The 2024 Survey of Pauline Scholars

Bruce Longenecker has published the results of a survey of Pauline scholars taken this year regarding opinions of the “authorship” of the Pauline epistles. The results are interesting. Before we get there, however, we need to talk about this language about “authorship.”

I put “authorship” in scare quotes because the matter is more complicated than is often imagined.

Paul–like the other “authors” of the New Testament books–would not have held the pen in his own hand (except for writing simple greetings or signing his name). In Romans 16, we therefore read: “I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Rom 16:22).

Tertius, not Paul, was the one who wrote Romans. Yet no scholar disputes that Paul was essentially the “author” of the letter. So, when it comes to the “authorship” of Pauline letters, then, the question is not, “Did Paul write __________________?” He did not write any letters. But how involved was he in the writing process?

The last survey of Paul scholars that involves any “hard” data is found in an article Paul Foster wrote: “Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35/2 (2012): 150-175. The data comes from a survey conducted among “approximately 109” scholars at the meeting of the British New Testament Conference in Nottingham, September 2, 2011.

Note that here the question is simply, “Who wrote __________?” This isn’t as nuanced as one might want. Still, scholars are sophisticated enough to recognize that “write” can be meant in different ways. So I don’t think the results would look meaningfully different if the question was put differently.

A new survey, however, was conducted this year. Bruce Longenecker has released the first results on his Facebook page. He writes the following:

Here are the results he posted:

There is a lot to take in here. I’m sure this will get talked about a lot–as it should.

A couple of initial thoughts.

First, Note that the question asks about how “involved” Paul was with the different letters, not simply whether he “wrote” them.

Second, at least at first glance, what especially stands out to me about the results is the fact that Ephesians was overwhelmingly seen as in some sense an “authentic” letter of Paul: essentially 65% see Paul as involved vs. only 29% saying he was not involved with the letter. 7% were unsure. (Now, I’m no mathematician but a number seems off there–65% plus 36%? Either way, the results are surprising.)

The data here is surprising because I thought Pauline authorship of Ephesians was a very small minority view. The results of the Foster survey above would be closer to what I would expect to see.

More data will come out and much more has to be said. For now, let me say this: I really don’t think there has been some massive “shift” in scholarship. The results likely relate to the pool of respondents. But all of this raises the whole question of what “consensus” really means and how one determines what the “proper” way to survey scholars is.

My only feeling is that Colossians is much more likely to be an authentic letter of Paul than is often acknowledged. I think a major reason it has been viewed as “inauthentic” relates to the way it is read as positioning Paul as against Judaism, a reading that I would dispute. A major work that has challenged my own thinking is Lionel Windsor’s intriguing book, Reading Colossians and Ephesians after Supersessionism (Eugene: Cascade, 2017). Who knows–maybe the results in the poll reflect the idea that Windsor’s work is getting a wider hearing.

Well, one can at least hope!