Among the 13 Pauline Epistles, the great
majority of Biblical scholars do not dispute the genuine authorship of Paul for
seven letters: 1 Thess, Gal, Phil, Phlm, 1 and 2 Cor, and Rom. As for the
remaining six letters, i.e., 2 Thess, Eph, Col, 1 and 2 Tim, and Tit, Biblical
scholars have diverging views on their authorship. Some hold the opinion that
judging from the vocabulary, theological message, and suspected time that the
letters were composed, it is probable that these six letters were not written
by Paul, even though the author of each letter claimed himself to be Paul at
the very beginning of it. These are commonly called “deuteroPauline letters”.
It raises a few important questions. Why does the Canon, supposedly containing
the inspired Word of God, allow for pseudonymity? When we say Paul did not
actually write a deuteroPauline letter, are we condoning forgery? Forgery is
considered deceitful and ethically wrong. Should we continue to trust the
content of a deuteroPauline letter?
Let us approach these questions from a
few different perspectives. First, was the purpose of writing the deuteroPauline
letters fraudulent? In New Testament research, some scholars who first proposed
that the letters attributed to Paul were pseudonymous hinted that the purpose
might be fraudulent, but this connotation has largely disappeared from recent
discussions (Brown 586). The primary argument against fraudulence is that a
deutroPauline letter was probably written after
the death of Paul by one of his disciples of the “Pauline” school who
considered himself an authoritative interpreter of the apostle. As such, this
is different from the case of a forged article written in the name of an author
for the purpose of deceiving the readers that the content and ideas of the
article come from the author for the gain or benefit of the actual writer. Such
fraudulent purposes are most common in paintings where their value can be
enormous after the death of a famous painter. In the ancient days, pseudepigraphy
was a more commonly accepted practice if the purpose is not fraudulent. For
example, many Old Testament works were written and edited by different writers
over a long period of time and attributed to an author who lived long before
the work was actually written (Just, The Deutero-Pauline Letters).[1]
Nonetheless, we should still recognize that the problem of pseudepigraphy in
Old Testament and New Testament works is different as the latter has actually
included the name in the text as if the work was written by him while the
former is often an attribution of the author’s name to the work by the later
generations.
So the next question is what was the underlying
rationale for the author to make use of Paul’s name to write the letter? The answer
is quite straightforward. Paul is an authoritative apostle in early
Christianity and the works and words attributed to his name would easily gain
authority and respect from the receivers. It would therefore make sense for an
author to write a deutroPauline letter if the purpose of the letter is for the benefit of his contemporary readers. For
example, after the death of Paul, if a circumstance arose that would warrant
the attention of his followers to give an early advice to a Church community
that Paul had established or to a Church leader whom Paul had converted, would
it be more effective in achieving the intended purpose (for the benefit of the
receivers) to use the name of the authority? This is especially true if the
teaching in the letter contains something that is new to the changing
circumstances. For instance, in the case of Paul’s Letter to Titus, a primary
purpose of the letter is to delegate the task of putting things in order (Tit
1:5) to the receiver so that he might continue to exhort the faithful in sound
teaching and refute the opposition. This would require the introduction of a
“new” concept of the strict maintenance of a patriarchal church order (Coogan
2096), whereas the “old” teachings in the letter such as deepening faith and
love are a matter of continuity from the undisputed Pauline letters. Writing in
the name of Paul as the authoritative teacher stressed the unity of the later
“actual author” with the earlier “attributed author”. It would thus ensure continuity,
by carrying a tradition forward and adapting and applying it to the new
circumstances of the early Church (Just, footnote 8). On this understanding, it
would be treating Paul as the “author” in the sense of authority behind a
letter that was intended to be an extension of his thought – on the assumption
of the great apostle’s mantle to continue his work (Brown 586). And also
importantly, it served the purpose of continuous evangelization in the Church
so that the message of Jesus can reach out to the ends of the earth.
Last but not least, the development of
the Canon of the New Testament is a long and gradual process which had lasted
for over two centuries. During the process, the early Church Fathers considered
very seriously the full set of books and epistles that conveyed truly the Word
for inclusion into (or rejection from) the Canon. While one of their
considerations was whether the book/letter is in connection with one particular
apostle, the over-riding factor is always whether it conveys the true teaching
of the Lord and would not lead the early Christians to believe in mysterious
teachings and heresies (e.g., Gnostics). In this way, the early Church
scrutinized those books which were in line with the expression of its faith for
inclusion into the Canon (Metzger 75-90).According to our common faith, the
Canon of the New Testament, with its 27 books in full, is:
“composed under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, by which, according to the wise plan of God, those matters which
concern Christ the Lord are confirmed, His true teaching is more and more fully
stated, the saving power of the divine work of Christ is preached, the story is
told of the beginnings of the Church and its marvelous growth, and its glorious
fulfillment is foretold.” (Dei Verbum, para. 20)
After all, it is
primarily through faith in God can we view the deutroPauline letters as a
blessing and truth rather than a forgery and lies.
Bibliography
Brown, Raymond Edward. An
Introduction to the New Testament. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2007. Print.
Coogan, Michael D. The
New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha.
N.p.: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
"Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei
Verbum." Vatican.
N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.
<http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html>.
Just, Felix. "Deutero-Pauline Letters." Deutero-Pauline Letters. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2014. <http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm>.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its
Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment