Textual analysis by Ron Miller, PhD, Professor of Religious Studies
Editing Paul's letters to establish male dominance
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
The sheer amount of manuscript evidence for the New Testament allows scholars to reconstruct what was originally written in the first century. There is no other document from antiquity with the amount of manuscript evidence as the New Testament.
We now have over 5,200 Greek manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts dated from the second century to the tenth century, and that amount of manuscript evidence allows experts to ascertain where there have been mistakes or insertions put into the scripture.
Having that many copies is actually better than having the original. Copies allow you to see where mistakes and insertions happened. Just having the original by itself gives you no guarantee it hasn't been massively changed.
Regarding authorship, careful textual analysis can allow us to be reasonably sure which of Paul's epistles were authentically written by him, or where certain insertions were probably added - the OP being one type of example.
So then why do we always have to see posts like the OP about how Paul's writings don't actually contain commands to keep women in subservience, and why do we have to keep seeing posts like the OP on the thread about homosexuality and how the words used were actually NOT what they are interpreted to be?
Why are there pseudepigraphs in the Bible?
If one were to accept that Paul made up most of the administrative rules for Christianity (as your position seems to be) then how dangerous is it that there are letters attributed to Paul, in the canon itself, which are thought to be written by others?
Yes, there are pseudepigrapha in the New Testament. Most scholars think Paul only wrote seven of the thirteen letters attributed to him. The others were written by his followers or people invoking his authority.
Most pseudepigrapha are not insertions because they were widely accepted as inspired scripture early in church history, aka they are not alterations from late antiquity or the Middle Ages. Not sure it matters that much in terms of basic Christian doctrine; the big four epistles that establish Christian doctrine and practice - 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Galatians - are all known to be authentic letters by Paul.
It's widely accepted that we have the original NT gospels as they existed in the late first century or second century, because of the massive volume of manuscript evidence. Over 5,000 manuscripts plus thousands of quotations provided by early church father give us unprecedented ability to cross-check, reconstruct and corroborate the original writings. There is no other literature from antiquity that even comes close to the NT for manuscript evidence.
The reconstruction of the original for the most part is therefore quite certain, and where there are fairly small areas of uncertainty, these potential alterations/insertions don't affect basic Christian doctrine or practice.
So, let's take 1 Timothy as an example. Most scholars think it was written after Paul passed away but it also seems to state it is from Paul
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
If the scholars are correct this isn't just someone writing on his authority (since he was probably dead by the time this was written) and it is very hard for me to imagine how claiming to be someone else is not a form of "misinformation" if not outright lying.
But I also understand your paring out of the parts or the Bible that "don't count". You seem to have a very subtle and nuanced version of the Bible that says whatever it needs to say and unimportant parts can easily be ignored as needed. Maybe it isn't important that some people might have lied about being someone they weren't in order to get the congregation to do something they want.
I am still curious what your denomination is. You seem to be unwilling to answer that. Because the concept of "basic Christian doctrine" really isn't quite as simple and straightforward as you claim it.
So it would help to know what kind of Christian tradition you come from.
Last edited:
Pseudepigraphia isn't inserting, deleting, changing, and editing existing text, which was the subject up until now.
You could take 1 Timothy out of the canon now, and it wouldn't change essential Christian doctrine and practice.
The Dead Sea scrolls themselves showed that ancient religious texts could be reliably copied and transmitted for two thousand years, for the most part.
I don't belong to a denomination.
Last edited:
But earlier you claimed to attended church more than most MAGA followers on JPP.
While you and I both understand they don't really "get" Christianity, I'm absolutely certain most of them attend church regularly. Which means you attend a church. Is it non-denominational?
Maybe I should ask more succinctly: what type of religion do you follow (which church do you attend more than most MAGA folks on JPP)?
No, they don't attend church regularly, most of them are here on Sunday mornings. They just pay lip service to being Christians, but don't actually commit to it or try to live the principles out.
I don't belong to any denomination. My life is journey. Over the last 40 years, I have been atheist, agnostic, I've attended Quaker meetings, Catholic mass, Orthodox liturgy, and Unitarian, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, UCC services. I think I even went to synagogue once with a friend.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
What you choose to value is the test