Послания апостола Павла: вопросы авторства и подлинности.

New Testament works attributed to Paul the Apostle

The Pauline epistles are the thirteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle. There is strong consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether or not Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are genuine letters of Paul. The remaining four contested epistles – Ephesians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) – have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars. Some scholars have proposed that Paul may have used an amanuensis, or secretary, in writing the disputed letters, although such a solution would not explain the fact that the disputed letters appear to have been written at least a decade after Paul’s death. There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul's name apart from the New Testament epistles, the Epistle to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians. The Epistle to the Hebrews is actually anonymous, but it has been traditionally attributed to Paul. The church father Origen of Alexandria rejected the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, instead asserting that, although the ideas expressed in the letter were genuinely Pauline, the letter itself had actually been written by someone else. Most modern scholars generally agree that Hebrews was not written by the apostle Paul. Various other possible authorships have been suggested.

Scholars use a number of methods of historiography and higher criticism to determine whether a text is properly attributed to its author. The primary methods used for Paul's letters are the following:

Internal evidence consists of what the author states about themself in the letter, either explicitly the author clearly identifies themself or implicitly provides autobiographical details. This evidence is important in spite of its problems. For example, because the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews never identified him or herself, scholars as early as Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century suspected that Paul was not the author.

This consists of references, again either explicit or implicit, to the text, especially during earliest times by those who had access to reliable sources now lost. Explicit references would be mentioning the text or letter by name, or a recognizable form of that text. Examples include a list of accepted biblical books, such as the Muratorian fragment, or the contents of an early manuscript, such as Papyrus 46. Unfortunately, these witnesses are often either damaged or too late in date to provide much help. Implicit references are quotation from Paul, especially indirect or unattributed, or expressing ideas and phrases that appear in his works. This use or reference implies the material quoted was in existence at the time the external evidence was created. For example, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is named by Irenaeus in the mid 2nd century, as well as Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch; it is considered unlikely for the surviving version of this letter to have been written after this time. On the other hand, lack of witness by ancient sources suggests a later date, an argument from silence. However, use of this line of reasoning is dangerous, because of the incompleteness of the historical record: many ancient texts are lost, damaged, have been revised or possibly contrived.

An independently written narrative of Paul's life and ministry, found in the Acts of the Apostles, is used to determine the date, and possible authorship, of Pauline letters by locating their origin within the context of his life. For example, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner in his Epistle to Philemon 1:7; based on this statement, J. A. T. Robinson argued that this captivity was Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea, while W. M. Ramsay identified this as Paul's captivity in Rome, while others have placed the captivity in Ephesus. One difficulty with this position is the limited data available on Paul's historical setting, and this is especially true with the conclusion of the narrative of Acts prior to Paul's death. It also assumes that the book of Acts was written by an actual traveling companion of Paul's. Recent scholarship challenges the validity of using the Acts of the Apostles to determine anything about Pauline letters. Borg and Crossan cautiously comment that "the author of Acts was not concerned with factual inerrancy"; Dewey et al. note in similar vein that "in much of Acts as a whole, Luke gives us historical fiction rather than an historical report." They therefore "recommend against using Acts, either as a whole or in part, as a historical source for Paul's career".

Vocabulary, sentence structure, employment of idioms and common phrases, etc. are analyzed for consistency with the author's other known works. A similar style implies common authorship, while a radically divergent vocabulary implies different authors. For example, E. J. Goodspeed argued that the vocabulary of the Epistle to the Ephesians showed a literary relationship with the First Epistle of Clement, written around the end of the 1st century. Similarly, E. Percy argued that the speech and style of Colossians more strongly resembled Pauline authorship than not. Of course, style and language can vary for reasons other than differing authorship, such as the subject of the letter, the recipient, the circumstances of the times, a different amanuensis, or simply maturation on the part of the author.

Similar to internal evidence, doctrinal consistency and development are examined against the author's other known works. Theological themes like the eschaton or the Mosaic Law could reappear in different works, but in a similar manner. A consistent point of view implies a common author; contradictory or unrelated teachings imply multiple authors. For example, W. Michaelis saw the Christological likeness between the Pastoral Epistles and some of Paul's undisputed works, and argued in favor of Pauline authorship. A problem with this method is analyzing the coherence of a body of diverse and developing teachings. This is seen in the disagreement between scholars. For example, with the same epistles mentioned above, B. S. Easton argued their theological notions disagreed with other Pauline works and rejected Pauline authorship. G. Lohfink argued the theology of the Pastoral epistles agreed with Paul's, but took this as proof someone wishing to enjoy the authority of an apostle copied the famous church leader.

Although Colossians is witnessed by the same historical sources as the undisputed texts, Pauline authorship of Colossians has found some critics. It was originally doubted by F. C. Baur, though others working from his general thesis, such as H. J. Holtzmann, argued that an original brief Pauline text experienced many interpolations by a later editor. The basis for this early objection was that the letter aimed at refuting Gnosticism, a heresy which had not reached its ascendancy until the early 2nd century. This thesis subsequently declined, especially following an analysis of Gnosticism by R. Wilson, in which he contended that the supposed parallels to Gnosticism were unsupported. Another argument centers on differences in style and vocabulary. W. Bujard attempted to show significant stylistic differences between Colossians and Paul's other works, such as unusual genitive constructions. Others have analyzed the style and reached opposite conclusions. The extensiveness of the theological development in the epistle compared to other epistles has also led to skepticism concerning Pauline authorship. H. Conzelmann made such an argument, pointing to differing theological concepts of "hope". Others accepting this analysis have asserted that the text is merely a late text of Paul, though the thesis has not found wide scholarly concurrence. Many have argued that Colossians has an ecclesiology that is incompatible with the authentic Pauline texts. While Romans and 1 Corinthians, like Colossians, speak of a body of Christ, it is clear that Paul imagines the church as the body of Christ on earth (Rom 7:4, 12:5; 1 Cor 12:27). Conversely, the text of Colossians seems to imagine that Christ is the head of the body, which is the church (Col 1:18). Additionally, detractors of the traditional authorship of Colossians point to the work's "realized eschatology." Whereas Paul, an apocalyptic Jew, anticipated the bodily resurrection of the faithful in the future (Rom 6:4 5), Colossians indicates that believers have already been raised with Christ (2:12; 3:1). Similarly, though Paul envisions Christ's triumph over rulers and authorities as a future event (1 Cor 15:24), Colossians 2:15 acknowledges this as having already occurred. Another intriguing distinction between the Colossian correspondence and the "7 authentic letters" is the lack of a financial request for the poor in Jerusalem. Kiley notes that while every one of Paul's "authentic" letters wish for financial report, Colossians is mysteriously lacking such a request. The connection between Colossians and Philemon, an undisputed letter, is significant. A certain Archippus is referred to in both Philemon 2 and Colossians 4:17, and the greetings of both letters bear similar names. Additionally, the nearly identical phrases of Philemon 5 and Colossians 1:4 and the presence of Onesimus in both letters stands out. However, the connection between the two epistles can be used by those on both sides of the Pauline vs. deutero Pauline debate. To those who favor Pauline authorship of Colossians, this is evidence of same authorship; to those who do not, this, combined with the other evidence noted, is indicative of a skillful forger.

The epistle was included in the Marcion canon and the Muratorian fragment; it was mentioned by name by Irenaeus, and quoted by Ignatius, Justin, and Polycarp. The Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians was first questioned by J. E. C. Schmidt in 1801. In recent times, criticism of Pauline authorship was raised by H. J. Holtzmann and G. Hollmann (see above). Much of the dispute concerns the linguistic similarity between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians. For example, 1 Thessalonians 2:9 is almost identical to 2 Thessalonians 3:8. This has been explained in the following ways: Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians soon after writing 1 Thessalonians or with the aid of a copy of 1 Thessalonians, or Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians himself but a later writer imitated him, or the linguistic similarities are seen as subtle enough to make imitation an unnecessary hypothesis. Udo Schnelle argued that 2 Thessalonians was significantly different in style from the undisputed epistles, characterizing it as whole and narrow, rather than as a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Moreover, Alfred Loisy argued that it reflected knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which, according to the current scholarly consensus, had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Bart D. Ehrman viewed the insistence of genuineness within the letter and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start as ploys commonly used by forgers. G. Milligan observed that a church which possessed an authentic letter of Paul would be unlikely to accept a fake addressed to them. However, Milligan's analysis assumes that 2 Thessalonians is not a late forgery and thus was received by the Thessalonian community. 2 Thessalonians is often regarded as pseudonymous due to its apparent divergence in theology/content from Paul's authentic letters. Perhaps the most frequent attack on authenticity concerns the letter's eschatology in relation to 1 Thessalonians and the rest of the Pauline corpus. It is often said that 1 Thessalonians (4:15; 5:2 3), like the historical Paul (1 Cor 7:29; Phil 4:5), expects an imminent end to the world, while 2 Thessalonians sees it as a future event (3:6 12). However, others understand 2 Thessalonians to be a correction of his audience's misunderstanding of 1 Thessalonians, which explains Paul's tone shift. It has also been argued that the Christology of 2 Thessalonians is at odds with the true Paul, as what is attributed to Jesus in 2 Thessalonians is normally attributed to God in his other letters. As identified by M. J. J. Menken, several phrases in 2 Thessalonians seem to share a theme with phrases in 1 Thessalonians, yet with an elevated role of Christ. In particular, Jesus is described as the giver of salvation rather than God (2 Thess 2:13 vs. 1 Thess 1:4). Norman Perrin claimed that, in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God the Father as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus. From this hypothesis he contrasted 2 Thessalonians 3:5 with 1 Thessalonians 3:13 and contended that 2 Thessalonians was written sometime after Paul's death. Still, some see the texts in 2 Thessalonians that seem to elevate the role of Christ as overblown. Abraham Malherbe, for example, acknowledges the presence of Jesus as eschatological judge already in 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:11 12. 2 Thessalonians 2:2 seems to warn its readers against accepting teachings from a letter forged in Paul's name, indicating that either a pseudonymous author was attempting to disarm the letter's audience into accepting his forgery as authentically Pauline, or that Paul himself was writing to warn his readers that forged letters were being circulated in his name.

Unlike the thirteen epistles above, the Epistle to the Hebrews is internally anonymous. Moreover, scholars such as Robert Grant have noted the many obvious differences in language and style between Hebrews and the correspondence explicitly ascribed to Paul. Church Fathers and ante Nicene writers such as Tertullian noted the different manner in which the theology and doctrine of the epistle appear. This variance led many to name other candidates for authorship, such as the fellow traveller of Paul called Barnabas (favored by Tertullian), a follower of John the Baptist called Apollos (favored by Martin Luther and several modern scholars), as well as less likely candidates such as Silas and even Priscilla. Origen of Alexandria (c. 240), as quoted by Eusebius (c. 330) had this to say on the matter: "That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle's rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle's, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle's teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul's, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul's. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts." Modern scholars consider the evidence against Pauline authorship of Hebrews too solid for dispute. Donald Guthrie, in his New Testament Introduction (1976), commented that "most modern writers find more difficulty in imagining how this Epistle was ever attributed to Paul than in disposing of the theory." Harold Attridge states that "it is certainly not a work of the apostle"; Daniel Wallace states, "the arguments against Pauline authorship [ ] are conclusive." As a result, few supporters of Pauline authorship remain. As Richard Heard notes, in his Introduction to The New Testament, "modern critics have confirmed that the epistle cannot be attributed to Paul and have for the most part agreed with Origen's judgement, 'But as to who wrote the epistle, God knows the truth.'"

In the nineteenth century, a group of scholars at the University of Tübingen, led by Ferdinand Christian Baur, engaged in radical bible study, including the claim that only Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians were authored by Paul (i. e. Hauptbriefe). During the same period, another group of Dutch scholars led by Allard Pierson (Dutch Radical School), argued that all Pauline epistles were pseudepigrapha, a view that was also shared by Bruno Bauer, Rudolf Steck and Arthur Drews.