Biblical & Theological Issues

by Terry L. Wilder –

Many critical scholars today think that forged letters exist in the New Testament.¹ Terms like “pseudepigraphy” or “pseudonymity” are often used to refer to such writings. A forged, pseudonymous text is not authored by the person whose name it bears and there must be the intention to deceive, from whatever motive.² Such deceptive works are written after the purported author’s death by another person or during his life by someone who is not commissioned to do so. Plenty of these writings existed in antiquity, having been created by Greek, Roman, Jewish, and even Christian writers.³

Deceptive pseudonymous writings are not the same as anonymous texts. The former works make definite claims to authorship; the latter do not. Several anonymous works exist within the New Testament. For example, the Gospels, Acts, and Hebrews do not make definite claims to authorship. That is to say, the authors of these works did not specifically identify themselves, though they were surely known to their recipients.

Strictly speaking, those New Testament works most often classified as forged or pseudonymous by biblical scholars are certain Pauline and Petrine letters and those of James and Jude⁴—namely, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, the Pastoral Epistles, 1 and 2 Peter, James and Jude. One might also note that several pseudo-apostolic works exist outside of the New Testament canon—for example, 3 Corinthians, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and the Gospel of Peter.

Pseudonymity in Greco-Roman and Jewish Writings

To promote the idea that pseudonymity as forgery exists within the canon, critics often appeal to Greco-Roman and Jewish sources. Many justify the presence of pseudonymous writings in Scripture by pointing to the practice in the Greco-Roman schools (e.g., the Pythagorean and Cynic schools). While some pseudonymity may have been customary in such settings (cf. Iamblichus, de Vita Pythagorica § 198, 158), not all school productions, perhaps most, were created acceptably in this context (cf. Diogenes Laertius 10.3). Authors of no reputation would often write using the pseudonym of an older, reputable figure in order to secure a hearing for their own works.

Specific attributions of authorship were not typically found within ancient Jewish writings.⁵ Nonetheless, deceptive pseudonymity can be found amongst the Jews. The phenomenon occurred mostly in apocalyptic writings after 200 B.C. and arguably was due to a general belief that prophetic inspiration had ceased (cf. Josephus, Against Apion 1.41; Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 11a). Evidently, like many Greco-Roman writers of little or no repute, some Jewish authors also wanted their writings to carry clout.

Jewish literature is generally not very helpful to a study of pseudepigraphy in early Christianity. The NT writings most often classified by critical scholars as pseudonymous are letters. Thus, one should look to Jewish epistolary literature to establish a precedent. Only two pseudonymous letters have come down to us from Jewish sources: the Letter of Aristeas and the Epistle of Jeremiah. The former work, strictly speaking, is not a letter because it does not occur in epistolary form. It is an apologetic narrative providing an account of the translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. The latter writing, a sermon warning the Jews against pagan idolatry, calls itself a letter and identifies its senders and addressees, but purports to be a copy of an epistle. Thus, it is not entirely comparable to NT epistles. Other pseudonymous Jewish letters exist (e.g. 1 Baruch, 2 Baruch 78-87, 1 Enoch 92-105, and some letters contained in 1 and 2 Maccabees), but such writings occur within composite, apocalyptic or narrative frameworks. These letters had a different form and function than NT epistles and are not relevant to the latter.

Nonetheless, some pseudonymous letters can be found within Christian circles. However, these epistles are few in number and unremarkable (e.g., the Letters of Christ and Abgarus, the Letter of Lentulus, the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca, the Epistle of Titus, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Epistle of the Apostles, 3 Corinthians, and the pseudo-Ignatian letters). They also do not closely resemble any NT epistles and were written at a much later date. Accordingly, scholars should not be so quick to consider the presence of forgeries in the NT because no contemporary pseudonymous writings exist which are just like the disputed NT letters.

Early Christians Knew How to Detect Forgery

Sometimes the presence of deceptive pseudepigraphy in the NT is defended with the appeal that the early church was either naïve and thus fooled into receiving forgeries into the canon, or not equipped to detect such works like we are today. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like others in antiquity, early Christians knew well how to determine whether a work was genuine or forged.

Since the time of Herodotus, historians, grammarians, and philosophers in antiquity exercised an intensive criticism of documents attributed to recognized figures, not only to determine their authenticity, but also to stop the pseudonymity of various documents from misleading others.⁶ For instance, Herodotus questioned, on the grounds of content, whether Homer authored the Cyprian poems (History 2.116-17), and he also doubted that Homer wrote the Epigonean epic (History 4.32);⁷ Ion of Chios mentions in his Triagmi that Pythagoras may have ascribed some of his own poems as verses of Orpheus (Diogenes Laertius 8.8; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.131);⁸ Aristotle doubted that Orpheus authored the Orphic poems (De Anima 1.5);⁹ Cicero generally suspected that the Sibylline utterances were neither inspired nor authentic (De Divinatione 2.85, 2.110-12, 2.116);¹⁰ Herennius Philo doubted that About the Jews was actually written by Hecataeus (Origen, Against Celsus 1.15);¹¹ and Sextus Julius Africanus questioned in his letter to Origen the authenticity of the Susanna history (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.31.1).¹²

Some of the criteria used in antiquity to decide whether a work was genuine or forged were the criticism of style, the analysis of vocabulary, the evaluation of teaching, and the discovery of anachronisms.¹³ And, early Christians were quite familiar with such methods.¹⁴ For example, Dionysius of Alexandria resolved through a comparison of style and language with the Gospel of John that Revelation was not authored by the evangelist (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.25,1-27);¹⁵ Eusebius also referred to and used these grounds when separating false apostolic writings from genuine ones (Ecclesiastical History 3.25,7);¹⁶ and Jerome concluded with the help of style criticism that 1 and 2 Peter were written by different authors.¹⁷

Early Church Evidence
Known early Christian responses to forgery or pseudepigraphy do not affirm the practice (cf. Tertullian’s comments in On Baptism 17 on the Acts of Paul; Serapion’s remarks on the Gospel of Peter recorded in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 6.12.2-4.; the reference in the Muratorian Canon to “forged” Pauline letters, etc.). The language used by early church leaders in reference to pseudonymous works clearly describes them as fraudulent and deceptive. Early Christians simply did not embrace pseudonymous works they viewed in such a pejorative manner. If discovered, they firmly rejected such writings as deceptive.

Not all critics agree. Some scholars argue that the early church was really only concerned about the content of works and not their authorship. However, this theory does not explain the exclusion from the church’s canon of several pseudonymous writings which were orthodox in their content (e.g., the Preaching of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of the Apostles, the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca, the extant Epistle to the Laodiceans, etc.).

Other critics object that the evidence of later, Gentile Christian attitudes towards pseudepigrapha and forgery is anachronistic and should not be used to judge the first-century, Jewish Christian phenomenon of pseudonymity. The fact, however, that the Jews themselves rejected pseudonymous works like 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra from the Hebrew canon helps render the latter theory untenable. Undeniably, second  century orthodox Christians strongly disapproved of pseudonymity, and it is improbable that first century Christians had a different opinion on the matter.

Even more scholars note that the church’s rejection of pseudonymity took place in a period when a great deal of heretical literature attributed to the apostles was circulating. Thus, the latter phenomenon possibly colored the way that orthodox churchmen, who were concerned about heresy, looked at all pseudonymity. The early church, however, could conceivably have responded differently—for example, by only screening the content of documents and not their authorship. Notably, the early Christians did no such thing; instead they utilized both standards when recognizing books as inspired of God and canonical. They rejected pseudonymous works explicitly written in the apostles’ names.¹⁸

New Testament Evidence
The New Testament contains passages which have a tremendous bearing on the question of pseudonymity and forgery in early Christianity. For example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 Paul warned the church against accepting the false teaching that “the day of the Lord had come.” He cautioned his readers that, no matter through what agency they had received this heresy—whether through “spirit, word, or letter”—he and his missionary associates had nothing to do with it. Paul would have objected to a pseudonymous letter being attributed to him which contained falsehood, wrong teaching, or material that he did not write. The apostle clearly puts a moratorium on pseudonymity in his name (cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:17).

The Pauline signatures in the NT (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:21; Galatians 6:11; Colossians 4:18; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Philemon 19) indicated the apostle’s use of a secretary and provided readers with a sign of his letters’ authenticity and authority. Paul would have frowned upon someone using a facsimile of his signature in a pseudonymous letter which purported to be his.

In Revelation 22:18-19 John warned that no one was to tamper with what he had written in the book by rewriting it in any way. One can extrapolate from this interpretation of these verses to somebody writing another book and falsely attributing it to him by means of pseudonymity. John would object to a pseudonymous letter being attributed to him which contained falsehood or material that he did not write. To write a pseudonymous work and attribute it to somebody is a sort of extension of tampering with an existing document. Thus, to enlarge pseudonymously an existing body of literature—for example, the Pauline corpus—by adding a few inauthentic works is to tamper with Paul’s actual writings.

The New Testament also contains several appeals for truth that are difficult to reconcile with the thinking of an author who had deliberately used pseudonymity. For example, in 1 Timothy 4:1-2, Paul warned his readers not to embrace the doctrine of “deceitful spirits” and “hypocritical liars.” In Ephesians 4:15 he instructed his readers to “speak the truth in love.” In Ephesians 4:25 he exhorted the church to “put off falsehood and speak truthfully.” In Colossians 3:9 he admonished his readers: “Do not lie to one another.” Furthermore, the Holy Spirit, who indwells every believer (1 Cor. 6:19; 12:13) and is described as the “Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17; 16:3), created an ethos in the Christian community in which pseudonymity and forgery would have been frowned upon and could not have flourished. Also, a careful study of the terms for “deception” (cf. pseudepigrapha and the entire pseud—word group) reveals that a concept of legitimate deception for the NT is difficult to support.

Internal Evidence from the New Testament

Scholars who point out that forgery was a problem in antiquity—unlike others who say that no concept of literary property existed among the ancients—follow the lead of D. Meade and others, to say that the NT contains forgeries, e.g., 1, 2 Timothy and Titus, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and 2 Peter. To defend the latter thesis, they marshal arguments against the disputed letters of the NT. Those arguments usually focus on items like: (1) a different vocabulary and style than the purported author’s style; (2) a lack of emphasis on characteristic doctrines taught by the supposed author; (2) occasional and situational details in the letters being later than the purported author’s lifetime; and (4) the letters containing historical allusions to certain details which simply cannot be placed within the book of Acts.

All such objections are answerable, as I have done in detail elsewhere.¹⁹ These arguments against the authenticity of the disputed NT letters do not consider that the variations in subject matter, occasion, purpose, and addressees may account for many of these differences. Paul, for example, also probably used specialized vocabulary to communicate clearly to his audience. Moreover, the use of a secretary by the author may explain the presence of many words and a different style in the disputed letters. Stylistic arguments tend to be quite subjective and unimpressive. Further, to suggest that only historical events recorded in the book of Acts may be considered authentic is not an adequate criterion to determine authenticity. One may easily find details in the undisputed NT letters that are not mentioned in Acts. No good reason exists to resort to pseudonymity or forgery in the NT.

Conclusion
Did the authors of certain NT books lie about their identities, using the name of an apostle in order to gain a hearing for their works or invest them with authority? No doubt pseudonymous writings were in circulation, many from Gnostic and other groups, but when discovered, they were soundly rejected by the church. For example,
Asian church elders ousted a colleague from his post for composing a forgery (cf. Tertullian, On Baptism 17). Any forgery present in the NT would have to have had escaped from the intense scrutiny of the early church.

Several factors rule against the idea that forgeries exist in the NT: (1) a lack of contemporary pseudonymous writings which are just like the disputed NT letters, (2) the fact that early Christians knew how to detect forgery, (3) the early church rejected known pseudonymous works explicitly written in the apostles’ names, and (4) evidence from the NT evidence itself.

Those who say that forgeries exist in the New Testament need to take a closer look at the evidence. The onus of proof weighs heavily upon them. The evidence we possess points to the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Terry L. Wilder is Professor of New Testament and Chair of the Biblical Studies Division at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas. He is the author of Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception (University Press of America), as well as Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (B&H Academic) and numerous other scholarly books and articles.

Notes
1 For example, most recently, Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God: Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York, NY: Harper One, 2011); and Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contributions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) (New York, NY: Harper One, 2010), 123-33
2  Motives cloud the issue. The intention to deceive is what is important. See the definition by J. D. Denniston, “Forgeries, Literary Greek I. Greek,” Oxford Classical
Dictionarym, ed. N. G. L. Hammond; 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), 444. Recent treatments of whether pseudonymity, if present in the NT, was meant to deceive have determined “Yes.” See A. D. Baum, Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum. Mit ausgewählten Quellentexten samt deutscher Übersetzung (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001); J. Duff, “A Reconsideration of Pseudepigraphy in Early Christianity” (unpublished D.Phil. thesis; Oxford University, 1998); and T. L. Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004).
3 W. Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung (Handbuch der Altertumwisssenschaft 1/2; München:
Beck, 1971); Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception, 35-74.
4 E. E. Ellis (“Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents,” in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church. Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin, ed. M. Wilkins [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], 212-224; 220) notes that only the Pauline and Petrine epistles can be classified as pseudepigrapha. He says
that the letters of James and Jude cannot be classified as such because the names of the authors (“Jude…brother of James” [Jude 1] and “James…servant of the Lord
Jesus Christ” [James 1:1] “are less precise and could refer to a number of individuals.” However, nearly all critics think that the names James and Jude refer to famous
individuals of this name and many scholars think that they are used pseudonymously.
5 Ancient Israelite literature was customarily anonymous. See Mor ton Smith, “Pseudepigraphy in the Israelite Literary Tradition,” in Pseudepigrapha I, ed. K. von Fritz (Genève: O. Revedin, 1972), 191-227.
6 Schnabel, “Kanon,” 66; Speyer, Fälschung, 114.
7 Speyer, Fälschung, 114. See Speyer (Fälschung) for a full discussion of Echtheitskritik in antiquity amongst the Greeks and Romans (112-28), the Jews (152-55), and the church fathers (179-210).
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 123.
11 Ibid., 152, 160.
12 Ibid., 153.
13 Schnabel, “Kanon,” 66.
14 Ibid., 184. Speyer examines some of the criteria used in the Echtheitskritik of the church fathers which included: style and language (181-83), and chronology and other criteria (184-86). Newer criteria involved the lack of attestation by the apostolic church (186-90) and the absence of inspiration (190-92).
15 Ibid., 182. Many agree (e.g., W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the NT [Nashville: Abingdon, 1975], 471), however, that Dionysius is writing in connection against the
apocalyptic doctrine of chiliasm, and thus says that Revelation was written by a John other than the apostle John; Dionysius wants to establish the dissimilarities
between Revelation on the one hand, and the Gospel and Epistle of John on the other (cf. Eusebius, Eccl Hist 7.25,27).
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid. Speyer notes that Jerome then attempted to clarify the differences of style and language with the explanation that Peter may have had different interpreters.
18 Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception, 123-47.
19 For example, see Terry L. Wilder, “Pseudonymity and the New Testament,” in Interpreting the New Testament, eds. D. A. Black and D. S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman
& Holman, 2001), 296-335.

(First published in the Areopagus Journal Vol. 12 No. 2 – Who Wrote the Bible?)