# What about Paul's co-authors?



## Tim

I have never anyone but Paul mentioned when discussing the letters that bear his name. However, seven epistles indicate co-authorship with Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silvanus:




> 1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
> 
> 2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
> 
> Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
> 
> Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
> 
> 1Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 2Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
> 
> Phm 1:1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,



We know more about Paul than any of the others, but is it entirely correct to describe the doctrine of these letters as only 'Pauline theology'? Does this have any bearing whatsoever on exegesis? For example, might our knowledge of Timothy inform our exegesis, given the relationship between Paul and Timothy and the correspondence we have between those two men?


----------



## etexas

Tim said:


> I have never anyone but Paul mentioned when discussing the letters that bear his name. However, seven epistles indicate co-authorship with Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silvanus:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
> 
> 2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
> 
> Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
> 
> Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
> 
> 1Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 2Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
> 
> Phm 1:1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know more about Paul than any of the others, but is it entirely correct to describe the doctrine of these letters as only 'Pauline theology'? Does this have any bearing whatsoever on exegesis? For example, might our knowledge of Timothy inform our exegesis, given the relationship between Paul and Timothy and the correspondence we have between those two men?
Click to expand...

Hi Tim, I used to wonder about this myself, an OPC Pastor "broke it down" they are "Pauline in a pure sense, the others mentioned were (according to Ancient Tradition and Modern orthodox Theology) acting as "Scribes" perhaps writing as Paul spoke. It is Pauline in that St. Paul was speaking in the Holy Ghost, hence making the Missives Go-Breathed. It helped me...and hope you think it helpful. While "simple" it makes a LOT of sense if you reflect... Blessings in Christ Jesus.


----------



## au5t1n

etexas said:


> Hi Tim, I used to wonder about this myself, an OPC Pastor "broke it down" they are "Pauline in a pure sense, the others mentioned were (according to Ancient Tradition and Modern orthodox Theology) acting as "Scribes" perhaps writing as Paul spoke. It is Pauline in that St. Paul was speaking in the Holy Ghost, hence making the Missives Go-Breathed. It helped me...and hope you think it helpful. While "simple" it makes a LOT of sense if you reflect... Blessings in Christ Jesus.


 
But at least in Galatians, Paul says he wrote with his own hand:



> Gal. 6:11 Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.



Why would he use a scribe for the other letters? I am thinking the mentions of others in Paul's introductions are there because those brothers send greetings to the church too. Perhaps their name is only included for the greeting. For instance:



> Phil. 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
> Phil. 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.



Is it possible that Timothy's name is only to be associated with the greeting? After all, Paul begins the next verse (v.3) with "*I* thank *my* God..."

Edit: Also, Timothy was often the one carrying the letter, I think.


----------



## etexas

austinww said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Tim, I used to wonder about this myself, an OPC Pastor "broke it down" they are "Pauline in a pure sense, the others mentioned were (according to Ancient Tradition and Modern orthodox Theology) acting as "Scribes" perhaps writing as Paul spoke. It is Pauline in that St. Paul was speaking in the Holy Ghost, hence making the Missives Go-Breathed. It helped me...and hope you think it helpful. While "simple" it makes a LOT of sense if you reflect... Blessings in Christ Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But at least in Galatians, Paul says he wrote with his own hand:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gal. 6:11 Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would he use a scribe for the other letters? I am thinking the mentions of others in Paul's introductions are there because those brothers send greetings to the church too. Perhaps their name is only included for the greeting. For instance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil. 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
> Phil. 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it possible that Timothy's name is only to be associated with the greeting? After all, Paul begins the next verse (v.3) with "*I* thank *my* God..."
> 
> Edit: Also, Timothy was often the one carrying the letter, I think.
Click to expand...

 Good points. Why would he ever have (maybe) used a Scribe, this side of "Jordan" we shall not know my Dear Brother. All that matters is to "define" Pauline" EVEN if a Scribe were in use, it was Paul "receiving" the word of God. If say he did use Timothy as example to write it changes nothin if he were faithful in writing it out word for word... AND Paul was a tough "boss" and made him read it back....It is Pauline. Grace in Christ Jesus The Ever-Blessed!


----------



## au5t1n

Agreed. It's Pauline whoever held the pen.


----------



## py3ak

austinww said:


> But at least in Galatians, Paul says he wrote with his own hand:



The fact that Paul highlights that might rather indicate that it was unusual, especially if you compare Romans 16:22. Given the earlier reference to how they were willing to pluck out their eyes for him, it has been suggested that Paul was at that time suffering from an eye condition which made it difficult for him to do detail work - but such is the magnitude of the Galatian crisis that he undergoes the arduous task of writing anyway.


----------



## au5t1n

py3ak said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> But at least in Galatians, Paul says he wrote with his own hand:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Paul highlights that might rather indicate that it was unusual, especially if you compare Romans 16:22. Given the earlier reference to how they were willing to pluck out their eyes for him, it has been suggested that Paul was at that time suffering from an eye condition which made it difficult for him to do detail work - but such is the magnitude of the Galatian crisis that he undergoes the arduous task of writing anyway.
Click to expand...

 
That makes sense. I hadn't noticed Rom. 16:22. Perhaps Paul did normally use a scribe(s), excepting Galatians and Colossians (Col. 4:18). I also seem to recall Paul warning a church not to be deceived by any letters "as if from us" teaching false doctrine. Perhaps that would indicate that he wrote Galatians with his own hand in order to prove his own identity.

Edit: I was thinking of 2 Thess. 2:2. Perhaps this verse is further evidence that Paul did not usually write his letters in his own hand, which is what enabled him to prove his identity by writing in his own large script (perhaps it was large because of the eyesight issues?).


----------



## etexas

austinww said:


> Agreed. It's Pauline whoever held the pen.


EXACTLY, this is what my OPC friend was driving me to!It makes sense!


----------



## etexas

austinww said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> But at least in Galatians, Paul says he wrote with his own hand:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Paul highlights that might rather indicate that it was unusual, especially if you compare Romans 16:22. Given the earlier reference to how they were willing to pluck out their eyes for him, it has been suggested that Paul was at that time suffering from an eye condition which made it difficult for him to do detail work - but such is the magnitude of the Galatian crisis that he undergoes the arduous task of writing anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes sense. I hadn't noticed Rom. 16:22. Perhaps Paul did normally use a scribe(s), excepting Galatians and Colossians (Col. 4:18). I also seem to recall Paul warning a church not to be deceived by any letters "as if from us" teaching false doctrine. Perhaps that would indicate that he wrote Galatians with his own hand in order to prove his own identity.
> 
> Edit: I was thinking of 2 Thess. 2:2. Perhaps this verse is further evidence that Paul did not usually write his letters in his own hand, which is what enabled him to prove his identity by writing in his own large script (perhaps it was large because of the eyesight issues?).
Click to expand...

Regarding the large hand perhaps a Reference to size, IF he used again I shall use Timothy as example to be Scribe in the Text....he may have "signed off" himself (it seems to indicate this) with a distinctive signature of his own....a "watermark if you will".


----------



## Rich Koster

In either case, you can be very confident that those who kept company with Paul, taught the same as Paul.


----------



## Tim

etexas said:


> Hi Tim, I used to wonder about this myself, an OPC Pastor "broke it down" they are "Pauline in a pure sense, the others mentioned were (according to Ancient Tradition and Modern orthodox Theology) acting as "Scribes" perhaps writing as Paul spoke. It is Pauline in that St. Paul was speaking in the Holy Ghost, hence making the Missives Go-Breathed. It helped me...and hope you think it helpful. While "simple" it makes a LOT of sense if you reflect... Blessings in Christ Jesus.


 
You bring up a good point that I had neglected to recognize, and that is the aspect of Paul's inspiration in writing. It might be difficult to explain how three different men could be inspired by the Holy Spirit to produce one book of scripture. This might be the job for a _pneumotologist_, but it seems that it would make more sense that only one man was used in authorship. I know we have hypothesized that there are additions to certain books of the Bible, but certainly only one man at a time could be used by the Holy Spirit in that 'God-breathed' manner, right?


----------



## au5t1n

etexas said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Paul highlights that might rather indicate that it was unusual, especially if you compare Romans 16:22. Given the earlier reference to how they were willing to pluck out their eyes for him, it has been suggested that Paul was at that time suffering from an eye condition which made it difficult for him to do detail work - but such is the magnitude of the Galatian crisis that he undergoes the arduous task of writing anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes sense. I hadn't noticed Rom. 16:22. Perhaps Paul did normally use a scribe(s), excepting Galatians and Colossians (Col. 4:18). I also seem to recall Paul warning a church not to be deceived by any letters "as if from us" teaching false doctrine. Perhaps that would indicate that he wrote Galatians with his own hand in order to prove his own identity.
> 
> Edit: I was thinking of 2 Thess. 2:2. Perhaps this verse is further evidence that Paul did not usually write his letters in his own hand, which is what enabled him to prove his identity by writing in his own large script (perhaps it was large because of the eyesight issues?).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regarding the large hand perhaps a Reference to size, IF he used again I shall use Timothy as example to be Scribe in the Text....he may have "signed off" himself (it seems to indicate this) with a distinctive signature of his own....a "watermark if you will".
Click to expand...

 
You may be right. I can certainly see Col. 4:18 reading that way:



> Col. 4:18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.



This is the very last verse of the letter, too.


----------



## au5t1n

Also, regarding more than one inspired writer, I think we are led to believe that Paul was the only one "writing" in the abstract sense. If anything the others were included either because they penned it or because they were just there and Paul was including them in his greeting to the church. Peter also refers to Paul's writings as Scripture and says he wrote them. Then there's the fact that the letters read like just Paul writing them. He writes in first person frequently. Just my opinion.


----------



## etexas

austinww said:


> Also, regarding more than one inspired writer, I think we are led to believe that Paul was the only one "writing" in the abstract sense. If anything the others were included either because they penned it or because they were just there and Paul was including them in his greeting to the church. Peter also refers to Paul's writings as Scripture and says he wrote them. Then there's the fact that the letters read like just Paul writing them. He writes in first person frequently. Just my opinion.


 This is to me the best and most Orthodox understanding! Well stated.


----------



## etexas

Another way to put it might be this. Suppose I used a secretary, and I spoke, and she typed...I then had a readback and read it myself, then I signed it...would you say....I got a letter from Max's secretary OR I got a letter from Max...


----------



## au5t1n

etexas said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, regarding more than one inspired writer, I think we are led to believe that Paul was the only one "writing" in the abstract sense. If anything the others were included either because they penned it or because they were just there and Paul was including them in his greeting to the church. Peter also refers to Paul's writings as Scripture and says he wrote them. Then there's the fact that the letters read like just Paul writing them. He writes in first person frequently. Just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> This is to me the best and most Orthodox understanding! Well stated.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks. I should also qualify my statement by saying there may be exceptions to Paul being the only composer (e.g. Rom. 16:22), but I think these would stand out to the reader, as Rom. 16:22 does.


----------



## etexas

austinww said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, regarding more than one inspired writer, I think we are led to believe that Paul was the only one "writing" in the abstract sense. If anything the others were included either because they penned it or because they were just there and Paul was including them in his greeting to the church. Peter also refers to Paul's writings as Scripture and says he wrote them. Then there's the fact that the letters read like just Paul writing them. He writes in first person frequently. Just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> This is to me the best and most Orthodox understanding! Well stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks. I should also qualify my statement by saying there may be exceptions to Paul being the only composer (e.g. Rom. 16:22), but I think these would stand out to the reader, as Rom. 16:22 does.
Click to expand...

Another good point, there seem times that Paul wrote in his own hand and cases where it seems you see a Pauline Missive in which Paul might have used a helper who acted as a Scribe, but they remain "Paul's" in that Paul was the "inspired" agent, neither negate them as Pauline....


----------



## au5t1n

etexas said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is to me the best and most Orthodox understanding! Well stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I should also qualify my statement by saying there may be exceptions to Paul being the only composer (e.g. Rom. 16:22), but I think these would stand out to the reader, as Rom. 16:22 does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another good point, there seem times that Paul wrote in his own hand and cases where it seems you see a Pauline Missive in which Paul might have used a helper who acted as a Scribe, but they remain "Paul's" in that Paul was the "inspired" agent, neither negate them as Pauline....
Click to expand...

 
I think I was unclear. I was talking about who composed the words, not who penned it. I think Rom. 16:22 is clear that Tertius not only penned that verse, but composed the words as well. However, the rest of the letter Paul composed and Tertius penned. Does that seem reasonable to you?


----------



## etexas

austinww said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I should also qualify my statement by saying there may be exceptions to Paul being the only composer (e.g. Rom. 16:22), but I think these would stand out to the reader, as Rom. 16:22 does.
> 
> 
> 
> Another good point, there seem times that Paul wrote in his own hand and cases where it seems you see a Pauline Missive in which Paul might have used a helper who acted as a Scribe, but they remain "Paul's" in that Paul was the "inspired" agent, neither negate them as Pauline....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I was unclear. I was talking about who composed the words, not who penned it. I think Rom. 16:22 is clear that Tertius not only penned that verse, but composed the words as well. However, the rest of the letter Paul composed and Tertius penned. Does that seem reasonable to you?
Click to expand...

 Oh, yes, it does! It is an orhodox logical view, and in no case avoids the Pauline issue, which I am seeking to protect. Thank you!


----------



## Tim

So, in your words, etexas, you would say that Paul was the sole 'inspired agent' in these books?


----------



## etexas

Tim said:


> So, in your words, etexas, you would say that Paul was the sole 'inspired agent' in these books?


Oh, yes! Those written by his own hand or this which seem to have been dictated would have come from Paul through the Holy Spirit. Like I say, if you dictated a letter to me using a secretary had it read to you and then read it yourself and signed, Tim Linsay. I would not open it and say to my wife oh, how nice, a letter from Tim's secretary! I would say how nice Hon, a letter from Tim. While this is using a "human example" remember, the NT is filled with a type of Jewish Argument "From Light To Heavy" Messiah, if your children are hungry you despite being evil feed them, how much MORE your Heavenly Father. It is an interesting form which gives a "tangible" feel to a subject and using an emphatic on the "much Greater God." Blessings my Brother.


----------

