Which Epistles are Reliable?

[Alexander's Mom]

So, I've just moved again and I'm in a new church.
My Sunday class teacher treats all epistles equally. For some reason I was under the impression that some had lying authors that were assuming more authoritative authorship for their views. (I'm sure there's a better way to say that, but I'm stupid right now 'cause it's three a.m.)
So, which ones do I trust? Which ones do I treat as philosophical/theological exploits? I'm the sort to weigh them all anyway. I'm really just wondering which have the most in the way of authentication?

[Adam]

People are hesitant to jump in here, and understandably so.
Let's start with with authenticity as told by the earliest authorities. Some epistles have weak early citations, and consequently John Calvin was quite skeptical of some, particularly II Peter. That one stands out, because it's big enough to warrant attention from the early Christians. Jude, II John and III John are weak in early verification, but they're so small that no mention of them doesn't mean that they were not early and genuine.
Martin Luther wanted to reject the Epistle of James, but his objection was to the theology that disagreed with his emphasis on faith over works.
In more recent times even the epistles by Paul have come into question. Church Tradition had said Hebrews was by Paul, but this attribution has largely been given up. It doesn't say anything about being written by Paul, so this is no big problem other than that it does not seem to have been written by an apostle. More seriously, most scholars now say that the Pastoral Epistles are not by Paul, even though they say that they are. Conservatives get around the problem by saying Paul lived longer than usually thought and that his focus of ideas had changed.
Ephesians seems very truly Pauline in ideas, but seems more like someone else's summary of the best of Paul.
So the most uncontestable epistles are James and the following letters of Paul: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, Colosians, Philemon, and Thessalonians.
Adam

[One Bad Pig]

So, I've just moved again and I'm in a new church.
My Sunday class teacher treats all epistles equally. For some reason I was under the impression that some had lying authors that were assuming more authoritative authorship for their views. (I'm sure there's a better way to say that, but I'm stupid right now 'cause it's three a.m.)
So, which ones do I trust? Which ones do I treat as philosophical/theological exploits? I'm the sort to weigh them all anyway. I'm really just wondering which have the most in the way of authentication?

Why should you treat any of them as philosophical/theological exploits? They're all quoted authoritatively by the early Church Fathers.

[Obsidian]

I assume you're probably talking about the pastorals, which skeptics argue to be forgeries. JP Holding has a pretty good critique of their argument.

If they're forgeries, though, we shouldn't consider them "reliable" at all. The Holy Spirit breathes scripture. He certainly wouldn't lie about the human authorship in the very first or second verse of a letter. Any epistle that is a forgery should be removed from the canon.

[Obsidian]

Whoa, we all posted at the same time.

Btw, you said that "Martin Luther wanted to reject the Epistle of James, but his objection was to the theology that disagreed with his emphasis on faith over works."

His objections were mainly that 1) James was not an apostle, and 2) the book's writing seems chaotic, more like a recorded sermon or rhetorical piece than a theological treatise. In particular, he felt that this latter point obscured the gospel message -- especially since, taken literally, James would contradict Genesis 15:6. And in Luther's defense, a good portion of the early church disagreed about the inspiration of James and would not admit it into the canon. (Eusebius records this controversy.)

[Alexander's Mom]

I don't know if it's a Baptist thing, but the teachers seem to be pretty insistent on the whole book being absolutely, necessarily the word of God. I don't think that's essential for Christianity and I wonder why any sect would demand it.
I take Paul very seriously, but I remember that he was a guy I could've eaten chili with. His "don't get married" thing kind of put everything else into the light of, "Well, Paul's a free-thinker and not afraid to give practical advice on ethical issues."

[Adam]

Baptist? No wonder you have a problem!
With Baptists it's not just that they insist on every word of the Protestant (66-book) Bible. but they are also Sola Scriptura, so nothing else counts but the Bible (except of course anything Baptists have written).

[The Curtmudgeon]

Baptist? No wonder you have a problem!
With Baptists it's not just that they insist on every word of the Protestant (66-book) Bible. but they are also Sola Scriptura, so nothing else counts but the Bible (except of course anything Baptists have written).

:strawman:

The (you have a mistaken idea of what sola Scriptura means, probably deliberately) Curtmudgeon

[One Bad Pig]

I don't know if it's a Baptist thing, but the teachers seem to be pretty insistent on the whole book being absolutely, necessarily the word of God. I don't think that's essential for Christianity and I wonder why any sect would demand it.

Most Christians would beg to differ with you.

I take Paul very seriously, but I remember that he was a guy I could've eaten chili with. His "don't get married" thing kind of put everything else into the light of, "Well, Paul's a free-thinker and not afraid to give practical advice on ethical issues."

If you take Paul very seriously, and seem to approve of his perceived free-thinking, why should you seek to throw out any of his epistles? For that matter, why would it cause you to seek to throw out any of the general epistles?

[Sparko]

Don't listen to Adam. He is a liberal wacko.

[Obsidian]

Most churches have a pretty high view of all the NT. Which church did you originate from, Episcopal or something? If we can't trust the words of someone like Paul who saw Jesus face to face and ultimately died for his testimony, who can we trust?

[Jaltus]

The most commonly dispute epistles are:

1-2 Peter
1-3 John (though there is no claim that John wrote them in Scripture, and most modern scholars who object to John being the author do not object to them being in the Bible)
1-2 Timothy, Titus (wrongly grouped as the "Pastoral Epistles")
Ephesians, Colossians
Revelation 9though again this is John as author, which modern scholars do not believe John of Patmos is that same as John the Apostle)

With respect to 1-2 Peter, the Greek is very different between the two, resulting in the major objection. Also, 2 Peter overlaps a great deal with Jude, so some think there is some sort of borrowing going on.

With respect to the Pastorals, conservative Christians do not make the objection alleged above by Adam, since that is, frankly, a stupid objection since we know approximately when Paul died and that he still would have been young, probably in his 40s. The objection typically made by conservatives to the liberal idea that Paul did not write the Pastorals is rather complex, but the gist of it is that Paul was writing a different type of letter than his other letters. All his other letters are addressed to churches, the Pastorals are written to individuals. Paul writes less doctrine and more practice concerning church order in the Pastorals because he is writing to the pastor who sets up the church order.

Those are the basic issues anyway.

With respect to Ephesians and Colossians, modern scholars try to say Paul did not write them because of the different thrust of the theology of those letters. Ephesians, however, lately has become more broadly accepted as Pauline, with perhaps a 50-50 or 60-40 split in favor of Paul due to the work of Harold Heohner and his amazing commentary.

[Pilgrim]

Hey J, how did the Sermon go on Sunday?

[Alexander's Mom]

Most churches have a pretty high view of all the NT. Which church did you originate from, Episcopal or something? If we can't trust the words of someone like Paul who saw Jesus face to face and ultimately died for his testimony, who can we trust?

I'm tired of this. Very tired. I was practically atheist before I became Christian after reading the Bible about five years ago. That's it. No sectarian axe to grind. Nothin'.
Now, what I'm questioning is not whether I can trust Paul, but whether it actually is Paul.

[Sparko]

I'm tired of this. Very tired. I was practically atheist before I became Christian after reading the Bible about five years ago. That's it. No sectarian axe to grind. Nothin'.
Now, what I'm questioning is not whether I can trust Paul, but whether it actually is Paul.

Basically the problem comes down to people nitpicking at what words were used and so on. To me that is not much to go on. I write using different styles and phrases depending on my audience or the recipient of my letters. I would write quite a different letter to a loved one than I would to a group of strangers, for instance.

I find no problem with Paul using different writing styles. He was writing to different audiences, he was writing over long periods (years) of time, and he often used scribes to write out his epistles. If you have ever written a letter to someone using someone else as a scribe or secretary, you know you often talk over the phrases and sentences used before writing down the final version. So I think the various scribes gave the letters slightly different styles too.

I accept that all of the epistles are reliable and not one is a forgery.