Are Paul's seven letters authentic?

 Today, the following email reached me:

Dear Markus,

I enjoyed reading your views on Marcion, I found them very interesting and convincing!   My professional interests are in modern history so I have only an amateur's knowledge of New Testament Studies.  Without dismissing it outright, can any strong case be made that some of the authentic letters of Paul are actually not authentic?  I know the Dutch radicals argued against some of them long ago, and some of their arguments are summarized (badly) below.  Are the seven letters considered authentic because of a form of scholarly orthodoxy (like the idea that Marcion came long after the four gospels) or because the evidence is very strong?  

Thanks very much for your time,

Stephen

a)  The letters are treatises not letters especially the very long Romans and First Corinthians

b)  Left no trace on the history of the churches they address

c)  Catholicizing terms are used 

d) Internal contradictions and discontinuities 

e) Confusion over Paul's relationship to the churches he is writing

f) Complexity and depth of the theology and ethics anachronistic for 50s CE

g) Pronounced post-Jewish Christianity of the letters could not have emerged so soon after the death of Jesus

h) Concerns addressed in the letters are anachronistic for the first century

I) Rejection of Israel in Romans 9-11 suggests period after the fall of Jerusalem

j) Persecutions mentioned in the letters were anachronistic for the 50s CE 

to which I replied:

thanks for asking this crucial question which bothered me for some years and to which I have not yet formed my opinion. However, as I write, I am working on a parallel monograph to the one by which Matthias Klinghardt reconstructed Marcion's Gospel. So far, I have gone through Galatians and 1 Corinthians up to chapter 10, if you read Greek or German, I am happy to send you the draft to that point.

But what I discovered - something that astonished myself is the following observation.

Based on our witnesses (Tertullian, Epiphanius ...) and on papyri and manuscript variations in the tradition of the Epistles, it is clear that they attest to two very different collections of Paul's letters. More on this I am publishing in the nearer future with a book by CUP, but which I am now detailing in the current study.

Marcion's collection had the known 10 Pauline letters, of which 7 are commonly regarded as authentic (except for some critiques like the Dutch radicals). There argument are heavy, though.

The question then is - what is the nature of the letters in this collection. As far as I can say today, one notices in the semantics some differences between the Pseudo-Paulines (2 Thess, Col, Laod) and the other seven letters. However, all of the 10 letters reflect such a proximity to the semantics of Marcion's Gospel, as reconstructed by Klinghardt that it looks as if we have only a few options on the one result from my initial study of Galatians and 1 Cor 1-9: the person who has written or thoroughly revised the Gospel is the same who has written or thoroughly revised the letters.

1. This person is Paul
2. This person is a student of Paul, Luke
3. This person is a later anonymous redactor
4. This person is Marcion

But more we will know when I have finished the exercise of comparing in detail the reconstructed form of Marcion's collection with that of the canonical revision.

What was the title of Marcion's collection of Paul's letters: Apostolos or Apostolikon? Wie lautete der Titel von Markions Paulusbriefsammlung, Apostolos oder Apostolikon?

The title of Marcion's collection of Paul's letters is mostly given as "Apostolikon" (so, for example, in Jason BeDuhn, The First New Testament, Polebridge 2013), but, as in one of the major studies of this work, in Ulrich Schmid ("Marion und sein Apostolos. Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe, de Gruyter 2012), it is named as "Apostolos".

Tertullian is silent about the title of this collection, but the title appears several times in Epiphanius, where it mainly given as Apostolikon, and only in passing also referred to as Apostolos. When we find the title for the first time in Epiphanius, he speaks of Marcion's Apostolikon – yet, as with the list of the letters which Marcion brought together and altered by "his cracked brain", Epiphanius mentions Ephesians, not the title under which Marcion knew and listete this letter, Laodicenes. Hence, it is clear that Epiphanius deploys polemics in characterizing the work of Marcion. And this comes to the fore also with regards the title of the work. While for Marcion Paul was the only true Apostle, Tertullian opened his commentary of Marcion's collection of Pauline letters by showing that Paul could at best be apostolic, not an Apostle, because his name cannot be found in one of the lists of Apostles in any of the Gospels, Tert., Adv. Marc. V 1. It is for the this reason, we can assume that Epiphanius also introduces the title of Marcion's collection not as "Apostolos", but rather calls it "Apostolikon" in anti-heretical polemic, Epiph., Pan. 42,10,2. A little later, he speaks of the „Apostolos“ , ibid. 42,10,3, but only in combination with "the words of the savious and those of the Apostle". Immediately after this, he speaks again of the "Apostolikon" and his own use of language shines through, ibid. 42,10,4. Most clearly, he gives the correct title "Apostolos", when in Epiph., Pan. 42,10,5-7 we read: „... other [verses] were exactly like both the Gospel and Apostle, unchanged by Marcion but capable of completely contradicting him ... to manifest the One who is plainly confessed by the apostolic writing and the proclamation of the Gospel“. The change from "Apostle" to "Apostolic" highlights again the falling into Epiphanius' own polemical style, so also in ibid. 42,11,7 (vgl. auch 42,11,9), where he accuses Marcion of, „having the letters of Paul, the Apostle“, yet not all, but just a few in his „Apostolikon“. 
One further important witness is Jerome who in his Commentary on Galatians (well informed by a whole range of earlier commentators, including various works by Origen), quotes from "Marcion's Apostolos", so Hieron., Commentaria in Epistolam ad Galatas (PL 26, 313A).
I therefore think, Ulrich Schmid has chosen the correct title of this work by calling it „Apostolos“.[1]

Der Titel von Markions Paulusbriefsammlung wird meistens mit "Apostolikon" angegeben (so etwa von Jasen BeDuhn, The First New Testament, Polebridge 2013), doch in einer der zentralen Studien dieses Werkes, in Ulrich Schmid ("Marion und sein Apostolos. Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe, de Gruyter 2012), heißt das Werk "Apostolos".

Tertullian schweigt sich über den Titel dieses Werkes aus, doch bei Epiphanius begegnet er gleich mehrmals, und zwar häufiger als Apostolikon, und nur angedeutet als Apostolos. Bei der Ersteinführung spricht Epiphanius vom Apostolikon – doch scheint hier wie auch in der ersten unten gespiegelten Liste, die Markions Laodizenerbrief als Epheserbrief einführt, Polemik im Spiel zu sein. Denn während Paulus für Markion der einzige wahre Apostel ist, hatte Tertullian in seiner Polemik in Tert., Adv. Marc. V 1 darauf verwiesen, dass Paulus bestenfalls „apostolisch“ genannt werden könne, weil er in keiner einzigen der Apostellisten der Evangelien vorkomme, also auch nicht eigentlich Apostel sei. Darum führt Epiphanius wohl den Titel als „Apostolikon“ = „das Apostolische“ an, nicht als „der Apostel“, Epiph., Pan. 42,10,2, während er erst etwas später dann einmal vom „Apostolos“ = „dem Apostel“ spricht, ibid. 42,10,3, jedoch nur in Kombination mit: „von den Worten des Retters und des Apostels“. Auch unmittelbar danach spricht er gleich wieder von dem „Apostolischen“, womit seine eigene Diktion zum Vorschein kommt, ibid. 42,10,4. Am deutlichsten wird der richtige Titel danach formuliert, da es bei Epiph., Pan. 42,10,5-7 heißt: „... andere [Verse] aber besitzt er dem Bestand nach wie das Evangelium so auch den Apostel, ohne von ihm verändert zu sein, doch geeignet, ihn zu widerlegen ... um denjenigen zu offenbaren, der offen bekannt wird von der apostolischen Schrift und der evangelischen Verkündigung“. Der Wechsel vom „Apostel“ zum „Apostolischen“ lässt erneut Epiphanius’ eigene polemische Diktion durchklingen, so auch ibid. 42,11,7 (vgl. auch 42,11,9), wo er Markion vorwirft, „die Briefe des Paulus, des Apostels“, jedoch nicht alle, sondern nur einige im „Apostolikon“ zusammengebracht zu haben.
Ein weiterer wichtiger Zeuge ist Hieronymus, der in seinem Galaterbriefkommentar (wohl belesen, indem er Kommentare und Schriften früherer Gelehrter zu Rate zog, etwa verschiedene Schriften des Origenes), und aus "Markions Apostolos" zitiert, so in Hieron., Commentaria in Epistolam ad Galatas (PL 26, 313A).
Ulrich Schmid schreibt deshalb zurecht von Markions „Apostolos“.[1]

---

[1] U. Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos. Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe (2012).