paul-epistles-authenticity-analysis
Purpose
This document applies scholarly criteria to systematically evaluate which of the 13 letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament were actually written by him. This mirrors the methodology used in our Gospel of Thomas Authenticity Analysis, applying rigorous scholarly standards to evaluate early Christian texts.
Overview: The 13 Pauline Letters
| Category | Letters | Scholarly Consensus |
|---|---|---|
| Undisputed (7) | Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon | ~95-99% agreement on Pauline authorship |
| Deutero-Pauline (3) | Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians | ~50/50 split (Colossians, 2 Thess); ~70-80% reject Ephesians |
| Pastoral (3) | 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus | ~80-90% reject as pseudepigraphal |
Methodology: The Four Criteria
1. Style and Vocabulary
Principle: Authentic letters should exhibit consistent linguistic patterns, vocabulary usage, sentence structure, and writing style.
Methods:
- Word frequency analysis
- Hapax legomena (unique words) counting
- Sentence length distribution
- Function word usage patterns
- Stylometric/computational analysis
2. Theological Content
Principle: Authentic letters should show consistent theological views, especially on core doctrines like eschatology, Christology, and soteriology.
Key markers:
- Relationship of faith and works
- Realized vs. future eschatology
- Nature of salvation
- Role of the Law
3. Historical Context
Principle: Letters should fit within the known timeline and circumstances of Paul’s life as reconstructed from undisputed sources.
Considerations:
- Geographic movements
- Church relationships
- Historical events referenced
- Church organizational structure
4. Internal Evidence
Principle: Self-references, autobiographical details, and explicit claims of authorship should be evaluated for consistency.
Warning signs:
- Excessive insistence on genuineness
- Anachronistic details
- Contradictions with other letters
Historical Development of Pauline Criticism
| Scholar/Period | View | Accepted Letters |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-1800 | Traditional view | All 13 attributed to Paul |
| F.C. Baur (1840s) | First systematic challenge | 4 (Romans, 1 & 2 Cor, Galatians) |
| Hilgenfeld (1875) | Expanded core | +Philemon |
| Holtzmann (1885) | Modern consensus forms | 7 undisputed |
| Current (2000s+) | Computational approaches | 7 undisputed; debate on 3 Deutero-Pauline |
Analysis: Undisputed Letters (7)
Romans
Date: c. 55-57 AD Authenticity: UNDISPUTED
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Consistent with Paul’s argumentative style |
| Theology | Core Pauline themes: justification by faith, Law vs. grace |
| Historical Context | Fits Paul’s planned trip to Rome and Spain |
| Internal Evidence | Personal greetings, autobiographical details |
Key Features:
- Most systematic theological presentation
- Extended argument about Law, sin, and salvation
- References to Paul’s mission to Gentiles
1 Corinthians
Date: c. 53-54 AD Authenticity: UNDISPUTED
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Dynamic, responsive to specific situations |
| Theology | Body of Christ, spiritual gifts, resurrection |
| Historical Context | Responds to reports and letter from Corinth |
| Internal Evidence | References to previous visits, planned travel |
Key Features:
- Contains earliest written account of Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26)
- Earliest written resurrection testimony (1 Cor 15:3-8)
- Addresses specific church problems
2 Corinthians
Date: c. 55-56 AD Authenticity: UNDISPUTED (as a whole; some debate about composite nature)
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Emotional, defensive, autobiographical |
| Theology | New covenant, ministry, suffering |
| Historical Context | Responds to painful visit and “super-apostles” |
| Internal Evidence | Extensive self-defense and travel plans |
Note: Some scholars view 2 Corinthians as a composite of 2-5 originally separate letters, but all are considered authentically Pauline.
Galatians
Date: c. 48-55 AD (debated) Authenticity: UNDISPUTED
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Urgent, emotional, polemical |
| Theology | Justification by faith alone, freedom from Law |
| Historical Context | Responds to “Judaizers” in Galatia |
| Internal Evidence | Autobiographical account of conversion, Jerusalem visit |
Key Features:
- Most passionate letter
- Central text for Reformation theology
- Contains Gal 2:16 - key justification statement
Philippians
Date: c. 57-62 AD (from prison) Authenticity: UNDISPUTED
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Warm, personal, joyful despite imprisonment |
| Theology | Christ hymn (Phil 2:6-11), pressing toward goal |
| Historical Context | Written from prison (Rome, Ephesus, or Caesarea) |
| Internal Evidence | References to imprisonment, Philippian gifts |
Key Features:
- Contains pre-Pauline Christ hymn (Phil 2:6-11)
- Possibly composite letter
- Deeply personal tone
1 Thessalonians
Date: c. 49-51 AD Authenticity: UNDISPUTED
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Consistent early Pauline style |
| Theology | Imminent parousia, comfort for bereaved |
| Historical Context | Shortly after founding Thessalonian church |
| Internal Evidence | References to Timothy’s visit, Paul’s recent departure |
Key Features:
- Likely Paul’s earliest surviving letter
- Strong expectation of Christ’s imminent return (1 Thess 4:15-17)
- Pastoral concern for new converts
Philemon
Date: c. 57-62 AD (from prison) Authenticity: UNDISPUTED
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Brief, personal, tactful |
| Theology | Implied equality in Christ |
| Historical Context | Sending runaway slave Onesimus back |
| Internal Evidence | Personal request, named individuals |
Key Features:
- Shortest Pauline letter (335 words)
- Personal correspondence, not theological treatise
- Rarely questioned due to lack of doctrinal content
Analysis: Deutero-Pauline Letters (3)
Colossians
Date: If authentic: c. 57-62 AD; If pseudonymous: c. 70-80 AD Authenticity: DISPUTED (~50/50 split)
| Criterion | Assessment | For Pauline | Against |
|---|---|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Mixed | Similar to Ephesians | Long sentences (one is 184 words); 34 hapax legomena |
| Theology | Problematic | High Christology consistent | Realized eschatology contradicts undisputed letters |
| Historical Context | Uncertain | Paul knew Colossae area | Never visited Colossae directly |
| Internal Evidence | Mixed | Claims Pauline authorship | Possible use of amanuensis |
Key Theological Issues:
| Undisputed Paul | Colossians |
|---|---|
| Believers will be raised with Christ (Rom 6:4-5) | Believers have already been raised (Col 2:12, 3:1) |
| Christ’s triumph over powers is future (1 Cor 15:24) | Already accomplished (Col 2:15) |
| Focus on cross as sacrifice | Focus on cosmic Christ |
Verdict: MODERATELY DISPUTED - May be authentic with secretary influence, or early pseudepigraph by close follower.
Ephesians
Date: If authentic: c. 60-62 AD; If pseudonymous: c. 80-90 AD Authenticity: LIKELY PSEUDONYMOUS (~70-80% reject)
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Significantly different: 50 sentences total, 9 over 50 words (Romans has only 3 of 581) |
| Theology | Advanced ecclesiology: Universal church institution |
| Historical Context | Problematic: No personal greetings despite Paul’s time in Ephesus |
| Internal Evidence | Claims Pauline authorship |
Key Differences:
| Undisputed Paul | Ephesians |
|---|---|
| ”Works of the Law” = Jewish observance | ”Works” = moral deeds generally |
| Justification by faith, not works of Law | ”Saved by grace, not works” (broader sense) |
| Local churches as Christ’s body | Universal Church as cosmic institution |
| Future resurrection expected | Already raised and seated with Christ |
Vocabulary Statistics:
- Contains 82 words not found in other Pauline letters
- 40 of those not found anywhere else in NT
- Sentences are notably longer and more liturgical
Verdict: PROBABLY NOT PAULINE - Best explained as written by a follower, possibly using Colossians as a template.
2 Thessalonians
Date: If authentic: c. 51-52 AD; If pseudonymous: c. 70-90 AD Authenticity: DISPUTED (~50/50 split)
| Criterion | Assessment | For Pauline | Against |
|---|---|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Mixed | Similar to 1 Thess | More formal, less personal |
| Theology | Problematic | Addresses similar concerns | Eschatological program contradicts 1 Thess |
| Historical Context | Uncertain | Addressed to same church | Strange to write similar letter immediately |
| Internal Evidence | Suspicious | Claims Pauline authorship | Insists on authenticity (2 Thess 2:2, 3:17) - “ploy commonly used by forgers” |
Key Eschatological Contradiction:
| 1 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians |
|---|---|
| Christ will come suddenly, like thief in night (5:2) | Signs must come first: apostasy, man of lawlessness (2:3-12) |
| Imminent expectation | Eschatological timetable/delay |
| Comfort for those worried about deceased | Calm speculation about end times |
Suspicious Features:
- 2 Thess 2:2 warns against “forged” letters claiming to be from Paul
- 2 Thess 3:17 emphasizes Paul’s signature as proof of authenticity
- Bart Ehrman: “These are ploys commonly used by forgers”
Verdict: DISPUTED - Strong arguments both ways. The eschatological shift is the key problem.
Analysis: Pastoral Epistles (3)
Overview of the Pastorals
The Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) are addressed to individuals rather than churches, giving advice on church leadership and pastoral matters. They share distinctive vocabulary, style, and theological concerns that set them apart from the undisputed letters.
Scholarly Consensus: ~80-90% of critical scholars view these as pseudepigraphal, written c. 80-100 AD by a follower of Paul.
Shared Evidence Against Pauline Authorship
Vocabulary Statistics
| Metric | Pastorals | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Words not in other NT books | 176 | High unique vocabulary |
| Words not in other Pauline letters | 130 | Distinct from Paul |
| Words used by 2nd-century writers | ~2/3 of non-Pauline vocabulary | Later linguistic environment |
Examples of non-Pauline vocabulary:
- “Godliness” (eusebeia) - 10x in Pastorals, never in undisputed letters
- “Sound teaching” (hygiainō) - key term unknown to Paul
- “Savior” (sōtēr) applied to both God and Christ - rare in undisputed
Theological Differences
| Undisputed Paul | Pastoral Epistles |
|---|---|
| Dynamic, charismatic church | Hierarchical offices (bishop, elder, deacon) |
| Faith as trust in Christ | ”The faith” as fixed deposit of doctrine |
| Expectation of imminent return | Settled for the long haul |
| Spirit gifts for all believers | Ordained officers preserve tradition |
| Women as co-workers (Rom 16) | Women must be silent, saved through childbearing (1 Tim 2:15) |
| Unity with Christ through faith | ”Appear” and “epiphany” language (imperial terminology) |
Historical Timeline Problems
The Pastorals describe situations that cannot be fitted into Acts:
- Paul in Crete (Titus 1:5)
- Timothy left in Ephesus while Paul goes to Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3)
- Paul’s cloak left at Troas (2 Tim 4:13)
- Paul apparently released from first Roman imprisonment
Solution proposed by defenders: Paul had a “second career” after Acts ends, but there is no external evidence for this.
Church Structure Anachronism
The Pastorals assume church offices (bishops, elders, deacons) with:
- Formal qualifications
- Ordination by laying on of hands
- Hierarchical authority structure
This reflects the church organization of c. 100+ AD, not the charismatic, informal gatherings of Paul’s time.
1 Timothy
Date: If authentic: c. 62-64 AD; If pseudonymous: c. 90-140 AD Authenticity: VERY LIKELY PSEUDONYMOUS
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Distinctive Pastoral style; many hapax legomena |
| Theology | Church order manual; “deposit” of faith |
| Historical Context | Cannot fit into Paul’s known career |
| Internal Evidence | Detailed qualifications for church offices |
Key Issues:
- Contains most detailed church hierarchy instructions
- 1 Tim 2:11-15 (women’s silence) contradicts evidence of women leaders in undisputed letters
- Genre is “church order” - unknown in undisputed Paul
Verdict: PSEUDONYMOUS
2 Timothy
Date: If authentic: c. 64-67 AD; If pseudonymous: c. 80-100 AD Authenticity: POSSIBLY MIXED (may contain genuine fragments)
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Closest to undisputed letters among Pastorals |
| Theology | Personal testament; combat false teaching |
| Historical Context | Claims to be from Roman prison before death |
| Internal Evidence | Personal details (cloak at Troas, abandoned by colleagues) |
Distinctive Features:
- Written as a “testament” or final letter
- More personal tone than 1 Timothy or Titus
- Contains passages that may be genuine Pauline fragments:
- 2 Tim 4:9-22 (personal greetings)
- 2 Tim 1:15-18 (personal references)
Scholarly Position: Some scholars argue 2 Timothy contains a genuine Pauline core that was later expanded by an editor. This would explain both the personal touches and the theological differences.
Verdict: PROBABLY PSEUDONYMOUS, but may preserve genuine Pauline fragments.
Titus
Date: If authentic: c. 62-64 AD; If pseudonymous: c. 90-100 AD Authenticity: VERY LIKELY PSEUDONYMOUS
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Style/Vocabulary | Shares vocabulary with 1 Timothy |
| Theology | Church organization; combat false teachers |
| Historical Context | Paul in Crete - not mentioned in Acts |
| Internal Evidence | Brief; similar qualifications for elders/bishops |
Key Issues:
- Most similar to 1 Timothy in vocabulary and concerns
- “Crete” ministry not attested anywhere else
- Same church office structure as 1 Timothy
Verdict: PSEUDONYMOUS
Computational/Stylometric Analysis
Historical Development
| Year | Scholar | Method | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1851 | Augustus de Morgan | First application to Paul | Pioneered statistical approach |
| 1957 | W.C. Wake | Distributions/sampling | First acceptable authorship test |
| 1960s | A.Q. Morton | Computer analysis | Six authors for 14 epistles (later critiqued) |
| 1986 | Anthony Kenny | Function words | Confirmed undisputed consistency; Pastorals diverge |
| 2024 | Deep Learning study | BiLSTM networks (84% accuracy) | Colossians, 2 Thess = Pauline; 1 Timothy = non-Pauline |
| 2025 | Epistolary modes study | 18 discourse modes | Pastorals may not differ at statistically significant level |
Methodological Challenges
- Small sample size: Paul’s undisputed letters total only ~32,000 words
- Genre variation: Letters vary in purpose (personal, theological, polemical)
- Amanuensis effect: Secretaries may have influenced vocabulary
- Age/circumstance: Writing style may change over time
- Conflicting results: Different methods produce different conclusions
Recent Computational Findings
2024 BiLSTM Deep Learning Study:
- Trained on undisputed letters + “impostor” texts
- 84% accuracy on test data
- Results:
- Colossians: Majority Pauline
- 2 Thessalonians: Majority Pauline
- 1 Timothy: Majority non-Pauline
- Hebrews: Non-Pauline (expected)
2025 Epistolary Modes Study:
- Analyzed 18 modes of discourse
- Finding: Pastoral Letters may not show statistically significant differences
- Challenges prevailing consensus
Conclusion: Computational methods have not definitively settled the debate; results remain contested.
Synthesis: Authenticity Assessment
Summary Table
| Letter | Category | Scholarly Consensus | Key Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Romans | Undisputed | ~99% authentic | Core Pauline theology |
| 1 Corinthians | Undisputed | ~99% authentic | Earliest resurrection account |
| 2 Corinthians | Undisputed | ~99% authentic | Defensive, autobiographical |
| Galatians | Undisputed | ~99% authentic | Justification by faith |
| Philippians | Undisputed | ~99% authentic | Christ hymn (2:6-11) |
| 1 Thessalonians | Undisputed | ~99% authentic | Earliest letter, imminent parousia |
| Philemon | Undisputed | ~99% authentic | Personal, no doctrinal content |
| Colossians | Deutero-Pauline | ~50/50 | Realized eschatology vs. style |
| 2 Thessalonians | Deutero-Pauline | ~50/50 | Eschatological contradiction |
| Ephesians | Deutero-Pauline | ~70-80% reject | Universal church, vocabulary |
| 1 Timothy | Pastoral | ~80-90% reject | Church offices, vocabulary |
| 2 Timothy | Pastoral | ~70-80% reject | May contain genuine fragments |
| Titus | Pastoral | ~80-90% reject | Church order, vocabulary |
The “Layered Paul” Model
Similar to our Gospel of Thomas analysis, we can propose a layered understanding:
| Layer | Letters | Date | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentic Paul | 7 undisputed | 50-62 AD | Imminent eschatology, charismatic churches, justification by faith |
| Pauline School | Colossians, 2 Thess (possibly) | 70-90 AD | Developed Christology, realized eschatology |
| Deutero-Pauline | Ephesians | 80-90 AD | Universal church, cosmic Christ |
| Pastoral Tradition | 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus | 90-140 AD | Church offices, “the faith” as doctrine |
Implications for Jesus-Paul Research
What This Means for Our Core Research Questions
-
The “Real” Paul: Only the 7 undisputed letters give us direct access to Paul’s authentic theology from the 50s AD.
-
Paul’s Eschatology: Authentic Paul expected Christ’s imminent return (1 Thess 4:15-17: “we who are alive”). The delayed parousia is handled differently in disputed letters.
-
Paul’s View of Women: Rom 16 shows women as deacons and apostles; 1 Tim 2:11-15’s restrictions likely represent later tradition.
-
Church Organization: Paul’s genuine letters show informal, charismatic communities. Hierarchical offices developed after his death.
-
Paul vs. Jesus: To compare Paul with Jesus, we should primarily use the undisputed letters, not the Pastorals.
Comparison with Gospel of Thomas Analysis
| Criterion | Thomas Analysis | Paul Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple Attestation | Thomas sayings in synoptics | Less applicable - letters are singular |
| Embarrassment | Thomas lacks passion | Paul’s letters show vulnerability |
| Style/Vocabulary | Oral vs. literary | Statistical analysis possible |
| Theological Consistency | Gnostic overlay | Eschatological development |
| Layered Text Model | Core + Gnostic redaction | Authentic + Pauline school + Pastoral |
Conclusions
What the Analysis Demonstrates
-
Seven letters are certainly authentic: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon
-
Three letters are genuinely disputed: Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians show signs of later development but may preserve Pauline material
-
Three letters are likely pseudepigraphal: 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus represent later “Pauline tradition” rather than Paul himself
-
Pseudepigraphy doesn’t diminish value: These letters are still canonical Scripture; distinguishing authorship helps trace the development of early Christian theology
-
Computational methods are inconclusive: Different approaches produce different results; traditional criteria remain important
For Further Research
- How do the disputed letters’ theologies develop Paul’s authentic thought?
- What was the relationship between the Pauline school and other early Christian communities?
- How did church organization evolve from Paul’s charismatic communities to the hierarchical structure of the Pastorals?
Sources
- Authorship of the Pauline Epistles - Wikipedia
- Pauline Epistles: Did Apostle Paul Write Them All? - TheCollector
- What Books Did Paul Write in the Bible? - Bart Ehrman
- Deutero-Pauline Letters - Catholic Resources
- Pastoral Epistles - Catholic Resources
- Pastoral Epistles - Wikipedia
- A Deliberation on the Deutero-Pauline Epistles - Pastor Tonderai Goncalo
- Paul’s Style and the Pastoral Letters - De Gruyter (2024)
- Computational Stylometrics and the Pauline Corpus - MDPI (2024)
- Authorship Verification through Deep Learning - HIPHIL Novum
- Stylometry and the Pauline Epistles - Patrick Milano