here's a question.have any of you ever wondered if some of pauls epistles were really written by him.I bring this up in curiosity becuase some were probly not written by him.now i do have my on opinion but i'd like to know all of your opinions.here's every thing you need to know about them.
NOTE the ones that have been criticized are marked with (*) the other ones were most definetly written by him.i didn't include hebrews becuase of lots of confusion.
In the order they appear in the New Testament, the Pauline epistles are:
Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians (*)
Philippians
Colossians (*)
First Thessalonians
Second Thessalonians
First Timothy (*)
Second Timothy (*)
Titus (*)
Philemon
and here's the arguments.
All of the epistles except the epistle to the Hebrews present Paul as the author. The epistle to the Hebrews is something of a special case, being anonymous. Authorship of Hebrews was disputed from the earliest, and few, if any, modern scholars would attribute it to Paul. Thus some classifications do not include Hebrews as a Pauline epistle, listing it instead with the general epistles.
Several of the letters are thought by a majority of modern scholars to be pseudepigraphal, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.
The 7 letters considered genuine by most scholars (at the time of writing), and doubted by almost none:
Romans
Philippians
Galatians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
First Thessalonians
The letters thought to be pseudepigrapha by the majority of modern scholars, according to recent standards of analysis and theoretical trends, are:
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:
Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians
An anonymous letter that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul is:
Hebrews
COLSSIANS
Some scholars consider that Colossians was not written by Paul. One group of arguments against Paul's authorship relate to differences in vocabulary and style. However, the epistle does use many idiosyncrasies that are used in several of the epistles, which lends weight to Paul's authorship, for example, phrases such as en christo (in Christ) and en kurio (in the Lord) are used in the same manner as elsewhere.
Other arguments rely on the polemical content of the letter, certain concepts, and false-teacher arguments, not expressed by other Christian writers until the end of the first century, making an appearance in Colossians.
The extensiveness of the development of the theology in the epistle compared to that of other epistles has led many scholars to the opinion that if it is genuine, then it must be very late. However, due to the apparent consideration of the letter as genuine by the author of the Ephesians, then those scholars who claim that if Colossians is forged, it is very early.
The situation of the letter also supports the idea of Paul as author, matching the personal friendships expressed in the Epistle to Philemon, making many greetings relating to personal acquaintances. Those who contest Paul's authorship claim that such parallels are merely due to a careful forger, deliberately introducing unnecessary additional greetings for the purpose of making the text appear more genuine. Scholars who advocate Paul's authorship point out that since Philemon was a personal letter, it is unlikely that it was as widely copied as Paul's more famous letters. So if a forger wanted Colossians to sound like Paul, argue supporters, why not include personal names from his more famous letters instead of names from a minor letter?
EPHESIANS
Traditional arguments for Pauline Authorship
It seems that there are few doubts in the early church that Paul was the author of the letter to the Ephesians. Early church fathers with authority use quotations from this letter in their writings. Examples can be seen in the writing of Tertullian (Against Marcion 5.22.17) , Clement of Alexandria ( Str 4.65) and St Irenaeus (Her 5.2.3). It is unlikely that such figures in the early church would have quoted the letter without believing that it carried the weight of Pauline authorship.
Recent arguments against Pauline Authorship
The authenticity of this letter was first disputed by the Dutch Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus. More modern scholars point to a different author. Their arguments can be summarised into four main areas:
Considerably different style and vocabulary of the letter when compared to undisputed Pauline writing. What is outstanding is the length of the sentences. There are 50 sentences in the letter, 9 of which contain more than 50 words. The closest comparison scholars can make is the letter to the Romans which consists of 3 sentences of comparable length amongst a total number of 581. Coupled with this stylistic anomaly scholars can also find 116 words that do not appear in what is accepted to be authentic Pauline writing.
The theological viewpoint presented in the letter is markedly different to the other letters. The word ecclesia (church) is used for the first time to refer to the universal church rather than the local churches that Paul had founded. More significantly, the eschatology in the letter is very different to what scholars can normally see in Paul. The absence of the expectation of Christ’s imminent return, the mention of future generations, and the concern for social order seem contrary to Paul's belief stated in Romans and Corinthians that the end is very close.
The image of Paul in the letter is very strong; he is presented as being the prisoner for Christ, an exclusive use of the definitive article which seems to place Paul above any other persecuted Christian. Also there is, unusually for Paul, no mention of any other disciples or helpers, which appears to clash with the self-understanding of Paul that he is a co-founder of the Christian Tradition with the other apostles. This clash is more pronounced if the disputed status of Paul as an apostle and his own acute awareness of his role in the early persecution of the Church as Saul are taken into consideration. This exclusive portrayal of Pauline authority seems to belong much more to the vision of someone wishing to promote him after his death.
Strong evidence of the reliance on the authentic Pauline Epistle to the Colossians seems to indicate that this is a letter written after his death, intending to restate and develop some of his theology. Over forty passages in Ephesians are expansions or variations of passages in Colossians. It is for this reason that some scholars consider Ephesians to be an edited and reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is the result of Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of dispute.
Scholars know that Paul spent years in Ephesus building up the church there. But this letter does not appear to contain any of the usual friendly greetings seen in Paul's other letters, where he greets to people he remembers in this church.
Modern rebuttals to arguments against authenticity
Standard academic rebuttals to the arguments above include the following:
If the Greek of Ephesians is so un-Pauline, why did none of the Greek Church Fathers notice this fact? Several of them noticed that the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not sound like Paul.
The question of whether Paul expected Jesus' imminent return is widely debated. And even if Paul did expect this when writing his early letters, that does not rule out the possibility that he had adopted a longer-range view by the time he wrote his later letters.
There is some evidence that the Letter to the Ephesians might have been sent to several different churches. Some of the oldest manuscripts of this letter are not addressed to "God's holy people who are at Ephesus," but merely to "God's holy people." Marcion, around 180, quoted from this letter and attributed the quote to Paul's "Letter to the Laodiceans." In the 17th century, Irish prelate and scholar James Ussher (1581-1656) suggested that this might have been a "circular letter" that Paul sent to several churches, including Ephesus and Laodicea. This would explain why Paul's usual personal greetings are absent: these could not be included in a letter sent to several different churches.
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
Compared word-for-word, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians have some very similar wording. For example, 1 Thess 2:9 is almost identical to 2 Thess 3:8. This has been explained in three different ways by scholars:
Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians so soon after writing 1 Thessalonians that the same phrases were on his mind.
Paul had a copy of 1 Thessalonians nearby when writing 2 Thessalonians, and deliberately repeated some of the same phrases.
Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians himself, and a later writer wrote 2 Thessalonians in deliberate imitation of Paul's style.
Scholars who find the first two options unlikely generally support the third theory.
Udo Schnelle has shown that 2 Thessalonians is significantly different in style from the undisputed epistles, being whole and narrow rather than a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Neither does 2 Thessalonians have significant open or deep questions, unlike much of the remainder of Paul's writing. Moreover, Alfred Loisy has argued that it seems to reflect knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Bart D. Ehrman has noted that the insistence of genuineness within the letter, and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start, are ploys commonly used in forged documents.
Another issue often raised is that of context; for example, Norman Perrin claims that in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God (the Father) as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus (a focus on Jesus did not become popular until the end of the first century); since 2 Thessalonians states may the Lord direct your hearts to ... the steadfastness of Christ (3:5) in contrast to 1 Thessalonians' may establish your hearts unblamable ... before God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus.... (3:13), this supposedly implies it was written sometime after Paul's death.
The main theological difference between the two epistles, according to these scholars, is that in 1 Thessalonians, the day of Christ is nigh, whereas the main body of 2 Thessalonians seems entirely dedicated to showing that it is not, and in fact many things must happen first. They think the reason for the writing of 2 Thessalonians was due to there not having been a second coming before Paul died, and that 2 Thessalonians has no other purpose. Others suggest that perhaps Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, and then later wrote 2 Thessalonians to correct misinterpretations of his earlier letter. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the two letters describe two different appearances of Christ: 1 Thessalonians describes the Rapture, while 2 Thessalonians describes the Second Coming.
Some scholars argue that it would be hypocritical for a pseudepigrapher to warn against forged letters (2:2), and that even by the standards of the ancient world, a false signature (3:17) would constitute an unethical forgery.
[The Pastoral Epistles
The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus -- often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles -- are the most disputed of all the epistles bearing Paul's name.]
These epistles were rejected by Marcion, who considered only the other ten epistles by Paul and his version of the Gospel of Luke to be canon. Tertullian expressed his astonishment at Marcion's omission, and all the Church Fathers accepted these letters as being from Paul. Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul.
Modern attempts to settle the issue center on textual criticism and comparison with the other Pauline epistles. Such issues are usually assigned by supporters of the view that Paul is the author to human variability.
The vocabulary used in the Pastorals is distinctly at variance with that of the other epistles, to the extent that it matches texts from general Hellenic philosophy more than any of the other Pauline epistles. Although statistical analysis never provides concrete argument, over 1/3 of the vocabulary is not used anywhere else in the Pauline epistles, and over 1/5 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament. However, the vocabulary is similar to that of 2nd century Christian writers, although Paul was a 1st century writer, for which there is much less similarity to the general vocabulary. However, scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has challenged this analysis, claiming it is based on the arbitrary decision to lump these three epistles together as a unit. He argues out that this obscures the similarities between 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, between Titus and the other travel letters, and between 2 Timothy and Philippians.
The style in which the vocabulary is used also differs, for example rather than having faith used on its own, faith becomes part of the body of Christian faith. Also, the Pastorals are described as noticeably meditative, and quiet, which is characteristic of literary Hellenistic Greek, rather than the dynamic Greek with dramatic arguments with outbursts and opponents that are used in the remaining epistles attributed to Paul. However, the situation in which Paul is set in the pastorals is one towards the end of his life, so these variations could be due to the change from middle age to an older man.
Norman Perrin has pointed out that Paul's travels to Crete (Titus 1:5-6), again to Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), and Troas (2 Tim 1:15, 4:13) cannot be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life or works as determined from the other epistles or from Acts. Harnack, Lightfoot and other scholars have suggested hypothetical scenarios that would have these epistles written near the end of Paul's life without contradicting biographical information in the other epistles or Acts. Moreover, the Catholic tradition, going back to ancient times, is that the imprisonment of Paul in the year 62 (described at the end of Acts of the Apostles) was not the imprisonment that led to his death. Paul was released, left Rome, went on an additional journey, and returned to Rome to be martyred in 66 or 67. If this tradition is correct, this final journey could have been the occasion for the visits mentioned in these letters.
In terms of theology, some scholars claim that the Pastorals reflect more the characteristics of 2nd century (non-gnostic) church thought, than those of the 1st century. In particular, whilst in the 1st century the idea of Christ's time being immediate was current (as also described in the non-pastoral epistles), in the 2nd century it was seen as more distant, matching the choice of the pastorals to lay down instructions for a long time after the passing away of the apostles.
The Pastoral Epistles lay out church organisation, and character requirements for men who are chosen to be bishops and deacons. Also, the Pastorals lay out a peculiar ecclesiastical office, that of the widows (prayer connected to chastity). Some scholars claim that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime. Some 19th century Protestant scholars disputed the authenticity of these epistles out of doctrinal reasons because they viewed bishops (or "overseers"), deacons, and vows of chastity to be too "Catholic."
Another peculiarity is in regard to false teachers, which the pastorals seem particularly devoted to, in particular condemning Hellenic mysticism and gnosticism. Rather than engage in theological debate with the false teachers (as Paul describes doing in the other epistles attributed to him), the pastorals merely suggest quoting scripture. Scholars such as Kummel suggest that if the lack of debate with false teachers were only due to them not being worth contradiction, then there would be no necessity to warn people of them in the first place. Thus scholars of this view claim that the early church faced a serious threat from such teachers, as the prior epistles either supported or accepted their view, and thus the church fabricated the Pastoral Epistles to support their case.
In the 19th century, Europe-based scholars claimed that the Pastoral Epistles must have been written in the late 2nd century. Today, scholars generally agree that these epistles were known by Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, and may have also been known by Clement of Rome. These would place the date of these epistles no later than the early second century or late first century.
Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives continue to insist on the traditional view that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul, and have long questioned scholarly methods such as higher and historical criticism, as well as questioning the theology of their opponents.
ALSO i don't believe we can just say well it's there and i'll just say he wrote them becuase that wouldn't be smart considering there were FAKES IN THE PAST such as these:Most, if not all, scholars reject their authenticity. They include
Third Epistle to the Corinthians (canonical for Armenian Orthodox)
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Roman Catholic apocrypha)
Third Epistle to the Thessalonians
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle to the Ionians
so what do all of you think.personally i think if most of these were discarded A LOT OF CONTRIVERSY WOULD CEASE.