D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, in their “Introduction to the
New Testament” (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan ©2005), discuss issues of
pseudonymity and pseudipigraphy (“the practice of ascribing written works to
someone other than the author”), as these issues have been brought up in
connection with the canon of the New Testament. They say, “although ‘pseudonymity’
and ‘pseudepigraphy’ are today used almost synonymously, only the latter term
has been traced back to antiquity…. By what criteria do scholars decide that a
document makes false claims regarding its authorship?—its bearing on New Testament interpretation arises
from the fact that a majority of contemporary scholars hold that some of the
New Testament books are pseudonymous. The list of ostensibly pseudonymous books
varies considerably, but a broad consensus would label Ephesians and the
Pastoral Epistles (attributed to Paul) pseudepigraphical, as well as 2 Peter
(attributed to Peter). Some would add other books: Colossians, 2 Thessalonians,
1 Peter (337).
Here are a couple of working definitions:
Pseudonymity: Works that are
falsely named.
Pseudipigraphy: Works that are
falsely attributed.
Literary Forgeries: Works written
or modified with the intent to deceive.
Anonymity: No formal claim is made
to authorship (e.g., Matthew, John, and Hebrews are all anonymous).
Even though some New Testament writings are said to be
pseudepigraphical (and that case is not proven), it is clear that many scholars
consider all of the potentially pseudepigraphical works in the NT to be
authentic. On a case-by-case basis, there is very good attestation for each of
the individual books. For
example:
• The Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus): While these are
held by some to have been written pseudonymously, according to Thomas
Schreiner, recent commentators who have defended their authenticity include
J.N.D. Kelly, Joachim Jeremias, Donald Guthrie, Gordon Fee, George Knight III,
Philip Towner, L.T. Johnson, and William Mounce.
• Ephesians: Harold Hoehner traces sources historically and, as
Carson and Moo say, “his detailed work demonstrates that [Raymond] Brown’s
assertion that 70-80% of scholars have adopted the view that this letter was
not written by Paul is impressively mistaken.”
• 2 Peter: According to Scrheiner, “if one were inclined to doubt the
authenticity of any letter in the New Testament, it would be 2 Peter. … Indeed,
Petrine authorship is still the most credible position,” and he begins with 16
pages of analysis to say why this letter is authentic (“1, 2 Peter, Jude”, The
New American Commentary, Vol 37, Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers ©2003,
pgs 260-276).
Schreiner goes further: “I am persuaded that evidence is
lacking that any canonical document is actually pseudonymous” (pg 273). He
cites R.L. Donelson, “Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral
Epistles,” saying “there is no evidence that pseudonymous documents were ever
accepted as authoritative.”
* * *
Some of what I’m about to cite from Carson and Moo has a
direct relation to the process of canonization, that is, determining whether or
not a writing was to be included in the Canon of the New Testament.
“About the middle of the second
century AD, pseudonymous Christian works began to multiply, often associated
with a great Christian leader. We are not here concerned with works that
purport to tell us about esteemed Christian figures without making claims as to
authorship, but only with those that are clearly pseudepigraphical. Some of
these are apocalypses (e.g., the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of Paul);
some are gospels (e.g., Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, which is really no
gospel at all, but mostly a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus). Several
are letters claiming to be written by Paul: 3 Corinthians, Epistle to the
Alexandrians, Epistle to the Laodicians. The latter was almost certainly
written to provide the document mentioned in Colossians 4:16. It is a brief and
rough compilation of Pauline phrases and passages (primarily from Philippians).
The largest collection of pseudonymous epistles from the early period of the
church’s history is the set of fourteen letters of correspondence between the
apostle Paul and Seneca. They are referred to by both Jerome (De vir. ill. 12)
and Augustine (Epist. 153). The Muratorian Canon (c. AD 170-200) refers to the
Epistle to the Alexandrians and the Epistle to the Laodiceansas “both forged in
Paul’s name (Mur. Can. 64-65) and thus will not allow them to be included (“Introduction
to the New Testament,” 341).
Regarding the process of determining the Canon, the case may
be pressed further. According to Schreiner:
Paul specifically criticized false
writings in his name in 2 Thess 2:2 and ensured the authenticity of the letter
in 2 Thess 3:17 . The author of Acts of
Paul and Thecla was defrocked as bishop even though he wrote out of love
for Paul (Tertullian, De Bapt. 17).
In addition, Gospel of Peter was
rejected in A.D. 180 in Antioch because the author claimed to be Peter and was
not. Serapion the bishop said, “For our part, brethren, we both receive Peter and
the other apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names
we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us”
(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.12 .1-6 ).
Evidence that early Christians accepted pseudepigraphic documents as
authoritative Scripture is completely lacking. Some argue that Acts of Paul and Thecla and Gospel of Peter were only rejected for
deviant teaching, not for pseudepigraphy. But both of the texts [cited] say
otherwise, specifically indicting the writers for falsely ascribing the
writings to another. Bauckham sees a parallel in Hebrews where the theology
dreives from Paul but a disciple wrote it. The parallel is not apt, bof no
author is named in Hebrews. The Muratorian Canon rejected Letter to the Laodicians and Letter
to the Alexandrians because they were suspected to be forgeries. Origen
says that he rejects Doctrine of Peter since it was “not included among the
books of the Church and … not a writing of Peter nor of any one else inspired
by the Spirit of God. (Schreiner, 270-271).
Most recently, Michael Kruger wrote:
Typical arguments [for pseudonymity
in NT books] from literary style, vocabulary, and the like tend to be
inconclusive, subjective, and, in the end, unpersuasive. It seems that there
are many factors that could explain such stylistic differences other than a
pseudonymous author, such as the author writing at a different time in his
life, under different circumstances, and with different goals and different
audiences, even drawing on earlier preformed traditions. All of these factors
woud imply different vocabulary, varied themes, and a distinctive authorial
tone. Moreover, there is always the possibility that authors used an amanuensis
at some points and not others—which could be an additional explanation of
stylistic differences. (Michael J. Kruger, “Canon
Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books”,
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books © 2012).
Carson and Moo say, “all sides agree ... that pseudepigraphy
was common in the ancient world.” They also cite Donelson, saying “‘No one ever
seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically
prescriptive which was known to be forged. I do not know a single example.’
This is virulently the case in early Christian circles” (342).
No comments:
Post a Comment