The First Paul

[The Rogue Tomato]

I figured this would be a good topic to discuss here (from a post in the fellowship forum).  In their book, The First Paul, by Borg and Crossan, the authors analyze the authorship of Paul's letters and break it down this way (I'm quoting a review on Amazon). 


There are 3 "Pauls":

The radical (and real) Paul wrote:

Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians and Philemon (which the authors break down verse by verse)


A person or persons calling themselves Paul wrote the pastoral letters:

1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.


A majority of scholars "dispute" the authorship of:

Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians

 

[Izdaari]

I am currently reading The First Paul, by Borg and Crossan, who put forth that theory. I haven't finished it, but I have to say they make a very good case for it.  I'm provisionally convinced of it, pending new information.,

In any case, the "radical Paul" is my favorite.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I am currently reading The First Paul, by Borg and Crossan, who put forth that theory. I haven't finished it, but I have to say they make a very good case for it.  I'm provisionally convinced of it, pending new information.,

In any case, the "radical Paul" is my favorite.

Yeah, you're the one who mentioned it and got me interested.  Let us know how you feel when you're done reading it.  I'll probably get the Audible version.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

What if we found out beyond the shadow of a doubt that one or more of these letters were written by a fake Paul? 

Would you stop quoting from those epistles?  Would that disqualify every verse in them? 

 

[Izdaari]

What if we found out beyond the shadow of a doubt that one or more of these letters were written by a fake Paul? 

Would you stop quoting from those epistles?  Would that disqualify every verse in them?

No, they're still canon. But I have a special affection for "the radical Paul".

 

[FSSL]

The problem is that if you cannot believe the first verses of these books, then it won't take much to disbelieve anything else in these books.

... which is exactly where these kinds of ideas invariably end up.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

What if we found out beyond the shadow of a doubt that one or more of these letters were written by a fake Paul? 

Would you stop quoting from those epistles?  Would that disqualify every verse in them?

No, they're still canon. But I have a special affection for "the radical Paul".

If one defines "canon" as the authoritative and inerrant word of God (as some here do), then how could a letter where the author knowingly misrepresents who he is be considered canon? 

Of course, your definition of "canon" may be different.  Personally, I think what constitutes "canon" is debatable.

 

[Izdaari]

The problem is that if you cannot believe the first verses of these books, then it won't take much to disbelieve anything else in these books.

... which is exactly where these kinds of ideas invariably end up.

That's not a problem for me. I'm aware it was considered normal and acceptable practice in that time to write under the name of a more famous author, though today we'd consider it forgery. And I never thought God dictated the Bible, but rather He let His kids do it, and while He inspired it, they did it in their own words and with the ideas that were already in their heads. 

 

[FSSL]

The dictation and author identity are two different subjects.

Authorial identity is critical to the veracity of the writings of Scripture. The claim of apostleship puts this in a different realm than general literature

 

[FSSL]

If one defines "canon" as the authoritative and inerrant word of God (as some here do)....

Malarkey

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The problem is that if you cannot believe the first verses of these books, then it won't take much to disbelieve anything else in these books.

... which is exactly where these kinds of ideas invariably end up.

That's not a problem for me. I'm aware it was considered normal and acceptable practice in that time to write under the name of a more famous author, though today we'd consider it forgery. And I never thought God dictated the Bible, but rather He let His kids do it, and while He inspired it, they did it in their own words and with the ideas that were already in their heads.

I don't know if it was considered acceptable, but it was very common.  To this day, we don't know which compositions by Giovanni Pergolesi were actually written by Pergolesi, or just submitted under the name Pergolesi in order to get the music published and performed.  And that was the 18th century. 

I have no trouble imagining someone who thought they had the "word of God" to share would write a letter as Paul so that it would get shared and read among the various assemblies. He may have had the best intentions, and maybe even some of what he wrote was inspired.  He simply knew if he started his letter with "Harry, some guy in the church at Podunk", it wouldn't get copied and distributed.  By definition, though, it's not the inerrant word of God, since it starts with a lie about who wrote the letter. 

 

[Izdaari]

What if we found out beyond the shadow of a doubt that one or more of these letters were written by a fake Paul? 

Would you stop quoting from those epistles?  Would that disqualify every verse in them?

No, they're still canon. But I have a special affection for "the radical Paul".

If one defines "canon" as the authoritative and inerrant word of God (as some here do), then how could a letter where the author knowingly misrepresents who he is be considered canon? 

Of course, your definition of "canon" may be different.  Personally, I think what constitutes "canon" is debatable.

Yes, it's different. To me, canon is simply what the Council of Nicea decided were the books that belonged in the Bible. I don't subscribe to any version of inerrrancy except this: It all turned out as God intended, in at least a "good enough" way for His purposes. And if the Council decided the pastoral letters were inspired and had enough value to be included. I'll at least give them the benefit of the doubt. But I still like "the radical Paul" a lot better.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

What if we found out beyond the shadow of a doubt that one or more of these letters were written by a fake Paul? 

Would you stop quoting from those epistles?  Would that disqualify every verse in them?

No, they're still canon. But I have a special affection for "the radical Paul".

If one defines "canon" as the authoritative and inerrant word of God (as some here do), then how could a letter where the author knowingly misrepresents who he is be considered canon? 

Of course, your definition of "canon" may be different.  Personally, I think what constitutes "canon" is debatable.

Yes, it's different. To me, canon is simply what the Council of Nicea decided were the books that belonged in the Bible. I don't subscribe to any version of inerrrancy except this: It all turned out as God intended, in at least a "good enough" way for His purposes. And if the Council decided the pastoral letters were inspired and had enough value to be included. I'll at least give them the benefit of the doubt. But I still like "the radical Paul" a lot better.

I agree 99.9%.  My only change would be "It all turned out as God intended, for His good purposes".  It's a subtle difference, but that's just how I see it.

 

[Izdaari]

Alrighty, I'll accept that wording correction.

 

[Ransom]

To me, canon is simply what the Council of Nicea decided were the books that belonged in the Bible.

The Council of Nicea didn't decide what books belonged in the Bible. They debated the Arian controversy, and little else.

 

[FSSL]

By definition, though, it's not the inerrant word of God, since it starts with a lie about who wrote the letter.

For Tomato, the jury is still out on whether Paul was an apostle.
That means that every book attributed to Paul in the NT is most likely not authentic.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Alrighty, I'll accept that wording correction.

Well, here's the difference.  God may very well have deliberately allowed some false teaching into the canon to achieve a good purpose.  This strategy is not unprecedented. 

1 Kings 22:21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ?I will entice him.?  22 ??By what means?? the Lord asked.  ??I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,? he said. ??You will succeed in enticing him,? said the Lord. ?Go and do it.?  23 ?So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.?

I'm not saying it's exactly the same.  I'm just saying there is a precedent for God being willing to use deceiving spirits to accomplish his good purpose.  So who's to say God didn't throw a few bones into the canon to draw out today's Pharisees and expose them? 

---

Here's the danger, IMO, in assuming every word is the inerrant word of God without question and becoming indignant if any of it is subject to scrutiny.  That kind of attitude MAY lead to misplaced worship of the canon.  I see that in FSSL.  An even more extreme example is KJVO, which is worship of a translation.  It's the wrong focus, which is the same mistake made by the Jewish leaders. 

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

 

[FSSL]

That kind of attitude MAY lead to misplaced worship of the canon.  I see that in FSSL.

You see lots of things, lately.

Keep me on ignore and then you won't have to face the fact that I never attributed inspiration to the canon or ever thought those who recognized the canon were superintended by God. It is much easier to keep making up things and pretending you don't see them.

 

[Izdaari]

By definition, though, it's not the inerrant word of God, since it starts with a lie about who wrote the letter.

For Tomato, the jury is still out on whether Paul was an apostle.
That means that every book attributed to Paul in the NT is most likely not authentic.

Maybe RT has doubts about Paul, but I don't! Paul is my favorite biblical author by far!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

By definition, though, it's not the inerrant word of God, since it starts with a lie about who wrote the letter.

For Tomato, the jury is still out on whether Paul was an apostle.
That means that every book attributed to Paul in the NT is most likely not authentic.

Maybe RT has doubts about Paul, but I don't! Paul is my favorite biblical author by far!

As usual, FSSL is misrepresenting me.  I think the most likely answer is that Paul was an apostle, just not one of the 12 apostles, whom he called the super-apostles. 

It is also a straw man and non-sequitur to say that if Paul wasn't a super-apostle, none of the books are authentic.  He's just being a crybaby again because he humiliated himself in our prior discussion of the canon.