Identifying forgeries in the Bible often calls for some hard detective work. There is no "royal road." Every clue, every nuance, no matter how subtle or insignificant it may seem, must be followed to its logical conclusion. Sometime the results are ambiguous and frustrating. They remain questionable, and I will point out a couple of examples. But perseverance often pays off, and the data confirm a suspected Bible forgery. So, although some of the suspected Bible forgeries may ultimately be proved authentic, others certainly will be substantiated. The so-called Pauline epistles are a good case in point.

A perplexing, but very legitimate, question remains, “Did such a person as Saul of Tarsus, A.K.A., the Apostle Paul, really exist"? Even though he states in Acts 26:4-5, “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews”, Pail, like Jesus and the twelve disciples, is never mentioned in any important first century historical accounts such as those of Philo Judaeus and Flavius Josephus. Nor, for that matter, is there anywhere any mention by historians of the two hundred soldiers with seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen who according to Acts 23:23 went to Caesarea with orders to bring Paul before governor Felix. But let us set that aside for the moment and consider the biblical account.

Paul was a Jew born at Tarsus, a city in Cilicia. The year of his birth is not known exactly but scholars put it at about 5 CE. His Jewish name was "Saul" which he used within the Jewish community with "Paul" being the Greek version. He is believed to have died in Rome around 65 CE. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. Outside the New Testament letters (epistles), there are no reliable sources for his life. In the New Testament the so-called Pauline epistles begin after the Book of Acts and include the next thirteen entries. They all begin with the words "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the . . ." But did he really write them? According to scholarly analyses (see Attachment), Romans, I and II Corinthians, I Thessalonians and Galatians are genuine. Opinion is divided on the authenticity of Philippians and Philemon. Ephesians, Colossians, II Thessalonians, The Pastorals (I and II Timothy and Titus) are held by most scholars to be forgeries written considerably later than the time of Paul. The story of Paul's conversion to Christianity and his career as a missionary is given in the Book of Acts and was probably written many years after his death. Therefore its authenticity remains highly questionable.

This paper is compiled from the publications of several outstanding Bible scholars (see References). The purpose is to review the bases for evaluating the Pauline epistles as to their authenticity or lack thereof. The results are summarized in the Attachment. Before reviewing the epistles themselves, however, let us consider some general observations of scholars concerning the Pauline epistles and other early Christian documents.

Graham
Page 410: Paul is but the Moses of the New Testament, carrying on where Joseph or in this case, Jesus, left off. The cue to this parallel is given in Acts, chapter 7 which recounts the whole story of Moses so that we may see the connection.

Martin
Page 38: The first Christian documents to characterize Jesus in a way that roughly corresponds to the accounts in the gospels (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter, 1 Clement, seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch) were written somewhere between 90 and 110. This is after the gospels had been written and circulated. Why does no biographical information appear in the earlier documents (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter and possibly also the letters of James and 1, 2, and 3 John?) The only plausible answer to this question is that Jesus’ biography is pure fiction invented late in the 1st century. It was unknown to the earlier writers such as Paul.

Page 56: An important clue against the historicity of the Jesus of the gospels is that the early and later non-Pauline epistles picture him differently. Those likely to have been written before 90 (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James,) refer to Jesus in basically the same way as do the authentic Pauline epistles. They stress the resurrection and second coming but do not refer to the ethical teachings or the miracles Jesus allegedly performed; they say nothing about his birth, baptism, trial, crucifixion, and death. On the other hand, the later epistles, those written after 90 (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus,) begins to portray Jesus as he is in the gospels placing him in a definite time period as do other late first century documents such as 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, the first epistle of Clement, and the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp. They obviously were influenced by the gospels.

Ephesians, thought to have been written between 80 and 90, is one of the earlier Pauline forgeries. It gives no detail of Jesus’ life and teachings and consequently provides no conformation that Jesus lived in the early part of the first century. In 2:8-9 we read  "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works". In 4:25-32 the author advocates speaking the truth, controlling anger, doing honest work, and being mutually forgiving and kind, yet he never cites the teachings of Jesus. One can only infer that he had no knowledge of them.

Wells - (HEJ)
Page 20: - It often comes as a shock to many lay readers to learn that the (authentic) epistles of Paul predate the gospels. Although the gospels present versions of the life of Jesus (4BCE? - 30?), they were actually written between 70 and 110. The authentic Pauline epistles were written between 50 and 60. Therefore, it is these epistles, not the gospels, which provide the most plausible clues as to how the earliest Christians regarded Jesus.

Page 22: The Pauline epistles considered to be genuine are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul, who could not have been ignorant of them had they really happened.

These letters make not a single reference to the parents of Jesus nor to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by referring to him as Jesus of Nazareth). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas Iscariot, Jesus’ alleged betrayer. They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus personally and been associated with him during his alleged lifetime.

Paul’s failure to mention Peter’s denial of Christ (Mark14:30, 66-72, and parallels) is highly significant. Paul’s letter to the Galatians reveals that his position as leader of the Christian community at Antioch was threatened by Peter (a.k.a. Cephas), whom he calls a hypocrite (Gal. 2:11-13). The denial coupled with Jesus’ stern warning in Matthew 10:33 would have been a powerful weapon he could have used against Peter. Why didn’t he? Paul’s silence is rightly interpreted as compelling evidence that the denial story is a late Christian forgery.

Paul claims to have won converts "by the power of signs and wonders" (Rom. 15:19). He seems to be completely unaware that Jesus said that there shall be no sign given to this generation (Mark 8:12). He also fails to mention the many wonders (miracles) which, according to the gospels, Jesus routinely performed. He obviously didn’t know of them.

Another striking feature of Paul’s letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher. In fact, Paul presents a considerable amount of ethical teachings in his own name, with no suggestion that Jesus had taught anything of the kind, even though the gospels later put exactly the same doctrines into Jesus’ mouth.

Mack
Page 126: First and Second Corinthians are authentic but are actually collections of portions of six different letters.

Page 137: Romans is authentic. It provides a comprehensive elaboration of Paul’s theology and is the earliest systematic treatise of a rationale for the Christian myth.

Remsberg
Page 41: Four Epistles, - Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, and Galatians - are generally admitted to be the genuine writings of Paul. They are believed to have been written about a quarter of a century after the alleged death of Jesus. In fact, they are the only documents in the entire New Testament whose authenticity can be maintained and whose author is known.

Robertson
Page 105: The Paul of Galatians and the Paul the Acts are two different men.

First Corinthians is for the most part authentic but appears to have been altered probably after Paul’s death (10:1-22.)

Page 109: Second Corinthians affords conclusive evidence that the Jesus of Pauline Christianity was not the same as the Jesus portrayed in the gospels. The Pauline Christ is "the Spirit" (3:17-18) and "the image of God" (4:4)as opposed to the real person of the gospels.

Page 144: Philippians is composed of three letter fragments crudely joined together.

Teeple
The Pauline Epistles considered to be authentic include Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, 1st Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon. However, they do contain some late Christian interpolations. These include Phil 2:6-11; 1st Cor. 11:23-26; 12:31; 14:1a; 15:3-11. Observe that when the interpolations are removed, the texts immediately above and below the insertion fit together naturally.

Wells (HEJ)
Page 21: Romans, 1& 2 Corinthians and Galatians are universally accepted as authentic. The computer techniques tried on them by Morton and McLeman have confirmed that they have a common author. Internal evidence indicates that this author wrote before 70, for the references to his contacts with a Christian community at Jerusalem show that the catastrophic destruction of that city in the Judeo/Roman War (67 - 70) had not yet occurred. Indeed, Paul must have been a Christian before 40 for he tells how King Aretas of the Nabateans, who is known to have died in that year, had sought to have him arrested because of his Christian activities (2 Cor. 11:32). He probably wrote somewhere between 55 and 60 for he tells the Galatians that he had been a Christian for at least fourteen years at the time of writing.

Eddy
Page 26: Although purported to have been written by Paul, the relatively complex church organization reflected by the Pastorals did not exist until many years after Paul’s death.

Mack
Page 206: The Pastorals were undoubtedly written during the first half of the 2nd century. They were not included in Marcion’s list of Paul’s letters (ca.140). Quotations from them first appear in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies (180) and their content fits nicely into the situation and thought of the church in the mid-second century. Their attribution to Paul is a forgery for their language and thought are clearly unPauline. Also, references to particular occasions in the lives of Titus, Timothy, and Paul do not fit with reconstructions of that history taken from the authentic letters.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible
Page 300 NT: The vocabulary and style of these letters differ widely from the acknowledged letters of Paul; some of his leading theological themes are entirely absent (the union of the believer with Christ, the power and witness of the Spirit, freedom from the law), and some of the expressions bear a different meaning from that in his customary usage ("the faith" as a synonym for the Christian religion rather than the believer’s relationship to Christ).

Oxford Companion to the Bible
Page 574 (Paraphrase): Second Timothy, although attributed to Paul, is found by many scholars to be so unPauline in vocabulary, style, theological concepts, church order, emphasis on tradition and in contrast with the chronology of his career as given in Acts and Romans, that it is widely considered to be a forgery.

Remsberg
Page 41: That the Pastorals are forgeries is now conceded by all critics. According to German critics they belong to the second century. They were certainly composed after the death of Paul.

Robertson
Page 129: As to the Pastorals, most scholars now agree that they are second-century forgeries because they deal almost exclusively with second-century situations. These documents were not written by Paul.

Till
The conclusion that the Pastorals were not written by Paul is based on very good evidence: the style and vocabulary of the epistles, the church organization that they depict, references to heresies that didn't develop until the second century, late inclusion of these books into the collection of Pauline epistles, lack of references to them in the writings of the early church fathers, etc. Eerdman's Bible Dictionary gives a fairly good discussion of these matters under "The Pastoral Epistles," but The Interpreter's Bible would be a better source.

Wells (DJE )
Page 17-18: It is widely agreed that the Pastorals are mostly forgeries although Titus and 2 Timothy may contain some genuine notes from Paul.

Wells (HEJ)
Page 90: Analyses show all the Pastorals were from the same hand but not from Paul's hand. For example, Paul’s theology is very imperfectly represented in them. Also, the controversy over keeping the Jewish law was a hot topic in the authentic Paulines. Whereas in the Pastorals it is no longer an issue. Therefore, they must be of a later date.

Page 94: The church hierarchy described in the Pastorals is much too advanced to represent that of the early church of Paul’s day. In 1 Tim. 3:6 it says "the bishop must not be a recent convert," a statement which shows that at the time of writing the church had been in existence for quite some time.

Eddy
Page 184: Second Thessalonians was forged in Paul’s name shortly  after his death or during the late stages of his imprisonment in Rome. Scholars believe it was written to offset the disappointment and unrest then rising in the Christian community resulting from the unfulfilled promise of an imminent second coming (2 Thes. 2:1-8).

Mack
Page 112: Second Thessalonians was not written by Paul. It lacks the personal warmth, reminiscences, and references characteristic of the authentic letters. Almost one-third of it is verbatim copy from 1st Thessalonians. The eschatology reflects a development of Christian apocalyptic thinking of the kind that took place only after the Judeo/Roman war. Second Thessalonians adds nothing to our knowledge of Paul’s gospel. Its only importance is in documenting the fact that most of the so-called "Pauline epistles" were forged.

Remsberg
Page 41-42: Second Thessalonians, a self evident forgery, declares 1st Thessalonians to be a forgery (3:17).

Robertson
Page 108: Second Thessalonians is a forgery. Its vocabulary is peculiar; it deals with a theme (the persecution of the righteous which is to precede the second coming) mentioned nowhere else in the authentic Pauline epistles; and it seems to be written expressly to discredit the statement in 1st Thessalonians that "the day of the Lord" will come "as a thief in the night" (5:2,) i.e., any day now and without warning.

Wells (DJE)
Pages 17-18: Second Thessalonians is considered to be a forgery. It presents an ecclesiastical organization of a more advanced kind than existed in Paul’s day.

That letters were written in Paul’s name (forged) is clear from exhortations not to be misled "by some letters purporting to be from us" (2 Thess. 2:2,) and from the fact that the author of this epistle finds it necessary (3:17) to authenticate himself with his signature.

Wells (HEJ)
Page 49-50: Most investigators regard Second Thessalonians (half the length of the first) as having been derived from the first letter. If Paul had written Second Thessalonians, it seems unlikely that he would have used so many of the same phrases. Also, The second letter is in an entirely different style than the first.

Second Thessalonians contradicts First Thessalonians regarding the second coming. In the first letter Jesus is expected to return soon and will come unheralded "like a thief in the night," at a time of apparent peace and security (5:1-3). In Second Thessalonians the second coming is not to be expected soon. According to chapter 2 it will be preceded by a series of upheavals. So the contradiction is sharp. If the end will be preceded by catastrophes, then it will not come when all is peace and security.

It is difficult to assign a precise date to Second Thessalonians. However, most scholars suggest the mid-80s.

Mack
Page 183: The letters to the Ephesians and Colossians, thought to have been written between 80 and 90, were not written by Paul. There is no suggestion of the personal Paul in either of them. The style, the vocabulary, and the rhetoric are different from the authentic Paulines. They were written in Paul’s name after his death probably by scribes loyal to the school that survived him. They are included among the Pauline letters because by the time the church started drawing up lists of literature acceptable for public reading in the third and fourth centuries, Ephesians and Colossians were already a part of the "letters of Paul."

Martin
Page 184: In Ephesians Paul’s teachings are diluted. No mention is made of his heated arguments for freedom from the Jewish law, the justification of sinners, faith in Christ, scriptural precedence, epic revisions or apocalyptic scenarios and threats. These are the topics that dominate the authentic letters.

Page 188: Paul used the term "congregation" to refer to a local group whereas the author of Ephesians used the term in the singular to refer to the church universal.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible
Page 272 NT: There are important contrasts between Ephesians and the letters that we can confidently ascribe to Paul. Many of the words in Ephesians do not appear elsewhere in the apostle’s correspondence, and some important terms have a different meaning here from their meaning in letters that are surely Paul’s. The style, with its loose collection of phrases and clauses and long sentences, is not characteristic of Paul’s writing. Ephesians is, therefore, judged to be a forgery.

Wells (HEJ)
Page 21: Colossians is judged to have been written not by Paul but by one of his pupils. Paul’s ideas as expressed in Romans (6:3-5) have been greatly modified.

Page 53: Ephesians was written about 90, some 25 years after Paul’s death. During Paul’s lifetime the terms for admitting gentiles into the church was at the core of a protracted controversy. Ephesians addresses the gentiles (2:11) in a situation where such problems have been solved. Therefore, it has to be of a much later date.

Wells (DJE)
Pages 17-18: Colossians and Ephesians are considered forgeries. They present an ecclesiastical organization of a far more advanced kind than existed in Paul’s day. For example, according to Ephesians 2:20-21 the faithful are said to be dependent for salvation not directly on Jesus but on officers of the Church. This is a clear contradiction of 1 Cor. 3:10-11 which reads: According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, although not designated a Pauline epistle, is included here out of interest.

Graham
Page 410: "The Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Barnabas, not by Paul" said Tertullian (160?-230?)

Page 410: "Who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews God only knows," Origen (185?-254?)

Mack
Page 189: The author of Hebrews is unknown. However, it was not Paul. Its concept of Christianity is different from any of the early Christian writers.

Remsberg
Page 42: Hebrews does not purport to be a Pauline document. Martin Luther says in the Standing Preface to his N. T., "The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by Paul, nor, indeed, by any apostle." In fact, the spurious origin of Hebrews is recognized right away because it never claims authorship by Paul.

Wells (HEJ)
Page 55: Many Bibles ascribe Hebrews to Paul although it does not purport to come from him and is not written in his style. A major concern of the author of Hebrews is to argue that God had set aside as outmoded the sacrificial system of the old covenant. But the writer, who intended to discredit Jewish sacrificial ritual, might reasonably be expected to point to the destruction of the temple in 70, had he been writing after this date. If he had written after 70 he could hardly have been unaware of this catastrophic event. For this reason it is reasonable to assume that Hebrews was written sometime between 60 and 70.

Wells (CWTNT)

Pages 12- 17: The failure of the author to refer to gospel material germane to his argument is important. In that regard, there is not one reverence to such important gospels claims as the virgin birth, the baptism, the triumphant entry, the cleansing of the temple and most especially the miracles. The writer of Hebrews was obviously unaware of the gospels and the Jesus they portray. Also, the author takes the view (unknown to Paul) that there can be no second repentance (6:4-6). Apostasy (the denial of scripture) is the unforgivable sin. Therefore, he could not have been aware of the story of Peter’s denial.

Of the thirteen epistles ascribed to Paul in the Bible, only five can be identified as authentic with any degree of certainty. Yet, all thirteen are headed with the bold inscription, THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO . . . Such blatant subterfuge in the face of undeniable evidence amounts to a most scandalous and irresponsible deception. I know of no minister of the gospel who has ever had the intestinal fortitude go before his congregation and make this revelation. They, instead, proudly promote themselves as paragons of virtue and honesty; purveyors of truth - the only truth. Intellectual dishonesty is their stock in trade.

For more information on Paul see The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance and Would You Buy a Used Car From St. Paul? on this website.

Eddy, Patricia G., Who Tampered With the Bible?, 1993.

Graham, Lloyd M., Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, 1979.

Mack, Burton L., Who Wrote the New Testament?, 1995.

Martin, Michael, The Case Against God, 1991.

Remsberg, John E., The Christ, 1909.

Robertson, Archibald, The Origins of Christianity, 1954.

Teeple, Howard M., Personal communication

Till, Farrell, E-mail message of 4/1/96.

Wells, G. A., Did Jesus Exist?, 1986.

Wells, G. A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 1988.

ATTACHMENT

______________________________________________
1 By Louis W. Cable.

2 I & II Timothy and Titus.