how? Pauls letters?

Question

how do scholars know that Paul didn't write certain letters? What makes them believe this?

Answer 1

Spelling and syntax I suppose.

Answer 2

Well take the book of Hebrews.No author is listed but the King James translators figured it was Paul. I also think it was Paul or Timothy, ( one of his main understudies) under the direct influence of Paul . The vast amount of scriptural knowledge Paul had as evidenced by his letter to the Romans,(considered one of the best legal arguments in existence) is also plainly seen in Hebrews . Hebrews is also closed by a similar closing to all of Paul's letters... Grace be with you.... I also lean more towards Paul because in 13:23 Timothy is mentioned in the second person by the author. So probably Paul or maybe Timothy under the direct influence wrote Hebrews. Syntax also is important , and the syntax of Hebrews is in line with Paul's other letters.This is how scholars determine whether someone wrote or did not write a certain letter as you ask . God bless Cap'n Arlo

Answer 3

There are a lot of reasons, one of which I put in a previous answer. There are a lot of contradictory themes in Paul's letters, which lead one to think there's something up. There are also a lot of other little things. For instance, Hebrews is anonymous. There's no reason to think Paul wrote it other than tradition. Some letters just appear seemingly out of nowhere in the second century CE and reflect exactly what the early church fathers in those days were concerned with. Again, that's awfully strange. Then there are other markers like the language and style used.

Now, there's no "smoking gun" evidence, but the convergence does lead one to think that Paul did not write all of the letters attributed to him. It might even be that he wrote none of them, and that those attributed to him have a common author who lived long after he did.

Answer 4

One thing that you should keep in mind is that there is textual criticism, which is how Bible scholars study all extant manuscripts either in the original languages or early translations from the original "autographed" copies in order to deduce exactly what the originals said, even though those originals are no longer in existence: and then there is "higher criticism" and the goal of the latter is just the opposite: that is, to discredit the Bible and it's reliability in any possible way. There are two things about higher criticism !) it is not based on evidence, but on speculation, and 2) it is very recent in scope. People, even enemies of the Bible, who lived closer to the time when the books of the Bible were written did not raise these challenges, though they were certainly in a better position to know. It wasn't the result of any recent discoveries that these challenges were made, but it was the result of recent beliefs and philosophies which are in conflict with he Bible, and the folks who want to adopt those recent beliefs feel that they also have to criticize the Bible in order to justify themselves.

Textual criticism have produced some very reliable master texts, and by this the Bible is better supported by evidence that any other ancient writings. Phenomenal so.

Answer 5

Hey,
This is a good link for downloading Letters from Nowhere 2 for free: http://j.mp/1pnRwfk

it's completely free and it's very fast to install
The Letters from Nowhere 2 is a special hidden objects game that can be enjoyed by the whole family. The game will let help Audrey find her missing husband through the letters collected from a spirit. With over thousands of hidden objects, you will really go object hunting all night long.
Check it out.

Answer 6

14 letters are traditionally attributed to Paul. Of these, half are generally agreed to have been written by him; the remaining seven are disputed. Such is the consensus of responsible scholarship - most "Christian" "authorities" tend to plump for all 14 as genuine works, not only of Paul, but of the Holy Spirit that informed him. The religious avowedly have only one criterion for deciding - that of faith; scholars look at such trivia as the language and style of each of the texts relative to each other, the theology implied or stated, historical details, etc. In the case of somebody as remote as Paul this obviously involves considerable difficulties. The matter is not helped by the fact that even the "authentic" Pauline letters contain probable interpolations or passages inserted into the original text at a later date - notably Romans 1:18-2:29.

It's true that pseudepigraphy, or the practice of writing under an assumed name, usually that of a deceased (and therefore defenseless) but respected authority, is the commonplace of all time, especially in religious literature. Few books of the Bible can escape scholarly suspicion, for reasons which are usually quite obvious in spite of centuries of blind acceptance. Moses is still believed by the devout to have written the Pentateuch, in spite of the fact that he describes his own death and burial in it!

Answer 7

They take a lot of factors into consideration. For instance the KJV says that the book of Hebrews was written by Paul. In part they based that upon what the early church fathers said about it. In part they based it upon the content and the way that it was written.

More modern scholars say that they don't know who wrote that book but they doubt it was Paul because in all of Paul's other letters he identified himself as the author. They also look at the content of the letter and find verses like this one and say that it is inconsistent with what we know about Paul's life.

Hebrews 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

Paul says that he was taught by Jesus not by men.

Galatians 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Answer 8

There are actual letters from Paul in Greek. There are others that could have been written by assistants that are in his style that scholars think probably are his letters. And there are some that are neither.

Answer 9

If a letter is signed by Peter, do you think it
possible that Ralph wrote it?
When you write a letter, do you sign with your own name, or do you use someone else's name?
Keep in mind also that each writer has their own style; for example, Luke, being a Medical Doctor, normally used alot of medical terminology in his writings.
Paul was taught under one of the most brilliant scholars in the History of Man, Gamuel; Paul was multi-lingual, but mainly spoke "street Greek", like his mom who was a Hellinist. Paul was extremely learned.

Answer 10

From the style of the language and the wording, using idiom that was from a later period or particular do a different region (if you read a web post attributed to Stephen Hawking sprinkled with "ya'll"s and "by golly"s, you would be suspicious), and from references to cities or events that are too far in the future from the original writings.

Keep in mind that pseudopigraphy was common in that time and it was not considered the shameful fraudulent no-no that it is now.

Answer 11

They don't know. They can only speculate. And much of their speculation is based on the speculation of others just like them, who don't know either.