The Pauline epistles are the thirteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle.

There is strong consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.

Several additional letters bearing Paul's name are disputed among scholars, namely Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether or not Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are genuine letters of Paul. The remaining four contested epistles – Ephesians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) – have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.While seven of, 1972), 124-28. the letters traditionally attributed to Paul (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are routinely accepted as authentic in modern scholarship, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, and Titus remain disputed. For a relatively recent overview, see MacDonald, Margaret T. "The Deutero-Pauline Letters in Contemporary Research," in The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 258-279. Some scholars have proposed that Paul may have used an amanuensis, or secretary, in writing the disputed letters,Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection. Downers Grove, IL; Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press; Apollos, 2004. Or even that Paul's frequent co-authors (i.e. Timothy, Silas, and Sosthenes) contributed to the style/theology of some of the Pauline epistles: Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 55-97. or that the letters may have come from followers writing in Paul's name, using material from his surviving letters and letters written by him that no longer survive.

There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul's name apart from the New Testament epistles, the Epistle to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is actually anonymous, but it has been traditionally attributed to Paul.Though Hebrews was almost certainly not written by Paul, it was adopted into the Pauline corpus from a very early date, including the third century CE Chester Beatty Papyrus (P46). Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1989), 1. The Church Father Origen of Alexandria rejected the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, instead asserting that, although the ideas expressed in the letter were genuinely Pauline, the letter itself had actually been written by someone else.[Origen of Alexandria, quoted by] Eusebius of Alexandria. Ecclesiastical History 6.25. Most modern scholars generally agree that Hebrews was not written by the apostle Paul. Various other possible authorships have been suggested.The most famous of which argues for Lukan authorship. For a survey, see: Lewis, David A. "The Authorship of Hebrews: Historical Survey of the Lukan Theory." Criswell Theological Review 8, no. 2 (2011): 3-18.

On the letters where scholars are divided on Pauline authorship, scholars have relied on internal arguments (e.g. style, vocabulary, subject matter) which tend to be subjective, rather than external and historical evidences (e.g. extant manuscripts, reception of ancient authors, early canonical lists, letter titles, early translation collections of the New Testament). Early Christians consistently rejected forged writings and pseudepigraphers were unlikely to succeed since such writings did not circulate extensively compared to the writings contained in the New Testament, which have external evidence of being recognized as Pauline directly or indirectly.

Criteria used by scholars Scholars use a number of methods of historiography and higher criticism to determine whether a text is properly attributed to its author. The primary methods used for Paul's letters are the following:

Internal evidence Internal evidence consists of what the author states about himself in the letter, either explicitly the author clearly identifies himself or implicitly provides autobiographical details. This evidence is important in spite of its problems. For example, because the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews never identified himself, scholars as early as Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century suspected that Paul was not the author.

External evidence External evidence consists of references, again either explicit or implicit, to the text, especially during earliest times by those who had access to reliable sources now lost.

Explicit references would be mentioning the text or letter by name, or referencing a recognizable form of that text. Examples include a list of accepted biblical books, such as the Muratorian fragment, or the contents of an early manuscript, such as Papyrus 46. These witnesses are often either damaged or too late in date to provide much help.

Implicit references are quotations from Paul (especially indirect or unattributed), or expressions of ideas and phrases that appear in his works. This use or reference implies the material quoted was in existence at the time the external evidence was created. For example, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is named by Irenaeus in the mid-2nd century, as well as by Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch; it is considered unlikely for the surviving version of this letter to have been written after this time. On the other hand, lack of witness by ancient sources suggests a later date – an argument from silence. However, use of this line of reasoning is dangerous, because of the incompleteness of the historical record: many ancient texts are lost, damaged, have been revised or possibly contrived.

Historical setting An independently written narrative of Paul's life and ministry, found in the Acts of the Apostles, is used to determine the date, and possible authorship, of Pauline letters by locating their origin within the context of his life. For example, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner in his Epistle to Philemon 1:7; based on this statement, J. A. T. Robinson argued that this captivity was Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea,pg 61 of while W. M. Ramsay identified this as Paul's captivity in Rome, pg. 357. while others have placed the captivity in Ephesus.

One difficulty with this position is the limited data available on Paul's historical setting, and this is especially true with the conclusion of the narrative of Acts prior to Paul's death. It also assumes that the book of Acts was written by an actual traveling companion of Paul's. Recent scholarship challenges the validity of using the Acts of the Apostles to determine anything about Pauline letters. Borg and Crossan cautiously comment that "the author of Acts was not concerned with factual inerrancy";Borg and Crossan, The First Paul. HarperOne, New York. p 22. Dewey et al. note in similar vein that "in much of Acts as a whole, Luke gives us historical fiction rather than an historical report." They therefore "recommend against using Acts, either as a whole or in part, as a historical source for Paul's career".Dewey et al, The Authentic Letters of Paul. Polebridge Press, Salem, Oregon, 2010. pp 13 and 166.

Paul's use of secretaries

A number of scholars have argued that from biographic details from Paul, he likely suffered from some physical impediment such as vision loss or damaged hands and Paul does explicitly state, or even names, in multiple epistles that he used secretaries (or amenuenses), which was a common practice in the Greco-Roman world; potentially explaining the epistles that are seemingly non-Pauline. Paul used scribal secretaries and may have had a team of readers, which adds layers to how Paul's letters were composed.

Language and style Vocabulary, sentence structure, employment of idioms and common phrases, etc. are analyzed for consistency with the author's other known works. A similar style implies common authorship, while a radically divergent vocabulary implies different authors. For example, E. J. Goodspeed argued that the vocabulary of the Epistle to the Ephesians showed a literary relationship with the First Epistle of Clement, written around the end of the 1st century., vii. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 35. dates 1 Clement to the last few decades of the first century CE. Similarly, E. Percy argued that the speech and style of Colossians more strongly resembled Pauline authorship than not.E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser und Epheserbriefe (1964), 66. Of course, style and language can vary for reasons other than differing authorship, such as the subject of the letter, the recipient, the circumstances of the times, a different amanuensis, or simply maturation on the part of the author.

Contents and theology Similar to internal evidence, doctrinal consistency and development are examined against the author's other known works. Theological themes like the eschaton or the Mosaic Law could reappear in different works, but in a similar manner. A consistent point of view implies a common author; contradictory or unrelated teachings imply multiple authors. For example, W. Michaelis saw the Christological likeness between the Pastoral Epistles and some of Paul's undisputed works, and argued in favor of Pauline authorship.W. Michaelis Pastoralbriefe und Gefangenschaftsbriefe (1930) pp. 99-100. More recently, some, such as Linda Belleville, "Christology, Greco-Roman Religious Piety, and the Pseudonymity of the Pastoral Letters," in Paul and Pseudepigraphy ed. Stanley E. Porter and G.P Fewster (PAST 8; Ledien: Brill, 2013), 221-44, have downplayed the differences between the Pastorals and "authentic epistles." A problem with this method is analyzing the coherence of a body of diverse and developing teachings. This is seen in the disagreement between scholars. For example, with the same epistles mentioned above, B. S. Easton argued their theological notions disagreed with other Pauline works and rejected Pauline authorship.B.S. Easton, The Pastoral Epistles (1948) p. 25. This is the conclusion of Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery G. Lohfink argued the theology of the Pastoral Epistles agreed with Paul's, but took this as proof someone wishing to enjoy the authority of an apostle copied the famous church leader.G. Lonhfink, Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption der Pastoralbrief, in Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spatschriften ed. K. Kertelge, (1981) pp. 70–121. A similar argument was put forth by P.N. Harrison's The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (1921).

Undisputed epistles

The name "undisputed" epistles represents the scholarly consensus asserting that Paul authored each letter.

The undisputed letters are:

Romans First Corinthians Second Corinthians Galatians Philippians First Thessalonians Philemon

These seven letters are quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and are included in every ancient canon, including that of Marcion ().Bruce, F.F. The History of New Testament Study, Marshall, I. Howard, (ed.), New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, 1977, Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, revised 1979. . p.23 There is no record of scholarly doubt concerning authorship until the 19th century when, around 1840, German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur accepted only four of the letters bearing Paul's name as genuine, which he called the Hauptebriefe (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians). Hilgenfeld (1875) and H. J. Holtzmann (1885) expanded Baur's four into seven, by adding Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians.

Nowadays, few scholars argue against this list of seven epistles, which all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary and style. They also exhibit a uniformity of doctrine concerning the Mosaic Law, Christ, and faith.