Paul, Meet Paul: A Study in Forgery

[Snow]

Paul, meet Paul. A Case of Forgery

In Titus Paul upholds the institution of slavery and instructs slaves to be submissive and faithful. However, in Philemon Paul encourages a slave holder to free his slave.

In 1 Timothy Paul instructs women to be silent and submissive and in 1 Corinthians Paul orders that women may not speak in church, that they must remain silent else they are to be shamed. However in other parts of 1 Corinthians Paul presents men and women as equal with reciprocal rights and duties, and in Romans Paul lauds the female apostle Junia as noteworthy or foremost among the apostles.

What gives? Is Paul manic-depressive? Confused?

The 13 letters of Paul fall into three categories:

Authentic:

Romans

Phillippians

Galatians

Philemon

First Corinthians

Second Corinthians

First Thessalonians

Fraudulent:

First Timothy

Second Timothy

Titus

Letters on which moderns scholars are evenly divided:

Colossians

Second Thessalonians

... and Hebrew with is anonymous that nearly are modern scholars think was probably not written by Paul.

Another way to phrase it is the real Paul who was a radical and represented a danger to the State and to the status quo, there is the reactionary Paul (who forged the letters in Paul’s name) and deliberately reacted against the radical message of the genuine Paul to tone down the radical message and make it more palatable to the powers that be; in between is the suspect and conservative Paul who stakes out the middle ground.

You may have notices that though 1 Corinthians is an authentic Pauline epistle, there are verses that order women to be silent in church (14:33-36). Those verses are obvious interpolations - later insertions or corruptions to the original text. Scholars understand that the verses are interpolations because they meet the criteria for such.

Understand that more than just the genuine Paul wrote the epistles it helps makes sense of the contradictory messages in the various letters but it prompts the question: How can it be considered scripture if it a forgery?

[pam]

Snow I was wondering if you have a recommendation for a book that would be something like "History of the Scriptures for Dummies" in all your bookshelves of books. I know this is your passion but unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to follow along with it. I love history and this is one area I am sorely lacking.

[dazed-and-confused]

snow, are you just angry? it's one thing to be academically curious and want to discuss, and another to be antagonistic simply for the sake of argument.

please understand, i do not understand which approach you are taking. is this argument for arguments sake, or something else?

[pam]

Huh? How is he arguing? He started a thread questioning something and that is considered an argument?

[Snow]

Snow I was wondering if you have a recommendation for a book that would be something like "History of the Scriptures for Dummies" in all your bookshelves of books. I know this is your passion but unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to follow along with it. I love history and this is one area I am sorely lacking.

You might start with From Jesus To Christianity (How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith) by L. Michael White, Harper Collins 2004.

The author is a noted scholar, he writes well, is balanced and fair. Since the book has been out a few years you can buy used copies very reasonably on the internet.

The book covers not on the scriptures (those that did and didn't make it into the NT) but also the story of how Christianity emerged from the Jesus Movement.

[pam]

Thanks Snow. I will check Amazon and see if I can find a reasonably priced copy there. I appreciate it.

[Snow]

snow, are you just angry? it's one thing to be academically curious and want to discuss, and another to be antagonistic simply for the sake of argument.

please understand, i do not understand which approach you are taking. is this argument for arguments sake, or something else?

Let me see if I get where you are coming from.

You don't think that there are bogus Pauline epistles or more probably don't know much about it but don't want there to be bogus epistles so when someone introduces the topic, it makes you uncomfortable and rather that interact with the reality (which granted, is so new to you that it doesn't seem real), instead you wish, nicely, that it is me, Snow, the bearer of the news that is the problem, not the news itself?

No dazed, I'm not angry. I love the gospel, I love the Church, I love Church history, both modern and ancient.

It's a legitimate question and there are a number of reactions that people will have:

Black and White:

-The NT has been corrupted

-The assertion of bogus epistles to wrong. Period

More Complex:

-The scholarship is convincing (or if not, why) - now how to reconcile it with the notion of an inspired Bible.

There are other options of course. Frankly the Black and White reaction is boring and is emblematic of a fearful or non-inquisitive or simple mind. The more complex response or some other sophisticated response demonstrated a mind willing and able to engage reality on reality's terms and helps us all to grow and reconcile what we know and learn with what we accept by faith.

[pam]

Awesome I just ordered it through Amazon.

[Snow]

Let me know what you think. A guy in Elder's Quorum got me interested in it a couple years ago.

[pam]

I will. I may even have to ask you to explain some things to me. But I think I got a good deal. With shipping and handling..total cost: $7.07 and it was rated in very good condition.

[Snow]

The used book market on Amazon and half.com is pretty awesome.

[TruthSeekerToo]

You may have notices that though 1 Corinthians is an authentic Pauline epistle, there are verses that order women to be silent in church (14:33-36). Those verses are obvious interpolations - later insertions or corruptions to the original text. Scholars understand that the verses are interpolations because they meet the criteria for such.

Understand that more than just the genuine Paul wrote the epistles it helps makes sense of the contradictory messages in the various letters but it prompts the question: How can it be considered scripture if it a forgery?

Does scripture have to be written by a certain person (set of people) for it to be such? I would define scripture as any inspired writing. However I only call canonized inspired writings "scripture." I think realizing that things are not literally as I thought helps me let go and take on the Spirit as I read. I'm not convinced that the primitive Christians took who wrote what literally.

Another fascinating thing to look at is how some epistles, books, gospels were written specifically to refute or prove certain ideas. I think knowing that can help shape our understanding, too.

Joseph Smith did make inspired changes to 1 Cor. 14. He changes the words "speak" to "rule." Which gives a different meaning, though not much in total. One might ask why he didn't chop that whole part out.

I see several possibilities with this passage-although it is very interesting to know it was added later.

*Women were being loud and disruptive in meetings (I've heard that speculation)

*Women are symbolic of a group of people rather than the gender (perhaps the uninitiated)

*It was written by a man who was misogynic

*It was passed on being a tradition of their fathers that they couldn't shake

I guess one could also ask if passages that are about the running of various churches should be taken as literal commandments. I would say no. Those things can and do change over time.

[Moksha]

Snow, the study of the history of the books of the bible and their respective place in the early Church is very interesting. There has been much research scholarship undertaken that many of us know nothing about. Keep giving us details.

[Islander]

Some time ago, Prof. Porter at USC in one of her classes postulated that it would be extremely difficult, without extant sources, to discern the meaning and true intent of some of the writers in the OT, Paul in this case. Although we were engaged in a language class (chewing into the Greek of the NT) rather than a theological one, the assertion, in my opinion, holds true.

These are LETTERS, let's not forget; common correspondance between co-religioners which was intended to exhort, encourage and clarify. We, 2000 years later, have "elevated" these letter to the exalted sphere of the "word of God." There is inherent danger here. Inspired as they may have been, context MUST be ascertained in order to more or less have a level of certainty about content. We can not utilize 21 century social mores and values, historical hindsight, current perspectives and belief systems to extrapolate from a 2000 year old letter without any other source as comparative axis.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Islander

[BenRaines]

I find this thread enjoyable and will look for the book earlier mentioned. I have enjoyed reading Between the Testaments by Richard Holzaphal. It covers life during the 500 years from the end of the Old Testament writings to the beginning of New Testament writings. 500 years without any writings is a very long time.

Ben Raines

[Moksha]

500 years without any writings is a very long time.

Ben Raines

Is that because the writings from Alexandria were not added to the Torah?

[BenRaines]

Don't know. All I know is the timeline of OT and NT.

Ben Raines

[Snow]

Does scripture have to be written by a certain person (set of people) for it to be such?

That's not the issue here. Certainly scripture does not have to be written a certain person. We don't know who wrote most of the Bible. However, the issue here is that someone(s), not Paul, wrote letters and then fraudulently attached his name to them.

It was a common practice at the time in order to lend more weight or credibility to the material, but regardless of whether other people did it, it's not honest or true.

Joseph Smith did make inspired changes to 1 Cor. 14. He changes the words "speak" to "rule." Which gives a different meaning, though not much in total. One might ask why he didn't chop that whole part out.

Joseph wasn't necessarily correcting the text of the Bible back to it's original state but rather re-engineering it to be in line with his modern, inspired understanding of doctrine.

I see several possibilities with this passage-although it is very interesting to know it was added later.

*Women were being loud and disruptive in meetings (I've heard that speculation)

*Women are symbolic of a group of people rather than the gender (perhaps the uninitiated)

*It was written by a man who was misogynic

*It was passed on being a tradition of their fathers that they couldn't shake

I guess one could also ask if passages that are about the running of various churches should be taken as literal commandments. I would say no. Those things can and do change over time.

Or, it could be that Paul's radical, progressive, equal rights views made the ruling classes mighty uncomfortable so someone tried to water it down.

[Snow]

Some time ago, Prof. Porter at USC in one of her classes postulated that it would be extremely difficult, without extant sources, to discern the meaning and true intent of some of the writers in the OT, Paul in this case. Although we were engaged in a language class (chewing into the Greek of the NT) rather than a theological one, the assertion, in my opinion, holds true.

You might try The First Paul by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossman, Harper, 2009.

I found it very worthwhile.

[Gatorman]

As far as the bible goes, I only trust 2 sources about it. The Spirit and the Prophets. Anyone else is stuck with the same problem as those who translated the bible to suit their needs. I study the bible and I will occasionally read other material I find interesting. But, I spend most of my time study for myself and trying to find the truth in the bible, rather than focusing on what is wrong or outright lies.

[pam]

. I have enjoyed reading Between the Testaments by Richard Holzaphal

I'll look into that book as well. I'm looking forward to receiving the book I ordered that Snow recommended earlier in this thread.

[TruthSeekerToo]

That's not the issue here. Certainly scripture does not have to be written a certain person. We don't know who wrote most of the Bible. However, the issue here is that someone(s), not Paul, wrote letters and then fraudulently attached his name to them.

It was a common practice at the time in order to lend more weight or credibility to the material, but regardless of whether other people did it, it's not honest or true.

That is just the question that popped into my mind in respose to your post.

So, these letters were circulated while Paul was living with his named forged on them? I did not know that. Then, of course, the interpolations were added to his real letters later on. Then they made their way into the accepted canon of the orthodox church. Or were the changes made later on? (I'll go back to see if I missed the answers to these)

Joseph wasn't necessarily correcting the text of the Bible back to it's original state but rather re-engineering it to be in line with his modern, inspired understanding of doctrine.

Never thought of it in that way. I like it.

Or, it could be that Paul's radical, progressive, equal rights views made the ruling classes mighty uncomfortable so someone tried to water it down.

Very likely. There were a lot of things seen as heretical movements in early Christianity that needed to be squelched. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if someone used this method to do the squelching.

Oh, and I ordered From Jesus to Christianity, too (under $5 w/shipping!). I'm looking forward to reading it.

[Gatorman]

Joseph wasn't necessarily correcting the text of the Bible back to it's original state but rather re-engineering it to be in line with his modern, inspired understanding of doctrine.

I want to make sure I understand this statement. Are you stating that Joseph retranslated the bible with his own mind/thoughts or that he was inspired by Heavenly Father as to the corrected or updated translation?