Did the Apostle Paul really write all his letters?

"Did the Apostle Paul really write all his letters?"
Dr. Thomas Schreiner answers in Honest Answers | Episode 44

Watch more episodes of Honest Answers here:

To find out the answer to next week's question, don't forget to SUBSCRIBE:

Ask any questions about theology, ministry, or life; and have them answered honestly by Southern Seminary professors.

Submit your questions by:
Twitter: @askHonestAns
or post them in the comments below

[Nameless-ptoj]

For those of you who struggle with the Epistles of the Bible, Bart Ehrman says this:

“Virtually all of the problems with what I've been calling forgeries can be solved if secretaries were heavily involved in the composition of the early Christian writings.”

I remember watching a Simpsons episode where Homer becomes a food critic and he is asked to write reviews for the food he eats, but he tries twice to write a review by himself but both attempts fail. Lisa volunteers to write and proof read for him and he dictates his opinion to her, which she notes down.

Hope that helps!

[emmapinn]

Saying that the letters must be written by Paul because if they weren't, it has implications for the whole bible... Does anyone else see an issue with this?

[Dispensational_David]

Unbelievable the amount of non believers who have flooded this video in panic and using a whole lot of energy to make sure that people keep questioning their faith

[physiotipswithmarrow]

"Keep it real Christianity" means you can be a Christian that believes in God as I do, but also be open minded about the truth. The more we study church/bible history our original paradigm my get uncomfortable challenged in the pursuit of the truth. The seven letters that all scholars agree are credible still uphold our beliefs. For 15 hundred yrs everyone thought Paul wrote Hebrews...now no one thinks that. Lets open our minds believers...just because we are evangelicals doesn't mean we can't also consider the merits of critical scholarship. My 2 cents...thanks for the video!

[piesho]

2 Thessalonians 2:2 Yeah, that's what a con man writing in the name of Paul would say.

But seriously, would the fact that some of those letters were written years after Paul's death, be a good reason to conclude that those letters were not written by Paul?

[chudy.w]

Wait, what? A reason to believe that the book wasn't forged is that the writer said it wasn't forged?

[davidbobalik]

Thomas that was a response worthy of our call and commission in 1 Peter 3:15. But let me address the elephant in the room and why clearly these well researched skeptical scholars want to deny Pauline authenticity to The Pastoral Epistles, one in particular, 1 Timothy. In 1 Timothy 5:17-18, Paul quotes The Gospel of Luke. Paul according to historical sources died no later than 67AD. If then Paul is accredited with writing this Epistle that then means that Luke must have been written prior to 67AD and due to the absence of the martyrdom of James and Peter, from either Luke or Acts, which happened prior to that of Paul most likely even earlier. Why is that significant? Because in Luke 21:5-28 Jesus makes a very distinct prediction that came to pass and is verified today by archeological evidence that can be observed by the whole world in modern day Jerusalem.

These arguments presented are dismissible by simple logic.
Paul uses the same greeting in both letters, how many of us have started multiple letters and emails with the greeting, 'Dear so-and-so' does that somehow prove that one of our emails or letters is a forgery?
Paul uses different vocabulary, of course he does, he is speaking on different topics in these three letters as opposes to his letters to the church of Corinth or Romans.
Because Paul mentions concerns that were realized in Gnostic heresies skeptics conclude that these letters must have been written after those heresies were rampant in the 2nd century, this is another nonsensical argument. Prosperity Gospel teachers would also fall within the warnings of these Epistles, does it then stand to reason they must have been written in the 19th-20th century because they can't pre-date heresies the theology addresses?

2 Corinthians 10:5 'We demolish arguments and every pretention that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.'

[brianwinters]

I have read the Pauline letters in the original and I do not see any problems the critics complain about.

[bobSeigar]

Paul saying he is an Apostle because he says so is wack

[DesGardius-megf]

Saying that Paul wrote the epistles because they say so is like saying that an anonymous email claiming to be from the Prince of Nigeria is from the Prince of Nigeria, because it says so. It’s a circular argument.

[zamiel]

This is complete nonsense. This is *NOT* an "honest answer". This is pure opinion.

He states that it would be deceptive to claim to have been written by Paul. Hebrews is anonymous, yet he claims it written by Paul. By his own words, he is being deceptive.

He acknowledges that there were documents *not* written by Paul, that had his name on them. While denying that it is a possibility, for any of the contested letters, to fall into the same category, "just because".

He also states that the early church rejected these writings, they were NEVER accepted as authoritative scripture. This is simply NOT true. They were considered canon by several early churches. *AFTER* the supposed admission of forgery.

His "significant evidence", for saying that all the letters are "authentic documents", is nothing more than, Paul's name is on all of them (which is NOT true), and the church didn't accept writings they KNEW were not written by the person..Paul being an example (but some did with the forged Paul, and ALL do with the gospels).

This is NOT significant evidence. This is nothing more than, "the church said they were authentic, and I believe them".

"As evangelicals we don't accept that view". To think that this guy is a teacher. smh

Really? So much for honest answers.

Apparently it isn't lying if you just ignore everything, and everyone, that refutes what you called evidence, to support your belief...I mean "answer".

Odd, I didn't see that part in the Ten Commandments.

[slottibarfast]

There are other letters that are claimed to be written by Paul that no one believes were written by Paul that did not make it into the bible but at least some early Christians believed were by Paul. There is a history of this fakery happening. Some of the letters of Paul that made it into the bible were questioned by church writers so this is not some trick played by atheist s to discredit scripture. I think that the first thing this gentleman said gives it away. He believes in biblical inerrancy. If you start with a conclusion that you have to believe then you will find a way. I suggest you read for yourself the abundant evidence concerning the way words are used, the theology these letters contain, and of course any evidence that Paul wrote them all and see who has the better argument, evidence.

[darkknightsds]

Evangelicals: Twist themselves into a knot to say the Gospels are written by who they're associated with even though they are anonymous
Also Evangelicals: We know it's Paul cause it says so

As a Christian... stop obsessing over this.

[randy]

So he admits that the styles are different and the content is different. He also forgot the grammar and words are different. He's a Christian fighting for his beliefs. That prohibits anyone from getting to the truth.

His proof is that they letters are signed "Paul". Is that really convincing?

Those that believe Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus base this belief on those that came many years after Paul, that are nameless, provide no tangible evidence of their authorship and are obviously bias towards Paul being the writer. Not a strong case. No harm intended. Believe like you want.

[metroduck]

While I believe that Paul wrote them, your way presenting the argument is just horrible.

[nickydaviesnsdpharms]

Firstly, this guy is unable to admit it that Paul may not be the author to half of the epistles, secondly, I'm gonna take the opinions of the people who are experts in the field, like Bart D. Erhman for example who say half of them are forgeries (pseudopigrapa) and almost no scholar believer or atheist alike, holds the view that Paul wrote them all.
in any case he didn't know he was writing scripture that would end up in the bible, at the time.

[danielmalinen]

One reason why I don’t think that all of Paul’s letters are written by Paul but some of them are pseudographs is that pseudo-Paul talks in those letters about teachers, elders, pastors and bishops that didn’t yet exist in the first century CE. According to several academic scholars, these ecclesiastical offices didn't emerge and develop until the middle or the late second century CE.

[Ray-iuhg]

Was his argument that they must be by Paul because they are in the Bible?

[JohnRoach-jndg]

1st Timothy and Titus is pseudepigrapha. 1st Corinthians has many large spurious insertions. Ephesian has two small insertions. 2nd Thessalonians is pseudepigrapha and 1st Thessalonians is on the Bubble. No one knows who wrote Hebrews. John of Patmos is not the Apostle John. James is. . .? We as Christians need to insist on detecting the pseudepigrapha. Because even the Gospels are suspect for a different reason.

[darknightofthesoul]

OMG! No one would EVER do anything as dastardly as invent new writings and attribute them to Paul....would they?