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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

Agreed. It's Pauline whoever held the pen.

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

 

[etexas]

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.

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?).

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]

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]

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?).

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".

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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....

 

[au5t1n]

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.

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....

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]

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....

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?

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]

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.