The epistles of Paul.

Thirteen canonical epistles with and one without his name.

Attributed author(s).
Paul.

Text(s) available.
On site:

Useful links.
Pauline epistles at the NT Gateway.
Early Christian Writings: 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, Colossians, Hebrews, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy and Titus, Philemon, Hebrews.
Pauline epistles at Kata Pi (R. M. Grant).
Pastoral epistles and Hebrews at Kata Pi (R. M. Grant).
Overlaps in Ephesians and Colossians (David C. Hindley).
ECW e-Catena:

1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 and the Olivet discourse.
1 Thessalonians 4.15-5.1 and Acts 1.6-11.
The literary unity of 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11.
According to the flesh (Romans 1.3).
Born of a woman (Galatians 4.4).
Uses of the term Lord in Paul.
Uses of the term brethren in Paul.

The Bible has thirteen epistles claiming to be written by the influential apostle Paul: To the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to his coworker Timothy, to his coworker Titus, and to Philemon. The anonymous epistle to the Hebrews has also been claimed for Paul.

Not many scholars, however, would defend Pauline authorship of Hebrews. The pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), likewise, scholars tend to regard as pseudepigraphical, along with Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. I myself at present accept 2 Thessalonians as Pauline, but reject Hebrews, the pastorals, Ephesians, and Colossians (all of which is, of course, subject to change).

Jerome, preface to his commentary on Titus:

Licet non sint digni fide qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et Basilidem et omnes haereticos qui vetus laniant testamentum, tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus si saltem in novo continerant manus suas, et non auderent Christi, ut ipsi iactitant, boni dei filii, vel evangelistas violare vel apostolos. nunc vero quum et evangelia eius dissipaverint et apostolorum epistolas non apostolorum Christi facerunt esse, sed proprias, miror, quomodo sibi Christianorum nomen audeant vindicare.

Though they should be unworthy of faith who have made their first faith void, I speak of Marcion and Basilides and all the heretics who mangle the Old Testament, nevertheless let us bear with them to some extent if they at least contain their hands in the Ut enim de ceteris epistolis taceam, de quibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant eraserunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas crediderunt, ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, ad Hebraeos, et ad Titum. et si quidem redderent causas cur eas apostoli non putarent, tentaremus aliquid respondere et fersitan satisfacere lectori. nunc vero quum haeretica auctoritate pronuncient et dicant: Illa epistola Pauli est, haec non est; ex auctoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant, qua ipsi non erubescunt falsa simulare.

To pass over the rest of the epistles in silence, from which they erased whatever they saw that was contrary to their own dogma, they indeed believed that some were to be repudiated in the whole, clearly both of the two to Timothy, [the one] to the Hebrews, and [the one] to Titus. And, if they should seek some reasons why they should not be of the apostle, let us try to reply somehow and perhaps satisfy the reader. At the moment they pronounce and speak by heretical authority: That is an epistle of Paul, this is not. Let them understand that they are themselves refuted from authority for the truth, by which they do not blush to simulate with the false.

A bit further on:

Sed Tatianus, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, h[oc] e[st], ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit; parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum, qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt, assertionem.

But Tatian, who also himself repudiated certain epistles of Paul, believed that this one in particular, that is, [the one] to Titus, was to be acknowledged as belonging to the apostle, slighting the assertion of Marcion and others, who agree with him in this matter [of rejecting Pauline epistles].

From Victorinus of Pettau, Commentary on the Apocalypse 1.7 (English translation slightly modified from that of Kevin Edgecomb):

Denique, sive in Asia sive in toto orbe, septem ecclesias omnes; et septenatim nominatas unam esse catholicam Paulus docuit. Primum quidem, ut servaret et ipsum, septem ecclesiarum non excessit numerum, sed scripsit ad Romanos, ad Corinthios, ad Ephesios, ad Tessalonicenses, ad Galatas, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses; postea singularibus personis scripsit, ne excederet numerum septem ecclesiarum.

Finally, as in Asia, so in the whole world; seven churches as all; and Paul taught that the seven named are the one catholic church. Indeed, at first, so he might keep this [rule], he did not exceed the number of seven churches, but rather wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Galatians, to the Philippians, and to the Colossians; afterward he wrote to individual people, lest he exceed the number of seven churches.

Dating the epistles of Paul from scratch, without recourse to either the Acts of the Apostles or to patristic tradition, is an interesting exercise in its own right. Here are the main indications as I see them:

• On the terminus post quem side of things, S. C. Carlson has pointed out that Corinth was razed to the ground some 146 years before Christ and was not refounded until 44 years before Christ. About 77 years before Christ Cicero wrote in Tusculan Disputations 3.53: ...magisque me moverant Corinthi subito aspectae parietinae quam ipsos Corinthios, quorum animis diuturna cogitatio callum vetustatis obduxerat (and the ruins of Corinth suddenly moved me more than [they moved] the Corinthians themselves, whose souls had become callous by frequent [and] longstanding reflection). This would seem to date the Corinthian epistles to after the refoundation of the city of Corinth. Andrew Criddle has added that the way in which Paul in his epistles to Corinth refers to Achaea and Macedonia as distinct regions, with Corinth a prominent place in Achaea (refer to 2 Corinthians 9.1-2, for example), is more likely if it is written after Augustus appears to have split southern Greece from Macedonian administrative control to establish (or re-establish) the province of Achaea with the refounded Corinth as its capital 27 years before Christ.
• On the terminus ante quem side of things, some verses (1 Corinthians 10.18; 2 Thessalonians 2.4; Romans 9.4) appear to presume that the temple is still standing, its sacrificial system still running. Furthermore, Paul frequently mentions Jerusalem as a viable destination with a functioning church (Romans 15.19, 25-26, 31; 1 Corinthians 16.3; Galatians 1.17-18; 2.1); these mentions seem to fit in better with the situation in Judea before 70 than with the situation after the Jewish revolt. Similarly, Galatians 1.19 makes the author a contemporary of James (the just), whom Hegesippus, Josephus, and several other sources date to before the fall of the temple (in 70).
• Only a bit more precisely, 2 Corinthians 11.32-33 would seem to date the autobiographical episode described in those verses, at least, to the reign of Aretas III (from about 9 years before Christ to 40 anno domini).

In The Evolution of the Pauline Canon, an article for the Journal of Higher Criticism, Robert M. Price writes of 1 Clement:

1 Clement (47:1) appears to have thought there was but a single Pauline letter to Corinth.

1 Clement 47.1-3 reads:

Αναλαβετε την επιστολην του μακαριου Παυλου του αποστολου. τι πρωτον υμιν εν αρχη του ευαγγελιου εγραψεν; επ αληθειας πνευματικως επεστειλεν υμιν περι εαυτου τε και Κηφα τε και Απολλω, δια το και τοτε προσκλισεις υμας πεποιησθαι.

Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he write to you first, in the beginning of the gospel? Of a truth he charged you spiritually concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, on account that even then you had made parties.

The allusion is to 1 Corinthians 1.12, but I suggest that Clement* may here betray knowledge that there was at least one other epistle to the Corinthians. What else would the first (πρωτον) of 47.2 mean? Possibly that this reference came toward the beginning, or first part, of 1 Corinthians, but it seems just as likely to me, if not more so, that Clement is saying that this was the first thing Paul wrote to the Corinthians because he knew this was the first epistle that Paul wrote to the Corinthians.

* The attribution to Clement is traditional; the epistle itself names the church of Rome as its sender. I use the name Clement for convenience, though I do tend at the present time to accept the traditional attribution, with Clement writing as a sort of secretary for the church of Rome. The exact attribution will not matter to the present argument.

Let us imagine, however, for the sake of argument, that this is not what Clement means by that adverb. Price appears to be working from the observation that Clement tells his readers to take up the epistle, in the singular, instead of one of the epistles, in the plural, or the first epistle, which would unambiguously imply at least a second. Does this sort of reference to this epistle to Corinth indeed imply that Clement knew of only one?

I do not necessarily think so.

Several times in his monumental heresiological work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus of Lyons refers to one of a pair of epistles without any indication that there was another extant. Granted, for all of the instances that I will point out we are dependent upon the Latin translation of the original Greek, since the only Greek available to us is in fragments. To be sure, there does exist one reference for which we have the Greek, namely in 1.8.2, in which Irenaeus quotes 1 Corinthians 15.8 as something found in that to the Corinthians (εν τη προς Κορινθιους); but in this case it seems probable that the adjective first has dropped out, most likely expressed by the numeral αʹ (an easy thing to skip while copying a text), since the Latin translation at this point reads in prima ad Corinthios epistola (in the first epistle to the Corinthians). But it is worth noting that the Latin translator has either added or (more likely) retained the numerical indicator; he has not lost it.

Let us turn, then, to the relevant examples. In 3.11.9 Irenaeus tells us that Paul wrote about prophetic gifts among both men and women in the church (clearly referring to 1 Corinthians 11.4-5 and possibly also to chapters 12 and 14) in that epistle which is to the Corinthians (in ea... enim epistola quae est ad Corinthios). In 3.13.1 the same expression is used (in ea epistola quae est ad Corinthios) of a quotation from 1 Corinthians 15.11. In 4.27.3 Irenaeus says that 1 Corinthians 10.1-13 is found in the epistle which is to the Corinthians (in epistola quae est ad Corinthios); that this slightly cumbersome kind of expression is not limited in the Latin translation to epistles found in pairs is clear from 2.22.2, where Irenaeus places Romans 8.36 in the epistle which is to the Romans (in epistola quae est ad Romanos). Also, I ought to point out that Irenaeus does indeed know of at least two epistles to the Corinthians, for in 3.7.1 he writes of 2 Corinthians 4.4 as something found in the second to the Corinthians (in secunda ad Corinthios); in 5.13.4 he cites 2 Corinthians 4.10-11 and mentions that the apostle Paul says it to the Corinthians (Corinthiis ait). In 4.27.4 Irenaeus locates 2 Thessalonians 1.6-10 in that epistle which is to the Thessalonians (in ea quae est ad Thessalonicenses epistola); note that in this case it is the second epistle of the pair that goes undifferentiated, and also note that Irenaeus knows two epistles to the Thessalonians, as well as their relative order, since in 5.6.1 he tells us that 1 Thessalonians 5.23 is found in the first epistle to the Thessalonians (in prima epistola ad Thessalonicenses).

While it is not entirely certain that the Latin has accurately reflected the Greek in each and every case above, I think it would amount to special pleading to demand that the Latin translation has reflected it inaccurately in all those cases; it seems probable that in at least some of those instances Irenaeus simply quoted from one epistle of a pair without telling us that it belonged to a pair. And, if Irenaeus can be a little loose in his referencing, surely Clement can, too, especially addressing the very same church that Paul addressed, a church that would know, if anybody knew, how many Pauline epistles it possessed.

I freely admit the possibility of other explanations. For example, modern scholars have often suspected that our two extant epistles to the Corinthians actually represent more than two epistles; some think that 2 Corinthians 10-13, for example, belong to a different letter than the rest of 2 Corinthians. It is thought that the Corinthian correspondence was standardized artificially as two epistles sometime after the death of Paul. And we know that there was at one time more to the Corinthian correspondence than we currently have, based on passages such as 1 Corinthians 5.9. It is possible, then, that during the early period in which Clement was writing there was no sense as yet of a set number and order of Corinthian epistles. Clement may have been vague simply because the Corinthian epistles had not yet been standardized in the manner implied by expressions such as the first epistle or the second epistle.* My point, however, is that the Clementine wording itself is not a very strong factor in deciding the issue.

* One might further speculate that it was Marcion (or his followers) who standardized the epistles into their current formats; the so-called Marcionite prologues place the pair of letters to the Corinthians in a definite sequence. Interestingly, while the second Corinthian prologue implies a previous letter to that church, neither Thessalonian prologue implies another letter. It might be objected that, in the context of the Thessalonian prologues and of the epistles themselves, it is obvious to the reader that there are two epistles to the Thessalonians; but, then again, in the context of Clement corresponding with the church at Corinth about an epistle originally sent to Corinth, surely it was obvious to the Corinthians how many epistles they had on hand (as well as which one to take up, as Clement instructs them).

Aristotle and the household tables.

The idea of laying out household tables as we find in Ephesians 5.22-6.9 and in Colossians 3.18-4.4 ultimately derives from Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1160b (translation modified from H. Rackham):

Ομοιωματα δ αυτων και οιον παραδειγματα λαβοι τις αν και εν ταις οικιαις. η μεν γαρ πατρος προς υιεις κοινωνια βασιλειας εχει σχημα, των τεκνων γαρ τω πατρι μελει. εντευθεν δε και Ομηρος τον Δια πατερα προσαγορευει, πατρικη γαρ αρχη βουλεται η βασιλεια ειναι. εν Περσαις δ η του πατρος τυραννικη, χρωνται γαρ ως δουλοις τοις υιεσιν. τυραννικη δε και η δεσποτου προς δουλους, το γαρ του δεσποτου συμφερον εν αυτη πραττεται. αυτη μεν ουν ορθη φαινεται, η Περσικη δ ημαρτημενη, των διαφεροντων γαρ αι αρχαι διαφοροι. ανδρος δε και γυναικος αριστοκρατικη φαινεται, κατ αξιαν γαρ ο ανηρ αρχει, και περι ταυτα α δει τον ανδρα οσα δε γυναικι αρμοζει, εκεινη αποδιδωσιν. απαντων δε κυριευων ο ανηρ εις ολιγαρχιαν μεθιστησιν παρα την αξιαν γαρ αυτο ποιει, και ουχ η αμεινων.

One may find likenesses and so to speak models of these various forms of constitution in the household. The relationship of father to sons is regal in type, since the first concern of a father is for the welfare of his children. This is why Homer styles Zeus as father, for the ideal of kingship is paternal government. Among the Persians paternal rule is tyrannical, for the Persians use their sons as slaves. The relation of master to servants is also tyrannic, since in it the interest of the master is aimed at. The autocracy of a master appears to be right, that of the Persian father wrong; for different subjects should be under different forms of rule. The relation of husband to wife seems to be in the nature of an aristocracy; the husband rules in virtue of fitness, and in matters that belong to the sphere of a man; matters suited to a woman he hands over to his wife. When the husband controls everything, he transforms the relationship into an oligarchy, for he governs in violation of fitness, and not in virtue of superiority.

Philo on the two kinds of men.

Philo, Allegorical Interpretation of the Law 1.31 (English translations by Yonge, first, and by Dodd, second):

The races of men are twofold; for one is the heavenly man, and the other the earthly man. Now the heavenly man, as being born in the image of God, has no participation in any corruptible or earthlike essence. But the earthly man is made of loose material, which he calls a lump of clay. On which account he says, not that the heavenly man was made, but that he was fashioned according to the image of God; but the earthly man he calls a thing made, and not begotten by the maker.

There are two kinds of men. The one is Heavenly Man, the other earthly. The Heavenly Man being in the image of God has no part in corruptible substance, or in any earthly substance whatever; but the earthly man was made of germinal matter which the writer [of Genesis] calls “dust.” For this reason he does not say that the Heavenly Man was created, but that he was stamped with the image of God, whereas the earthly man is a creature and not the offspring of the Creator.

Confer Romans 5.14-19; 1 Corinthians 15.20-22, 45-49.

Instances of the word gospel in Paul.

Paul refers to the gospel (ευαγγελιον) in the following passages (from the genuine epistles)...:

Romans 1.1, 9, 16; 2.16; 10.16; 11.28; 15.16, 19; 16.25;
1 Corinthians 4.15; 9.12, 14 (×2), 18 (×2), 23; 15.1;
2 Corinthians 2.12; 4.3, 4; 8.18; 9.13; 10.14; 11.4, 7;
Galatians 1.6, 7, 11; 2.2, 5, 7, 14;
Philippians 1.5, 7, 12, 16, 27 (×2); 2.22; 4.3, 15;
1 Thessalonians 1.5; 2.2, 4, 8, 9; 3.2;
2 Thessalonians 1.8; 2.14;
Philemon [1.]13.

...and in the following (from the spurious epistles):

Ephesians 1.13; 3.6; 6.15, 19;
Colossians 1.5, 23;
1 Timothy 1.11;
2 Timothy 1.8, 10; 2.28.

In the other canonical epistles and the apocalypse this noun appears only in 1 Peter 4.17; Revelation 14.6.

The LXX contains only one instance of this noun (2 Samuel 4.10).

Additionally, Paul uses the verb ευαγγελιζω (to preach, preach the gospel, or evangelize) in the following passages from the genuine epistles:

Romans 1.15; 10.15; 15.20;
1 Corinthians 1.17; 9.16 (×2), 18; 15.1, 2;
2 Corinthians 10.16; 11.7;
Galatians 1.8 (×2), 9, 11, 16, 23; 3.8;* 4.13;
1 Thessalonians 3.6.

* Greek προευαγγελιζομαι, to evangelize beforehand.

In the spurious epistles this verb appears only in Ephesians 2.17; 3.8. In the rest of the canonical epistles and the apocalypse it appears only in Hebrews 4.2, 6; 1 Peter 1.12, 25; 4.6; Revelation 10.7; 14.6.

The LXX contains many more instances of this verb than of the corresponding noun.

The giving of the right hand.

In Galatians 2.9 Paul writes that the Jerusalem pillars gave him and Barnabas the right hands (δεξιας εδωκαν) of fellowship. This expression appears several times in the Maccabean literature:

1 Maccabees 6.58; 11.50, 62, 66; 13.45, 50;
2 Maccabees 4.34; 11.26, 30; 12.11, 12; 13.22; 14.19; confer 15.15.

In most or all of these instances the giving of the right hand signals a treaty or cessation of hostilities between contending (military) forces.