Pseudonymity? Pseudepigraphy? Pseudo*.*?

--could the New Testament letters be such?

---

(Rewritten: Oct 2002--Oct 29) | Summary | Part One: Pre-Easter Data and Discussion

---

Continuing from Part One…we now ask these questions of the Post-Easter historical period:

3. Do we have any literary or historical evidence that high pseudox was acceptable in the NT period (30-80 AD)?
   
   
4. Do we have any indication of how this practice might have been viewed by Christians in the 50-150 AD period?
   
   
5. Do the post-150 AD statements (and perhaps, behavior) by the Fathers indicate that the practice is acceptable?

…………………………………………………………………………

THREE: Do we have any literary or historical evidence that high pseudox was acceptable in the NT period (30-80 AD)?

There are two separate issues in here--(1) what do we mean by 'acceptable' and (2) where do we look for pseudox in this period?

The first issue is one of 'how acceptable was pseudox' to these people, and it falls neatly into two categories: (1) acceptability to an author, and (2) acceptability to recipients.

The second one of these (recipients) is the easiest to answer, since the record is uniform throughout all of ancient history. We have already quoted Donelson:

"In fact, in many cases the contrary can be demonstrated. 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. We have instead innumerable examples of the opposite. Both Greeks and Romans show great concern to maintain the authenticity of their collections of writings from the past, but the sheer number of pseudepigrapha made the task difficult. When the great libraries emerged, hungry for documents from famous writers, the temptation to forgery was great, so that philosophic, historical, and religious literature all suffered from the onslaught of forgeries. But, even though the literary world was inundated by pseudepigrapha, we have no known instance of a pseudepigraphon recognized as such which acquired prescriptive and proscriptive authority as well. If discovered, it was rejected. The same holds true in Christian circles. As Candlish has pointed out, "no writing known as pseudepigraphical was ever accepted as authoritative in the early church". The history of the New Testament canon illustrates this clearly. The Muratorian canon for instance rejects both the Letter to the Laodiceans and the Letter to the Alexandrians since they were suspected of being forgeries. Eusebius frequently employs this criterion for rejecting writings."

"We are forced to admit that in Christian circles pseudonymity was considered a dishonorable device and , if discovered, the document was rejected and the author, if known, was excoriated." [HI:PEAPE:10-12, 16]

And we noted before, this is a strong statement, which no amount of discussion about 'trends' and 'mindsets' can overturn. If the false claim was detected, it was rejected. End of statement.

Now the question of "acceptability" to an author is more complicated, since obviously SOME authors resorted to it--Jewish and Graeco-Roman. Old Testament Pseudox ([OTP]) continued to be written, and G-R pseudox had a long history…

But the Graeco-Roman practice of pseudepigrapha was definitely aimed at deception, even in the philosophical arena. The examples given by Donelson of bogus Platonic writings, and fake Cynic-Socratic works are decisive. The writers invented 'history' and mundane personal details about their leader/founder, clearly to deceive, in an attempt to convince readership that said leader was personable, or was esposing the forger's personal beliefs, or in cases, authenticating a later forgery! Was it morally acceptable to the authors? At some obvious level--Yes. They clearly believed in the 'noble lie', and that their positions were important enough to lie about.

But notice that there is an implicit recognition by the authors herein that the recipients will perhaps have a different moral attitude toward their writings--especially if the forgery is detected! They often go to great pains to authenticate the document, showing how important it was for the deception to succeed. Remember, if the attempt to deceive was unsuccessful, the piece was uniformly rejected--recipients obviously did not feel 'comfortable' with pseudox.

Jewish pseudox also was still being written in our pre-80ad period, but so were anonymous writings. But, as with earlier OTP, these works were apparently not understood as pseudox--they were accepted as being written by the Enoch, the Abraham, or the Isaiah within the text. (There is some overlap, in my opinion, between these forms and encomiastic writings, especially in the Testaments. I suspect some of the readers recognized the moral/exhortation nature of SOME of the pseudox, and correspondingly would NOT have actually attributed the writing to the presumed author…But I cannot prove that now, nor can I actually investigate it here.)

But did the writers of the first-century OTP believe it was 'morally acceptable' to do so? Again, the answer is probably somewhere around 'yes'--they may have felt that their version of truth needed either (a) disguise and/or (b) bolstering in authority.

It is interesting that past researchers in OTP called it 'sectarian literature', because it seemed to take a combative stance against some 'incumbent orthodoxy'. The one-upmanship of Enoch over Moses, for example, required some pre-Mosaic voice. The fact that in the running gun-battle between the Enochian lit and Ben Sira BOTH protagonists portray themselves as 'wise' and 'scribes', shouting "MY revealed wisdom is greater than YOUR revealed wisdom", suggests that issues of whose interpretation of previously revealed wisdom was 'legally binding' were catalytic in producing such 'guerilla literature'.

We will see the same thing later in Christian pseudox--it is "sectarian" resorting to 'marginal tactics' to unseat the incumbent:

• "Besides these [OTP], there are numerous other specifically Christian pseudepigraphical writings that include gospels, various acts attributed to apostles, epistles, and apocalypses. This literature is mostly sectarian and appears to appeal to an apostle's name in order to find acceptance in segments of the Christian community." [FCBC:285]
• "By the 2nd century ad a canon of Christian writings had come into existence which, although lacking formal codification (except in the case of Marcion), was nevertheless real and authoritative. There were pseudonymous counterparts to all 4 types of NT literature—Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Apocalypses. The majority of these sprang from heretical sources, and in these cases the use of the pseudonymous device is transparent. Esoteric doctrines outside the theology of orthodoxy sought support by the theory that secret teachings had been handed down to the initiates of a particular sect but had been hidden from others. The production of pseudonymous apostolic writings was thus made easy. Since the interval separating the assumed author from the real author was not as great as in the majority of Jewish writings of this character, it did not stretch the credulity of the readers too much to be told that some new writing was in fact an apostolic production, assuming that they were ignorant of its true source." [NBD, Guthrie, 'pseudox'; note the smallness of the 'gap' means the writings were more forgery-like than pseudox-like.]

It is interesting to note, however, that pseudoxy practice did not "spread" outside of this specialized community. Mainstream non-fictional/non-novelistic Jewish works were either anonymous (Qumran, 1 & 2 Macc) or 'reliably ascribed' (Ben Sira, Philo). Even though the theology and content of the Enochian/Apocalytic groups had 'infiltrated' the common Judaism(s) of the first-century, there is (a) no evidence that their writing practices did; and (b) positive evidence that their 'pseudepigraphy' was not recognized as such (in other words, they were 'fooled' thereby).

In the pre-80 non-canonical Christian writings, they are similarly anonymous (Didache, Barnabas) or reliably ascribed (I Clement). (Note: I now accept the 'new' earlier dating of I Clement to 69-70ad, by Ellis, Robinson, Henderson, Edmundson. See [NT:MNTD:280n236 for biblio.]) And, since the gospels and Hebrews are anonymous, they offer further evidence that pseudoxy practice had not "spread much" outside of its original circle.

Now, before we actually look at the NT literature, we should note one other thing about the practice of attribution in this period

Attribution in this period.

One of the interesting things about the first centuries BC and AD, is a growing attention to the accuracy of attributions. This shows up in a number of places, and seems to receive an increased emphasis in the period.

A. We can see this present in G-R in the letters of Cicero (106-42 BC):

"In the Orator (29) he [Cicero] had incorrectly attributed some lines of Aristophanes to Eupolis and asked Atticus to rectify the mistake quickly in all copies (Att. 12.6a.1)." [HI:SSGTGLL:24]

B. We see it in the Jewish apocrypha:

"In Hammel's observation, the use of introductory formulae (of citations of scripture) is a historical development, becoming common only in the later first century BCE, accompanied by a closer conformity to the biblical text." [OT:SQVP:147]

(We don't see introductory formula in pseudox, though, since "the use of introductory formulae served to emphasize the distinction between canonical and non-canonical texts…" Hoffman, cited at [OT:SQVP:147n11])

"And though the Israelite literary tradition was characterized by anonymity, the influence of Greek culture brought the concept into Judaism in the Hellenistic era. This is evident, for example, in the ready acknowledgment that the writer of 2 Maccabees makes to the five volumes of Jason of Cyrene (2 Macc 2.23) and in the sensitivities regarding false attribution in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and Revelation 22:18." [NT:DictLNT, s.v. "Pseudepigraphy", J. D. G. Dunn]

C. We might see it already in Rabbinic traditional methods (although, it can be hazardous to retro-ject this material into the pre-NT times), in which attribution to a teacher was important:

"The rabbinic literature abounds in named attributions. The frequency of this feature is consistent with the importance given to it…Rabbinic teachers often reveal their desire to be quoted on different occasions. Some texts even claim that the deceased teachers continue to exhibit their influence-"to make their lips move in the grave" (b. Yebam. 97a) only when other teachers mention them by name as the ones who originally uttered a certain teaching. A late statement in m. 'Abot 6:6 represents a broad consensus:

Whosoever says a word in the name of the one who said it brings deliverance to the world.

"This is not an isolated occurrence. It is in harmony with what we often find in the Talmud and elsewhere." [HI:JTOT:137]

The other passages which repeat this are:

· R. Eleazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: Whoever reports a saying in the name of its originator brings deliverance to the world, as it says, And Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai. (b. Meg. 15a)

· Rather what the [teacher of our Mishnah] tells us is merely that the first Tanna [whose opinion is expressed anonymously] is R. Jose; for whosoever reports a thing in the name of him that said it brings deliverance into the world, as it is said: And Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai. (b. Hullin 104b)

· Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna? — It is this that we were informed: Who is the first Tanna? R. Jose; for he who repeats a thing in the name of him who said it brings deliverance into the world. (b. Nid 19b)

But even here, the preference is for anonymity, followed by precise attribution (if possible):

· "Whatever the exact age of these anonymous statements, their presence within the rabbinic corpora shows that certain teaching spoke for itself, independently of any special teacher." [HI:JTOT:138]

· "First we should note that in the Mishnah, the ascription of a statement to a particular named sage marks that statement as a minority opinion. Rulings cited as the opinion of "the sages" in general are more authoritative. But rulings cited anonymously are understood to be the ruling of the Mishnah itself and are the most authoritative . Thus, in the Mishnah, anonymity confers authority, contrary to what we find in pseudepigraphy where false attribution to some specific, well-known and highly respected personality is generally used to increase the authority of a literary work, statement or idea.

"This practice, though limited primarily to the Mishnah which seems to be a particularly apodictic work is curious in light of the generally high regard the sages express for the precise attribution of rabbinic statements. This is exemplified in sayings such as "Whoever cites a statement in the name of the one who said it, brings redemption to the world" (m. 'Abot 6:6:) and "Whoever cites a tradition according to the one who said it, should imagine the "tradent" standing in front of him." j. Shab. 1:2 [3a]). The actual practice of citing rulings in the presence of a sage to whom it was attributed could, however, lead to disagreement, as a passage from the Tosefta (t. Mak. 1:3) demonstrates:

Concerning a document dated on a day that turns out to have been a Shabbat or the tenth of Tishre [Yom Kippur, when of course writing is prohibited], R. Yehudah rules that the document is valid and R. Yosi rules that the document is invalid. R. Yehudah said to him [to R. Yosi]. Such a case came before you in Sepphoris and you ruled that the document was valid. Rabbi Yosi replied: "I did not rule it valid. But if I did, I did"

"What is remarkable here, and elsewhere in rabbinic literature, is the candid way in which the sages discuss the problem of unreliable attribution. For example, a passage in the Palestinian Talmud relates that when R. Abbahu wanted to teach his daughter Greek, he was accused of simply attributing to R. Yohanan a ruling that this practice was permitted. Despite R. Abbahu's disclaimer that he did indeed receive this teaching directly from R. Yohanan, there seems to have been doubt as to whether R. Yohanan made such a ruling." [HI:PPAPLDSS:32f]

Notice this last paragraph. Here is an attribution that is contested by the other rabbi's. "If it is detected (or strongly suspected), it is rejected" seems to show up in the Rabbinics as well.

Bergman (who argues FOR pseudox in the rabbinics) refers to Talmun, "who cites seven instances in with Rav Ashi's opinions are rejected by the anonymous editors of the Babylonian Talmud with the expression (…) which seems to mean 'false, forged, fictional, or untrue.' The comment in the Steinsalz edition of b. Pes. 11a says this: "the intent is to say that Rav Ashi never said these statements, but that someone attributed them to him". [HI:PPAPLDSS:33, n.29]

We might also note that this phrase shows up many times in the Talmud, and the Soncino note at b. BM 9a is instructive: "The word used in describing R. Abbahu's error occurs in several places in the Talmud. It is regarded as a courteous substitute for other terms which might be used in refuting wrong decisions, but which would appear derogatory to the dignity of the Rabbis who committed the error. The term is associated with the word, meaning something external, which does not fit in, and which is therefore rejected. In other places, however, (such as Pes. 11a; B.B. 145a) the rendering is an invention, an unfounded assertion.]

Here are a couple of the passages (with the phrase translated somewhat differently depending on the meaning):

· "Rather, said Raba: R. Judah is not self-contradictory, as we have answered. The Rabbis too are not self-contradictory: he himself is seeking it in order to burn it, shall he then eat thereof! R. Ashi said: R. Judah is not self-contradictory, [for] we learned, ‘flour and parched corn’, But this [answer] of R. Ashi is a fiction: this is well from [the time when it is] parched ears and onwards; ‘but from the beginning until it is parched corn, what can be said? And should you answer, [It is gathered] by plucking, as Raba [answered], then what can be said of [what we learnt that] ‘one may reap an artificially irrigated field and [the corn in] the valleys’, which we established as [agreeing with] R. Judah? Hence R. Ashi's [answer] is a fiction. (b. Pesch 11.a)

· "Said R. Ashi: R. Oshaia's interpretation may be represented by the simile of a man who guards an orchard. If he guards it from without, all of it is protected. If, however, he guards it from within, only that, section in front of him is protected but that which is behind him is not protected. This statement of R. Ashi, however, is mere fiction. There, the section in front of him, at least, is protected; while here were it not for the prohibition of incest of the second degree, one would have encroached upon the very domain of incest. (b. Yevamot 21a)

· "This is a difficulty…R. Ashi replied: [The law in the] final clause is due to the fact that [the consecrated food] is an object which may be made permissible, and any object which [in certain circumstances] becomes permitted cannot be neutralized even in a thousand. This statement of R. Ashi, however, is mere fiction. For to whom [would the mixture become permitted]! To the priest it is permitted [all the time]; to the Israelite it is for ever forbidden! The statement of R. Ashi must consequently be regarded as mere fiction. But is R. Johanan of the opinion that terumah at the present time is Pentateuchal? (b. Yev 82a)

· "R. Mesharsheya explained: According to the strict rule of the Torah, a Get enforced by a heathen court is valid, and the reason why [the Rabbis] declared it invalid was to prevent any [Jewish woman] from attaching herself to a heathen and so releasing herself from her husband. If that is so, [why did Samuel say that] if it is enforced [by a heathen court] without sufficient legal ground, it has not even the tincture of a Get? Let it at least be on a par with the similar Get exacted by an Israelite court, and disqualify the woman [for] a priest? — The truth is that R. Mesharsheya's [explanation] is erroneous. And what is the reason? — [A Get enforced by a heathen court] on legal grounds is liable to be confused with [a Get enforced by] an Israelite court on legal grounds, but [a Get enforced by a heathen court] without proper grounds will not be confused with [a Get enforced by] a Jewish court with legal grounds. (b. Gitt 88b)

· "Said R. Ashi: The one acquires the ass with the halter, and the other acquires what he holds in his hand, but the rest [of the reins] neither of them acquires. R. Abbahu said: In reality we may leave it as taught [at first]. [and] the reason is that he [who holds the reins] can pull them violently and bring [the other end also] to himself. But R. Abbahu's view is a mistake: for if you do not say so, [how would you decide in a case where] one half of the garment lies on the ground and the other half [rests] upon a pillar, and one person comes and lifts up the half from the ground, while another person comes and lifts up the half from the pillar — will you maintain here also that the first one acquires it but the last one does not acquire it, for the reason that [the first one] can pull it violently and bring [the other half also] to himself? [We must] therefore [say that] the view of R. Abbahu is a mistake. (b. BM 9a)

· " Said Rafram: This proves that the laws concerning ‘erub and transport apply to the Sabbath and do not apply to the Day of Atonement. How is this proved? Maybe the laws concerning ‘erub and transport apply also to the Day of Atonement, and the Mishnah text is to be understood thus: If it was the Sabbath and he carried it out [of private possession], he is liable by reason of the Sabbath as well as the Day of Atonement! — Rather say, If the statement of Rafram was made, it was with reference to the following: …This proves that the laws concerning ‘erub and transport apply to the Sabbath and do not apply to the Day of Atonement. How is this proved? Maybe the scapegoat is an exception, for its whole validity is bound up with the Day of Atonement! — The dictum of Rafram is indeed void. (b. Krth 14b)

In some cases, these seem to be referring to simple error (although the normal words for error, mistake, and falsehood are not used--as Soncino noted), but some of these are likely references to attribution errors.

It is, of course, entirely reasonable that the huge mass of oral tradition would result in some 404's, some lost links, and uncertain attributions. In some cases, we suspect that the writers of the rabbinics had to make educated guesses, but these would not be considered pseudox in the least:

"Second, the attributions are not always consistent. There are several indications of this. Not only do the MSS often differ in the reading of the names, it also happens in cases where the MSS are stable that one and the same saying occurs on the lips of different persons. And a statement attributed to an amoraic rabbi in one text can elsewhere be classified as tannaitic teaching. Sometimes the names might have been confused because they were similar. But on other occasions, it seems that the rabbis were aware of the confusion. By including an alternative name, some texts show explicitly that the names may have been confused. Other texts mention that the teaching attributed to amoraic rabbis actually originated with a tanna. The Babylonian Talmud sometimes leaves the exact attribution of certain teaching open. It introduces the statement with "if you want, say" (...) followed by an alternative name." [HI:JTOT:138f]

[It is interesting to note, though, that the closest thing we can find to Meade's concept of 'continuity attribution, instead of authorship attribution' is something distinguished from authorial attribution. The normal attribution of origination of a saying follows the standard "X said Y" form, but when something 'fuzzier' is meant, the rabbis had a special phrase for it: "Rabbi X, following his reason, said". Thus, inferential attribution (which is close to Meade's notion, but not quite equivalent) was NOT a part of 'attribution of origination' [HI:PPAPLDSS:37, n.49]]

We should also note that some of the Rabbinic pseudox (at least those cases which put words into the mouth of God or Moses) look quite literary: "It is important to note that when the Rabbis attribute extra-biblical statements to God in this way, the statements are, for the most aggadic rather than halakhic." [HI:PPAPLDSS:29] What this means is that the statements are more homiletical expansions or storytelling, as opposed to instructions concerning legal and/or behavioral matters. This suggests that pseudox--for them--was NOT suitable as a basis of authority for something important (clearly the situation we have in the NT also).

Now, many of these cases above are well-past our time frame, some stretching into the 4-5th centuries. But three factors may make this relevant to our situation:

1. The pre-Jesus Hillel and Shammai controversies reported in the rabbinics are in methodological continuity with these latter attributions. This suggests that tradition-anchoring-via-origination might have been present in the background of Paul (the ex-Pharisee) and his Jewish contemporaries. [We should also note that this period's 'new emphasis' on attribution as seen in Ben Sira is also seen in Paul's use of the OT, and also carries through the Fathers, suggesting no radical discontinuities between the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages.]

2. The times of Jesus clearly manifest similar themes/issues of 'traditions of the elders'.

3. This data indicates that the "Jewish matrix" in which Christianity was born might easily have had a problem with high-pseudox.

…………………………………………

Okay, now to the actual data in the pre-80 time period…what is their "Profile" toward attribution and pseudox issues?

• The first thing to note is that there are no obvious pseudox among the NT documents. There are no "Gospels written by Jesus (via Peter)", "Letter of Jesus to Ephesus (via Paul)", or "Gospel of John the Baptist concerning Jesus", or even "Gospel of Moses about the Coming Savior" (with the old after-the-fact prophecy thing). The works are anonymous (like Qumran) and even the "semi-sub-apostolic" works rely upon their content and argumentation to authenticate themselves, instead of pseudoxy (e.g., Hebrews, Acts of the Apostles).
  
  [It should also be noted that the alleged 'continuity' between the alleged NT pseudox and alleged OT canonical pseudox doesn't seem to show up in the date either, as D. A. Carson notes;

"D. G. Meade argues that the most believable background to NT pseudepigraphy is neither the body of Greco-Roman parallels nor the corpus of Second Temple Jewish pseudepigraphy but the process within Jewish writing whereby an original deposit (oral or written) has been enlarged upon, with all the later material being attributed to the earliest author. This pattern, he argues, began within the OT itself: Isaiah, the Solomonic corpus, Daniel. But in every case the ostensible parallels break down. On Meade’s assumptions, the prophecy of Isaiah of Jerusalem was enlarged by contributions made more than a century later by others who followed in his train. But Ephesians or 2 Thessalonians or the Pastorals are not additions to a book, additions that seek to make contemporary the prophetic word of someone long dead. They are independent documents, written, even under Meade’s assumptions, within a decade or so of the apostle’s death. Nor is there anything like the personal claims and historical reminiscences of Ephesians or the Pastorals in Isaiah 40 and following chapters. Meade’s theory sounds like an attempt to make the results work out after one has already bought into the dominant historical-critical assumptions." [HI:DictNTB, s.v. "Pseudox…", D.A. Carson]

• The second thing to note is that the extrabiblical, 'orthodox' writings in this period are the same way--there are either anonymous (Didache, Barnabas) or reliably self-attributed (e.g., I Clement doesn't 'hide behind Paul'). There is no attempt (or perceived need) to use pseudox whatsoever in this period, according to the extant extrabiblical data.

• The third thing to note is that the method of citation of OT/Tanaak passages, events, and authors reflect zero awareness of alleged pseudox (e.g., Daniel, Isaiah, Moses), and instead reflect "strong" understandings of authorial attribution (contra Meade).

• Fourth, there are explicit themes about sincerity, non-duplicity, anti-craftiness, and even non-literary-methods. Consistently the NT epistles (the incontestably authentic ones) speak about their teaching being 'without guile', not relying on deception, and even not relying on 'fancy speech techniques' (Cf. Rom 16.18; Col 2.4). Second Corinthians 4 seems almost to 'intimate' pseudox and content-distortion: "Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God." In 2 Cor 12, Paul defends himself against charges of 'craftiness' and 'cunning' in handling of money matters. Craftiness/cunning just don’t seem to be 'Christian virtues' to Paul--and they would not likely be virtues of his first-generation disciples, either. He strives/instructs to 'not give offense to Jews or Gentiles'--and forgery/pseudox (once detected) certainly caused offense to anyone (and especially those in the "Hellenistic" Diaspora setting!). Paul seems quite 'hyper' to keep a clean conscience about his life/methods, and he even avoids the 'higher rhetoric' which might have 'allowed' some types of literary (decorative) pseudox. Pseudox was, accordingly, not likely a tool in his missionary toolkit. In fact, we might also notice here his repudiation of the 'noble lie' justification for pseudox. His explicit rejection of "let us do evil, that good may come" in Romans 3.8 (and related 6.1) would argue that Paul (or anyone true to Paul's teaching--a la a potential pseudoxer(!)) would not be ethically predisposed to accept pseudox as a legitimate device.

• Fifth, Paul was very aware that (a) the Christian faith was initially promulgated by the 'supervised' dissemination of apostolic content ("the traditions you received from us"); (b) these traditions needed to be reiterated and explained/applied to the believers (cf. I Cor 15); and that (c) these traditions were at risk of deliberate distortion, given the nature of the conflict between good and evil, and this required constant vigilance (cf. Acts 20.30--the word 'mislead' or 'distort' there is used in Lk 23.2 as one of the accusations against Jesus--"misleading/distorting our nation"). Therefore, concern over "deliberate distortion" of the message was always on his mind.

• Sixth, Paul had been on the wrong end of 'false ascription' himself. Romans 3.8 records one of these for us: "Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved. " No doubt this in-his-lifetime misrepresentation was a constant problem.

• Seventh, and closely related to the above, is the reality that forgery can happen in writing or in verbal reports. The passage in 2 Thess is often cited as a case where Paul is dealing with a possible forger (either written or verbal):

"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. (2 Thess 2.1-2)

[CMM:367] comments: "This suggests that pseudonymous letters were not entirely unknown; on the other hand, it certainly shows that the apostle did not agree with the practice of pseudonymity--at least in the case where someone was writing a letter in his name! He does not regard it as acceptable; in principle, he repudiates the practice, regarding pseudonymity as something to be guarded against, for he gives his readers a token whereby they might know which writings come from him and which make a false claim."

Now, it should be obvious that Paul is not a literary critic, and that his 'problem' with this possible forgery or misrepresentation has to do with its content and/or effects--and not with its 'literary merits' or de-merits per se. But how surprising is that, really? It's not his 'job' to sort through the many pieces of correspondence between the early groups, looking for forgeries and textual tampering, but in the battle for apostolic truth, he has to be sensitive to anything that might disturb his readers--including forgeries under his own name. It was the 'disruptive teaching' that led him to question the source--a pattern that we will see repeated in the later Church Fathers. [And we will discuss this 'heresy instead of pseudoxy' issue later as well.]

This apparently deeply sensitized Paul to the issue of sources, for after this topic in 2 Thess, in the 23 verses in the rest of the epistle, he "hammers down" on the "only authorized sources" with NINE references to the apostolic source(!):

1. He called you to this through our gospel (2.14)

2. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (2.15)

3. We have confidence in the Lord that you are doing and will continue to do the things we command. (3.4)

4. according to the teaching you received from us.( 3.6)

5. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us …but in order to give you an example to imitate.(3.7,9)

6. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule (3.10)

7. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down (3.12)

8. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter (3.14)

9. I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write (3.17)

This, of course, would be a case of while-alive forgery and NOT post-mortem pseudox, but the distinction between these two is independent of the letter's form and/or content (or even of the pseudox writer's motives--he/she could 'theoretically' honor a living or dead leader, I suppose) and is instead solely a function of the time of death! In other words, there is no material, essential, formal or internal difference between an explicit forgery and epistolary high-pseudox. The same techniques of deception are required, and the same motives (i.e., to honor or to dishonor a public figure) are possible--the only difference is the temporal relation of the letter to the death of the public figure.

• Eighth, practically speaking, however, the examples given of ('constructive') epistolary pseudox in the G-R world (remember, there are NONE in the Jewish pre-NT world) all involve huge gaps of time between the death of the public figure and the creation of the pseudox. This, of course, makes any alleged NT pseudox look much more like true forgery, rather than possibly-more-innocent 'continue the tradition' pseudox (in the G-R fashion).

"Pseudepigraphic letters (letters falsely ascribed to a great teacher of the past) were a common literary device but were rarely written close to the author’s lifetime." [BBC, Pastorals]

To see how odd a "tiny" twenty-year gap would be (in a Pastorals pseudox scenario), consider some known cases of false attribution and/or pseudox:

· "Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, was arrested ca. AD 115 and taken by land and sea to Rome for execution…Unlike the Pauline letters, which were written over a fifteen-year span, Ignatius wrote several letters within a few short weeks…The popularity of the seven genuine letters of Ignatius encouraged the addition of six spurious letters by a single unknown person by the fifth century A.D." [NTLE:214, a gap of 300-400 years]

· " Indeed, it is rather remarkable that any false epistles gained currency. In the case of the Epistle of Jeremy it was no doubt regarded rather as an addition to the canonical book than as an imitation. It is not without significance that in the Vulgate is appears as chapter six of The Book of the Prophet Baruch. Yet on the most generally favoured dating it was not produced until some four or five hundred years after the time of Jeremiah. [GNTI:1013; 400-500 year gap]

The examples given by Donelson are these [HI:PEAPE:25ff]:

· Plato's Epistles 12/13: written in the 2nd century BC (Thesleff) [gap of 200-300 years?]

· Epistles of Anacharis: 400-500 years (Cynic epistle)

· Epistles of Crates: a gap of 300-500 years (Cynic epistle)

· Letters of Apollonius of Tyana (not actually epistles: "Furthermore, these letters do not pretend to epistolary style. They are normally quite short, consisting of a single saying or a few quick remarks, and they possess no marks of a real letter…", p30)

· Epistles of Diogenes: gap of 300-500 years (Cynic epistle)

· Epistles of Heraclitus: gap of 300-500 years (Cynic epistle)

· The Pythagorean letters: at least 300 years (Hellenistic period)

· The Epistles of Socrates and the Socratics: 200-400 years gap (Cynic epistle)

To these we can add the case of Phalaris, with a gap of 700-800 years, and others:

"At least in the classical period, great leaders and thinkers were credited with important and voluminous correspondence. One hundred forty-eight letters are attributed to the sixth-century b.c. tyrant Phalaris of Acragas (= Agrigentum), portraying him as a gentle and kind man and as a patron of the arts—though since the end of the seventeenth century scholars have known that these letters were almost certainly composed in the second century a.d., probably by a Sophist (see the work of Bentley)." [HI:DictNTB, s.v. "Pseudox…", D.A. Carson]

"Very few of the Neo-Pythagoreans published their works under their own names. They attributed them to Pythagorus himself, even though he had been dead for centuries (so Iamblichus, c. a.d. 250–325: De Vita Pythagorica 198, following Deubner’s edition). In the sixth century a.d. several works appeared claiming to be written by Dionysius the Areopagite (cf. Acts 17:34), though drawing on much later Neo-Platonic argumentation. [HI:DictNTB, s.v. "Pseudox…", D.A. Carson]