Why are Paul's letters authoritative?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

A few things:

  1. Thanks for the thoughtful responses, guys. And thank you for realizing that I simply wanted to ask some “hard questions” rather than be antagonistic. (That’s why I asked these questions here in the first place. I knew the folks here would get where I was coming from.)

  2. I understand that the RCC didn’t canonize Paul’s letters by some kind of official decree. It was more organic than that. But (from my perspective) the actual process of canonization seems just as arbitrary as if it were some papal decree, anyway. The Bible (arguably) was formed just as much by historical happenstance as it was a consensus among Christians as to what was vital and essential to their faith… not that the two are easily separable in the first place.

No. I don’t think should matter when the texts were penned what authoritative value they should have.

Maybe the Gospels shouldn’t be considered authoritative either. However, some Biblical scholars conclude that the Gospels contain various speeches/parables told by Jesus and then passed down orally amongst believers until finally being put to paper and eventually assigned an “eye witness authorship” (such as Matthew or Mark) to give them some validity.

Inasmuch as Christians think that Jesus is God, it might make sense to give Jesus’ words more weight than Paul’s regardless of when they were first put to paper.

2 Likes
22

Vulcan speaks!!

Thanks for your thoughts. I do not know how the RCC did things —I am not Catholic — but, of course, in 95 CE/AD the word “catholic” would, if used at all, have been lower-case ‘c’ and not had the meaning you and I now give it.

Yes, it is thought that much biblical material began in an oral setting. Memorization was part of a student’s lessons when listening to his rabbi in those days (the students were most generally male, although Jesus was somewhat different in this respect). Rabbis expected their students to memorize their words. It is also known that some disciples of various rabbis took written notes while the rabbi spoke.

It is generally a long discussion — with a bit of back and forth – in terms of sources for what came to be the canonical gospels. I read, not long ago, a work by someone who asserted that some of the gospel of Mark went back to within 5 years of the time of the crucifixion — that is, mid to late 30s CE. While he dated the composition of the whole of that gospel to 50 CE ( less than 20 years after the Crucifixion/Resurrection), he saw it as a collection of pericopes, some of which went back to the beginning.

The four Gospels that are considered canonical were “anointed” as that because of their connection to known apostles or, in case of Luke, someone closely affiliated. They likely originally had no “author attribution” because they were simply distributed among friends who already “knew” who the author was and no attribution-of-source was needed. Later on, the distribution went wider and the names-of-authors were attached.

The arguments as to whether the authors were the individuals known as apostles, or disciples of theirs, are long ones. But they were recognized as authoritative early on…and authoritative as opposed to other “gospels” which asserted other things. These things still get debated.

As for the words of Jesus over Paul — even Peter recognized Paul’s writings as inspired from God. Paul occasionally seemed to say that, in one instance or another, he was giving his opinion. But he did not always speak or write that way.

I still am curious about the “bitter” passages you seem to see in Paul and/or what seems to conflict with things Jesus said. People do at times make Jesus out to be Someone other than what He Himself presented Himself as being.

Thanks for making your voice heard at last!!

1 Like
23

I have wondered about this a lot. Why also is the book of revelations even part of the cannon when It was originally rejected. So Constantine is the one to thank for this I think and his bishops like Athanasius of Alexandria. There is a socio political expediency to having revelation, end of days mythology because you can control people with fear. The RC church used it to great affect and its being used again today especially in America.

Paul’s contradictory remarks on women is usually the objection to him but those words are simply used way out of proportion and context time and again for misogynistic socio political expediency.

24

Those are good thoughts. The book of Revelation is said by some, at least, to have been “widely accepted” by the third century (CE) and then later questioned – “after the conversion of Constantine,” though not necessarily due to its convenience for him, but because the book was considered too condemning of the empire. This is per Gonzalez… Inasmuch as “Babylon” was —still is – believed to have referred to Rome, I can see why that reference would “offend” at various points in history. McGuckin, in his book says Revelation did not enter the canon of accepted Scriptures until the fourth century. And this had nothing to do with Constantine and everything to do with relationships between the Eastern church and the Western church, and possibly a result of the Montanist movement…at least per that author. Now that I look a bit into it, it seems that even though there is a date when the book of Revelation was settled as part of the canon, commentaries on it were being written as early as late third century (by Victorinus). Others also were using the book in that era, and some mid-second century notables (Irenaeus and Justin Martyr) were using the book, but along with the Shepherd of Hermas.

There may indeed be some “socio political expediency to having revelation,” but not so much at certain times. And if Revelation had a veiled negative commentary on Rome (or the current leading metropolis of the empire, like Constantinople may have been), then it was likely not Constantine who wanted the book of Revelation around. It’s an uncomfortable book for all concerned. Not sure what RCC says about it. I know the Left Behind series.

25

Obviously… :wink:

I don’t disagree. But could you specifically quote these judgments? Because what these judgments were matters. It seems that Jesus (if he is assumed to be God) has a right to make such judgments. And, even taking this into mind, Christ’s judgments come off as an “urge to righteousness.” Paul, on the other hand, has an air of “I’m better than you.” when dispensing judgment. You hear it echoed by evangelicals everywhere.

If the measure that Paul metes out to others will be met out to him, Paul might have wanted to be more careful with the judgments he dispensed. For much of his life, Paul actively persecuted people simply because they believed differently than he. On the other hand, if someone is a simple carpenter who points out when folks are less than righteous, maybe he can easily handle THAT measure being met out to HIM.

26

Hey Vulcan…good question for July 17!! On this date in 180 CE/AD — seven men and five women were brought to trial for carrying “the sacred books and the letters of Paul”…all 12 convicted and executed.

And here we are, talking still about those same “sacred books and the letters of Paul”…a little more safely than has often been true. I will get back to you on your other comments/queries.

2 Likes
27

“Woe to you, Korazin. Woe to you, Bethsaida! …If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum,…if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.” (Matthew 11:21-22)

Matthew 12:45 “That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”

Matthew 8:10-- “Jesus…said to those following him, 'I tell you the truth, I have not found any one in Israel with such great faith…The subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside into the darkness where there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth…”

[Jesus to His disciples] "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words … it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. " (Matt 10:14)

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” – John 3:3.

Guess what, Vulcan? I started off looking for those verses that “specifically quote these judgements?” as you requested, but realized that if I did due dilligence to the subject, the kitchen would never be cleaned and I would never get packed to leave on vacation. Yes, Jesus did say “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near” – in Matthew 4:17 — which does imply a judgment upon His hearers (they needed to repent!!).

“Jesus was at times rather offensive” — as one modern-day biblical scholar has put it. Yeah, no kidding. “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder’, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment…anyone who says ‘you fool,’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Matthew 5: 21-22)

One Jewish New Testament scholar observed that in Matthew 5 – that section of verses – Jesus extends the Jewish Law and the teaching of its prophets to cover not only actions but also thought. Next time someone cuts you off in traffic, think about that one!!

The judgments of Jesus are upon those who do not believe Him to be from God – hence the remarks about Korazin and others – and who show lack of faith. Statements that may also appear to, as you say, “urge righteousness” – well, yes. Quite so. But guess what? Who reading this —including you — has not had a foul thought about someone? Hmmm? Well, yes, I know…and there we go with those thoughts again. I can think of at least one U.S. politician who had the press corps chuckling when he talked (confessionally) a few decades ago about sometimes being tempted to lust…the inner life was and is as much a concern to God as outer life —and outer actions can often be borne out of inner thoughts.

So — the urge to righteousness becomes in the end a standard we all fail to uphold. And this is why we needed a Savior…and statements like “the just shall live by faith.”

OK… like I said, the kitchen needs cleaned. I am sure others can add to the subject quite well.

28

I hope you won’t take this the wrong way, bluebird. I’d like to share my reaction to the part I quoted, even though I don’t think my response is in opposition to what you’ve said. I agree about faith and grace but sometimes I think righteousness is over emphasized. Maybe in between looking out for one another God would be more pleased to hear a song, look at a picture or watch a dance He has inspired in us than to see that once again we have overachieved in checking off all the things we think He expects.

In college I had a dream I was at a bowling alley with all the young people in the philosophy of consciousness class I was taking. Everyone had a different idea of what to do. Some would throw the ball down their neighbor’s lane. Some would release the ball halfway down the lane. One even went all the way down without a ball and knocked the pins down by hand. I kept trying to explain the rules but each time, before I could finish, someone would rush off to do something else absurd in their zeal to show me that they knew. I think God must feel like I felt in that dream sometimes, like no one is listening. Or are so eager to please Him that they rush off half cocked without really consulting Him.

4 Likes
29

That was some dream, MarkD. And you were “unconscious” (dreaming) while doing this – in your dreams – with your philosophy of consciousness class??

That was good…or was it not a good dream?

But Vulcano’s question was for a listing of those statements of Jesus which I, in a previous post, had referred tp (in one sentence). I had indicated that Jesus made some judgment statements. Vulcano wanted to know what they are…and frankly, I only had time for a couple.

“The just shall live by faith” is less about “checking off all the things we think He expects” – since we have acknowledged that we are not able to. We try to follow Him because we love Him, but even that does not mean we have become perfect.

The failures of our lives (willful though they sometimes may be) have been “covered” by the atoning death of Jesus and His Resurrection. This is not “a license to kill” – or sin. But it acknowledges the reality that we all fall short — as it says in the epistles, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God…”

And OK, that is another subject. But our righteousness only comes from Christ…there is the overt symbolism of the lambs at Passover — in the original Passover (Exodus), the smearing of the blood of a lamb over a family’s doorway meant they were “saved” from the judgment meted out in the land of Egypt during one really bad night. The original Passover – while a matter of history – foreshadowed,–that is, was a “picture of” – what will happen at the Final Passover, which will also become a matter of history at some point.

But again, Vulcan was asking for specific passages…

And I will bet that was an interesting class – especially when you were awake!!

1 Like
30

I guess maybe the issue more about how we are understanding, interpreting, and defining “righteousness.”

When Jesus says, “Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,” it is in the context of extending grace equally; it’s not about “morality” as I was led to believe growing up.

31

Thanks. Yes I was getting hung up on the meaning of “righteousness”. But bluebird clarified that for me. Now I’m hoping I didn’t derail the thread.

32

By the end of the second century AD, the main outline of the New Testament was clear: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Acts, 13 Pauline Letters, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, Jude, Revelation, and a few disputed books. Paul’s letters and apostleship was accepted very early.

The church fathers of the third century authenticated this trend.

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215) quoted from all New Testament books except James, 2 Peter, and 3 John.

Tertullian of Carthage (AD 160–225) was the first to use the term “New Testament” to refer to the collection of Christian writings. Origen (AD 185–254) organized them in three categories:

  1. The acknowledged books—the four Gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline Letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation
  2. The disputed works—James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Shepherd of Hermas
    3.The rejected documents—all the rest

In the fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260–340) used the same division as Origen but placed the Shepherd of Hermas among the rejected writings and Hebrews among the accepted ones.

Athanasius (AD 296–373) was the first to use the word “canon” to refer to the list of 27 New Testament books in his 39th Festal Letter of 367, a list that Jerome (AD 345–420) and Augustine (AD 354–430) substantiated. There were no Roman Catholic Church as it did not yet exist.

Although debates concerning the canon persisted in certain communities, the New Testament was in essence solidified by the end of the fourth century.

Having said all that, the Gospels usually only make implicit use of wisdom to understand Jesus, the Pauline epistles make explicit use of wisdom theology.

Two overlapping wisdom themes appear in Paul’s theology:

(1) Paul uses wisdom ironically to expose the false wisdom of the surrounding cultures—Jewish and Greek—and…

(2) Paul portrays the unfolding wisdom of the Old Testament story, which now points to the identity of the Christ, his work in redemption and our lives in the newly begun creation.

There is no conflict.

4 Likes
33

Unlike some people today, the early Christians did not do things based on authority, because there was no authority. They responded to writings based on the Holy Spirit.

The books of the Bible were accepted based on consensus of believers, not by who wrote them. Mark was not an Apostle nor was Luke. We do not know who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews. .

2 Likes
34

Or at least the author of 2 Peter did.

1 Like
35

Good thoughts, “Relates”. But there is always an authority in people’s minds. Mark was an associate — at some level — of Peter who really WAS considered an authority in the sense of having walked and talked with Jesus. So, the fact that Mark was not an apostle is overridden in the sense that he had a recognized authority and church leader as his source. And Luke also noted that he had “investigated” things. It is hard to imagine him knowing or having a birth story without, in that instance, at least having consulted the mother of his subject.

Attribution seems to have played a part in the early acceptance of some or all of these documents, although it may be hard to see now in some cases…

1 Like
36

I was just looking through a book on the Biblical Canon last night and authority was a crucial factor on what made it onto the list. Of course there were several different lists before agreement was reached.

37

I basically agree, and Hebrews is an interesting case. It became widely used because it was bundled with Paul’s letters – and not just at the end, but often tucked in the middle. The earliest surviving large manuscript of Paul’s letters (P46) contains Hebrews between Romans and 1 Corinthians. Even though the letter itself is anonymous, the way it got distributed along with Paul’s letters made a claim that it was Paul’s. (Incidentally, this is similar to Isaiah 40–66 which is internally anonymous but came to be taken as Isaiah’s through being distributed with the earlier chapters that are about him.)

There’s strong evidence that Paul didn’t write Hebrews, and many in the early church recognized this too, especially those better versed in Greek (e.g. Irenaeus, Marcion, Origen, Arius, Tertullian). But the Eastern church never really challenged Pauline authorship, and by the fourth century, Augustine and Jerome basically settled for the West that Paul wrote it. Only much later did challenges resurface.

So Hebrews got a wide audience and eventually canonical status through riding on Paul’s coattails. If canon is viewed as mainly being about documents written with apostolic authority, Hebrews looks like a mistake. But if canon is about those documents recognized as useful by the wider church, Hebrews deserves its place. Irenaeus, Gaius of Rome, and Hippolytus all quoted Hebrews as authoritative in spite of not believing Paul wrote it. In their minds, authority wasn’t tied to the author. Faulty attribution may explain why Hebrews got widely distributed, but the quality and content of the letter itself led to its wide use by the church.

I’m glad Hebrews is in the canon for many reasons, one of which is that it keeps us from tying authority to authorship.

3 Likes
38

One sticky question is whether within the letters written by Paul are there parts that are God breathed interspersed between Paul’s opinions? That is uncomfortable for many to consider, as it leaves it hanging as to what is God’s word, but certainly you have to wonder when Paul himself states “I do not permit…” or “pick up my cloak and bring it to me.”

2 Likes
39

You are using the concept of authority differently from the way others are using it. Mark was an excellent course for the gospel narrative because he was an associate of Peter.

If Peter was monolingual, he could well have been the one who translated his sermons into Greek when necessary. In other words Peter was the closest disciple to Jesus, and after the disciples died, Mark, as the closest one to Peter would have been the obvious one to preserve this record.

Some have noted that the gospels do not include the name of their authors (although John seems to strongly imply that John is the author) so they question their authorship and authority. There is internal evidence of the authorship of each.

What modern folk do not seem to understand about the verbal tradition of the gospels is that these stories are based not just on the memories of old men and women. They are based on the practiced sermons of men and women who probably talked about Jesus 7 days a week and saw themselves as the vessels chosen to preserve the facts about the Savior until His Coming Again.

John of course tells the story of Jesus in a very different way than the first three Gospels, but is still true and accurate. This is what I mean by the test of the Holy Spirit.

The Gospels tell the story of Jesus the Acts tell the story of the early church. the Letters deal with the problems of the early church. Revelation prepares us for the End of Time.

These books speak to the spiritual needs of God’s people, which is why they are in the Bible. There are many books which are purported to be written by Apostles, which are not included because they do not speak to those needs and do not meet the test of the Holy Spirit.

I have yet to see any book that could have been included, but was not for any nonspiritual reason.

.

40

I like what you said here. I know that the gospels seem to lack attribution Some say this is because, early on when the gospels were first being passed around to various groups, or churches, people automatically knew “this came from Matthew” and so on…But once they were more widely spread, the need to attach an author’s name arose. Could be…

When you said “after the disciples died, Mark, as the closest one to Peter, would have been…” are you saying these gospels were written after the disciples (or most of them) died?