The caption is “Paul Writing His Epistles,” but he really had an amanuensis.  (See Romans 16:22.)

 

The New Testament reading in the Daily Office for Saturday December 13 is from Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians 3:6-18.  (If you’re puzzled about that see What’s a DOR?)

Here’s what Paul said in 2d Thessalonians 3:17:  “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.  This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.”  On that note, here’s what “Pulpit Commentary” said about Paul writing one of the verses in his own hand:

The apostle usually dictated his Epistles to an amanuensis, but wrote the concluding words with his own hand.  Thus Tertius was his amanuensis when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 16:22).  [See also (Galatians 6:11), (Philemon 1:19), (1 Corinthians 16:21), and Colossians 4:18)…]   Such authentication was especially necessary in the case of the Thessalonians, as it would seem that a forged epistle had been circulated among them…

See the parallel commentaries in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting (emphasis added, with (2 Thessalonians 2:2 cited as to a possible forgery:  “Now we request you, brethren … that you not be … disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us.”)

I briefly discussed amanuenses in the notes to On the readings for August 31- Part II, citing among other sources Amanuensis – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  But it seems that such amanuenses may have played a much larger role in writing the Bible.

See for example Were Some Of The Biblical Books Actually Written By A Scribe, which gave a positive “yes” answer:  “In the ancient world many books were written by a person dictating his thoughts to a scribe.”  The author noted the prophet Jeremiah dictated to his secretary Baruch, and that Paul too dictated his letters, noting the “seal of authenticity” given in 2d Thessalonians 3:17, noted above.  The article then noted that even though Paul himself “did not actually do the physical writing,” that had “nothing to do with the divine inspiration of the finished product…   [T]he key is where did the words originate – not who put them down in written form.”

But see also SamuelMartin: The Amanuensis in Scripture:

It should come as no surprise to us … that not every word purported to appear in certain books was written by the original author whose name may appear on the book.  A very simple example of this concerns the death of Moses, which is referenced in a narrative text found in Deuteronomy 34.  While this text is certainly a part of the Mosaic body literature … it is clear that this text is added by some type of an authorized secretarial figure.  This is just one place where we find this phenomenon taking place. (E.A.)

Martin said it appears “whole books which bear the names of certain persons” were in fact written by others, “known as “amanuenses.”   Then too the article The Authorship of Second Peter | Bible.org says Second Peter is a prime example of so-called pseudepigrapha:

Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible…   The result of this debate is that 2 Peter is concluded by most critical scholars to be pseudepigraphal literature.  But the evangelical world rejects the critics’ claims.  Conservatives say this has serious ramifications for the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy.  The critics, on the other hand, claim this was standard procedure and therefore not dishonest. (E.A.)

See also Pseudepigrapha – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which said the term can apply to either:   1) falsely attributed works, or  2) texts whose claimed author is represented by a separate author, or  3) a work “whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past.”

I talked about the idea that – to some people – every word of the Bible must be taken as literally true in On snake-handling, Fundamentalism and suicide – Part II, in On broadminded, spelled “s-i-n”, and in On dissin’ the Prez.  (The latter post also raises the possible issue of “selective enforcement” by some…)   I also discussed the more reasonable approach – promoted by such scholars as John R. W. Stott – in On Job, the not-so-patient, which noted this:

“…requiring every word of the Bible to be inerrant” brings to mind what Jesus said in Matthew 23:4, as He chastised the scribes and Pharisees.  The Easy-to-Read translation says … that such people “make strict rules that are hard for people to obey.  They try to force others to obey all their rules.  But they themselves will not try to follow any of those rules.”

All of which is another way of saying it’s always easier to follow the letter of any given law, rather than trying to follow its “life-giving spirit,” as people like Isaac Asimov have noted:

The priesthood, then as always, was primarily interested in the minutiae of ritual.  This was something that could easily be followed by anyone and generally presented no difficulties.  It might be a tedious way of gaining God’s favor, but it was not really painful…  The prophets, however, were likely to disdain ritual and to insist, instead, on a high ethical code of behavior, something that could present serious difficulties…  (E.A.)

Asimov wrote about the prophet Isaiah, but other prophets who shared the same idea included one Jesus of Nazareth, as noted in Woes of the Pharisees – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  “The woes mostly criticise the Pharisees for hypocrisy and perjury.  They illustrate the differences between inner and outer moral states.”

Which brings up the question of inspiration and inerrancy, noted above:  Can the Bible inspire you if you must believe – on pain of hellfire and damnation – that every word in that Bible is inerrant?   Most people would say “probably not,” which is one of the themes of this blog.

Another theme is that you can get far more out of the Bible by approaching it with an open mind, and on occasion even “suspending disbelief.”  (See On “Titanic” and suspending disbelief:  “Consider the person who viewed the movie [“Titanic”] with a closed mind.  A person unwilling – even for a moment – to suspend disbelief.  A person who simply had to believe that everything in the movie had to be 100% accurate…  Wouldn’t that viewer just be short-changing himself?“)

So one way of wrapping up this post would be to say that for a person of deep faith – a faith based on a personal experience of God working in his life, rather than on some courtroom “inerrancy” – it wouldn’t matter if Peter literally wrote the “second letter” attributed to him, or if someone other than Moses wrote Chapter 34 of the Book Deuteronomy attributed to him.

On a possibly-related note, here’s what Will Durant said about Aristotle, whose list of written works is widely deemed as legendary. (For a complete list see Corpus Aristotelicum):

[I]t is possible that the writings attributed to Aristotle were not his, but were largely the compilations of students and followers who embalmed the unadorned substance of his lectures in their notes…   About this matter there rages a sort of Homeric question, of almost epic scope, into which the busy reader will not care to go, and on which a modest student will not undertake to judge.  We may at all events be sure that Aristotle is the spiritual author of all these books that bear his name: that the hand may be in some cases another’s hand, but that the head and heart are his. (E.A.)

So to sum up:  “Who knows?  In a sense we may all be God’s ‘amanuenses.’  As has been said, ‘The  key is where did the words originate – not who put them down in written form.’   And if that’s true then it doesn’t matter who gets the credit, as long as God gets the glory…”

 

The upper image is courtesy of Epistle to the Romans – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the caption:  “A 17th-century depiction of Paul Writing His Epistles. [Romans] 16:22 indicates that Tertius acted as his amanuensis.”

The lower image is courtesy of www.catholic-convert.com/blog/2012/01/11/meet-st-paul-as-he-writes-to-the-romans, which included this description of Paul dictating:

Sweat was beading up on his bald head and thick eyebrows.  His pointed beard wagged as he paced the stone floor speaking rapidly.  His dark eyes flashed, his hands gesticulated in rhythm with his rapid utterance…   Tertius struggled to keep up, his quill scratching rapidly across the parchment.  After hours of dictation and careful refinement this letter was rolled up and given into the hands of Phoebe who boarded a wooden merchant vessel heading for the hub of the Empire.  The words were Greek, written from the Greek city of Corinth, dictated by a Jew of the Hebrew religion and sent to Latin Rome.

As to the “challenged” authorship of Second Peter, see also Second Epistle of Peter – Wikipedia.

The Asimov quote is from Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (Two Volumes in One),  Avenel Books (1981), at page 527. 

The Durant quote is from The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant, Washington Square Press (“Pocket Books”), 1953, at page 57.  See also Aristotle – Wikipedia:  “His writings cover many subjects – including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theater, music, rhetoric, linguistics, politics and government – and constitute the first comprehensive system of Western philosophy.”