown, both of them have written extensively on this topic.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

How about the Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude. Are they similar to James in this way?

I suggest doing some independent research on your own. The opinion on authorship of these epistles isn’t as one-sided as many make it out to be. Don’t rely on the skeptical and misleading NAB book introductions to help you answer these questions.

Calling a book in the Bible “pseudopigraphical” is the same thing as calling it a fraud, because you have the beginning of a letter stating it is from someone extremely important, like the first Pope, or an Apostle of Jesus who personally knew Him, but in reality it was someone else writing years after that person died.

 

[Brendan_64]

"St. Paul’s theology, very dubious to say the least

On what basis does this person claim that St Paul’s theology is very dubious? On the basis that they, personally, don’t agree with it?

Are they also saying then that the inclusion of the letters of St Paul in the canon of the New Testament is an error?

 

[Bixby]

One of the problems may be that in places St Paul is a difficult read. He has a unique, rather dense way of writing that might throw some people off (it does me sometimes!).

An even deeper reason numbers of people want to jettison him is because he is seen as “judgemental,” especially in terms of sex. It surprises me how often this crops up. It’s utter nonsense of course - and tends to come from those who rarely, if ever, crack open the Bible anyway - because in fact Our Lord is much more extreme in His sayings in both this area and others. But then, many people ignore Him also!

 

[on_the_hill]

I figure it could be like this:
Peter Faberge is famous for his eggs. However, Faberge didn’t make all of the eggs himself. He had artists working under him. He supervised the artists and inspected the eggs they created. Yet, all Faberge eggs are Faberge eggs and we don’t question their authenticity, genuineness, or provenance.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Yah. Historically some have speculated Barnabas wrote some of Paul’s letters. Hebrews is especially one that even early Church Fathers attributed to Barnabas. Barnabas does have a letter with his name that is usually put in the Apostolic Fathers collection and was regarded by some as scripture in the early Church. People seem to forget in the time period someone writing in someones name wasn’t fraud, it was a sign of respect and could have been written by those really close to the Apostle. It’s why I never throw off the New Testament apocrypha personally. I think there is useful stuff in the orthodox stuff. Like the Protoevangelium of James.

 

[Brendan_64]

An even deeper reason numbers of people want to jettison him is because he is seen as “judgemental,” especially in terms of sex.

If his writings are part of the biblical canon, how can they be jettisoned? To do that would be for a person to hold themself up as an authority to decide what is and what is not sacred scripture.

 

[Bixby]

how can they be jettisoned?

Oh, they can’t. But some people will still try to ignore or downplay his writings due to their own agenda.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

I figure it could be like this:
Peter Faberge is famous for his eggs. However, Faberge didn’t make all of the eggs himself. He had artists working under him. He supervised the artists and inspected the eggs they created. Yet, all Faberge eggs are Faberge eggs and we don’t question their authenticity, genuineness, or provenance.

Not quite the same, because there would be attestation from Mr. Faberge himself if the artistic eggs came from his shop. He could verify them, create special markings on them, etc. At some point, his company was incorporated with certain patents and trademark protections to protect from forgery. So there has always been a type of formal continuity from his original work until now.

In the case of “pseudopigraphic” books of the Bible, scholars often claim that some of the letters were written 30-90 years after the death of the stated author. First off, those dates are arbitrary guesswork. Second, scholars suspiciously never assert that letters were written, 5, 10 or even 20 years after the Apostle’s death; it’s always a longer time span, often several decades. Next, if these letters were written by some types of “Pauline” or “Petrine” or “Johannine” schools, the early Church Fathers are quite silent on these “schools.” Furthermore, if the “true” authors of these epistles were indeed disciples of Peter, Paul, John, etc., they the could just as easily have began their letter introducing themselves, as say, “Linus, a disciple of Paul,” etc. Because one would think that if Sts. Peter or Paul had actually passed the torch to some type of “school,” their chosen leaders would have been held in high esteem and would have no problem using their real names. There is no indication at all that pseudopigraphy was accepted by the early Church. Lastly, as evidenced by Hebrews, an author’s introduction wasn’t even necessary for the letter to circulate, so why bother forging a name?

Finally, do these modern scholars think that ancient people were that daft? As if they would have been unaware that St. Peter had been dead for 50 years but then accepted some previously unknown letter written in his name? It would be like if I penned a letter today saying, “John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Thirty-Fifth President of the United States…” and started circulating it. Nobody would accept it as authentic, even if I wrote in his style and substance. And boosting it with authenticity as claiming it was some kind of “pious imitation” or as some “admirer of JFK” would make it none the more real.

The bottom line is that there are really two choices: either these letters were written by the stated authors, i.e. St. Paul for Ephesians, etc., or St. Peter for 2 Peter; or they are forgeries that have existed in Sacred Scripture for nearly 2000 years.

 

[billsherman]

The bottom line is that there are really two choices: either these letters were written by the stated authors, i.e. St. Paul for Ephesians, etc., or St. Peter for 2 Peter; or they are forgeries that have existed in Sacred Scripture for nearly 2000 years.

I’m not interested in a debate here, and I’m sure you aren’t either. However, not only do you do scholars a great injustice by suggesting that scholarship is nothing more than guesswork (it’s not, it’s based on evidence), but you make several assertions that are contrary to evidence.

There is a lot of great scholarship on these questions out there, and you (and most everyone else reading this!) would undoubtedly learn a lot by studying it, rather than dismissing it without even engaging it. Scholars who have argued about the authorship of the epistles have filled libraries with their debates over the evidence. You can learn something from all of it, even if you disagree with it. Just don’t dismiss it arbitrarily. Additionally, many of those scholars are clergy in the Catholic Church (Pope Benedict XVI accepts the pseudoepigraphical nature of many books of the Bible, for just one example).

 

[Tolle_Lege]

I’m not interested in a debate here, and I’m sure you aren’t either. However, not only do you do scholars a great injustice by suggesting that scholarship is nothing more than guesswork (it’s not, it’s based on evidence), but you make several assertions that are contrary to evidence.

There is a lot of great scholarship on these questions out there, and you (and most everyone else reading this!) would undoubtedly learn a lot by studying it, rather than dismissing it without even engaging it. Scholars who have argued about the authorship of the epistles have filled libraries with their debates over the evidence. You can learn something from all of it, even if you disagree with it. Just don’t dismiss it arbitrarily. Additionally, many of those scholars are clergy in the Catholic Church (Pope Benedict XVI accepts the pseudoepigraphical nature of many books of the Bible, for just one example).

I have read plenty of the scholarship for both sides of the argument. I’m not sure why there’s such a tendency for people to assume that if somebody disagrees with them, that they haven’t read the opposing side’s arguments. I have, and I wasn’t convinced.

 

[billsherman]

I have, and I wasn’t convinced.

Then you should know that these statements you made are flat out wrong:

First off, those dates are arbitrary guesswork.

Second, scholars suspiciously never assert that letters were written, 5, 10 or even 20 years after the Apostle’s death; it’s always a longer time span, often several decades.

There is no indication at all that pseudopigraphy was accepted by the early Church.

Lastly, as evidenced by Hebrews, an author’s introduction wasn’t even necessary for the letter to circulate, so why bother forging a name?

Finally, do these modern scholars think that ancient people were that daft?

The bottom line is that there are really two choices: either these letters were written by the stated authors, i.e. St. Paul for Ephesians, etc., or St. Peter for 2 Peter; or they are forgeries that have existed in Sacred Scripture for nearly 2000 years.

If you’ve read the relevant scholarship, and rejected it, you should still know that scholars are serious about their work, and base their work on evidence. You can disagree with their conclusions, or methodology, but without legitimately engaging their work you should avoid dismissing them out of hand.

You might not like their conclusions, but Biblical scholars have made tremendous contributions in recent centuries (virtually all of which are accepted by the Catholic Church). I don’t agree with all historians of early Christianity by any means, but I can recognize that their work is based on far more than guesswork.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would say, " Believe as you choose, but do not offer me such arguments, since you do not have the authority to reject any part of the Bible."

 

[BartholomewB]

as well as Catholics (Hahn, Mitch, Pitre) who give very balanced treatment to both opinions, but advocate for authentic Pauline authorship.

Does Pitre reach the conclusion that Paul was the most probable author of all fourteen epistles? That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. I’d like to read what he says about Hebrews in that connection. Could you please specify where I can find that in Pitre’s writings? Thank you.

 

[Zach]

I don’t know about Pitre. Hahn and Mitch in the Ignatius Bible point out the disputes but come down quite convincingly on the side of strong support for Paul’s authorship, to be expected in a Catholic Bible. The exception being Hebrews. They point out it is Pauline in content even if not necessarily a work of Paul’s. Since Hebrews is anonymous there seems less of an issue with accepting another author than there is with the disputed ones where in the text of the Epistle it is said to be authored by Paul.

 

[Bithynian]

You might not like their conclusions, but Biblical scholars have made tremendous contributions in recent centuries

I feel that most people - whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox - dislike the conclusions of Biblical scholars at some point or another. I’ve sometimes felt that way: picked up the latest journal article, see the (hypothetical) title “Jesus the woman: A socio-linguistic analysis of genders in the Passion narratives”, and then dropped it straight into the bin.

I attribute it to the scholars’ “frustrating impartiality” (as I like to call it). But it’s to their great credit: they can operate freely and independently according to the internal standards of evidence, analysis and interpretation that is appropriate to their discipline.

In respect to topics such as textual dating and authorship, I feel that most Biblical scholars are not seeking to make a theological statement. But they make as objective a statement as possible according to the most cogent analysis of the best available evidence. I would rather that they be honest with an undesirable answer, than present a made-up desirable answer.

 

[BartholomewB]

Since Hebrews is anonymous there seems less of an issue with accepting another author than there is with the disputed ones where in the text of the Epistle it is said to be authored by Paul.

Among the conjectures about the authorship of Hebrews, I recently found a particularly intriguing one: Paul wrote it in either Aramaic or Hebrew, and it was translated into Greek by one of his associates whose Greek was much better than his. Unfortunately, I don’t know whose idea this was, or where it came from, or how long ago. I wonder whether it’s a real possibility. It sounds pretty implausible to me, but I’m no expert.

 

[Pattylt]

I don’t think we know how well Paul knew either Hebrew or Aramaic? But, we certainly know he was well versed in Greek.

I’m not suggesting he didn’t know Hebrew or Aramaic at all, just that we don’t know. Whereas his Greek was excellent.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Dr. Pitre’s works can be found at Catholic Productions:

https://catholicproductions.com/collections/cd-sets/brant-pitre?sort_by=best-selling

If you click on each lesson, there is an information page where you can download free outlines. Dr. Pitre will present the arguments for authorship in the outlines. He has lessons on the Gospels and Epistles which may be helpful to you.