I find I’m late to a topic that has always been intregiuing to me. I noticed it as James (@jammycakes) … referenced some earlier thoughts I posted on the larger topic. Additionally, I noticed that Phil (@jpm) noted what concerns innerancy devotees would have, and how that might limit their objective inquiry, and thought that may benefit from a certain clarification as well. So if interesting, a few thoughts on Pauline authorship from this inerrancy affirming believer.
Firstly, I am sympathetic to the idea Phil @jpm aised:
But I wonder if “lie” is a fair discription of what is going on. Books may well have been written by those in the tutorage or school of Paul, and not intended to deceive but rather to support his work. I does give me pause to consider the the nature of canonization, inspiration and such.
For what it is worth, us inerrancy-affirming types don’t take issue with this per se… it is theorized by numerous evangelical scholars that this is the case among at least some works of the prophets, the proverbs or psalms as attributed to David or Solomon, and the like, that they were collected or arranged by later disciples, collecting material along with the larger school of thought, etc. There are different conclusions, but most evangelical scholars I’m aware of wouldn’t see the attribution “Proverbs of Solomon” as intending to deceive if not every proverb was from the mouth of solomon directly. That is understood and common enough.
While I would be personally skeptical, I wouldn’t take issue if someone suggested the same abou certain New Testament books; James, for instance - there is really nothing in his book, besides the initial assertion in the first few words, that it was written by “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ…” Nothing else in the entire book is lost, changed, modified in any way if it were proposed that it was written really by a “School” in the tutorage of James, never intending to deceive its readers to believe that the actual James was really the author.
But compare those vague or simple attributions to what we have in the disputed epistles of Paul:
“I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.”
“When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.”
“Do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there.”
And of course I could give countless other similar examples.
These are not vague or simple attribtions, comparable to what might be found in James, Epistles of John, James or Jude, or for that matter, in Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Joel. If they are not authentic, then someone intentionally invented numerous personal details, entered adamant claims of authorship by authenticating signature line, historical references, that all amount to a significant intent to deceive the readers into believing they were indeed written by the historical Paul.
So if these letters are not by Paul, it isn’t simply that we lose some nostalgic or sentimental attachment to the letters as being from Paul; it is that we have outright forgeries, written by a liar who included numerous deliberate and outright falsehoods with intent to deceive the reader as to the actual authorship. This is not a complication limited only to us adherants to inerrancy… The question is why in the world would anyone hold in any way authoritative letters that are demonstrated to be complete forgeries, written with such a willingness to invent falsehoods for the sole purpose to deceive readers as to the actual identity of the author. Why would I trust anything in these letters at that point, and trust eternal verities or other spiritual truths to the words of these proven liars?