James Still's "Critique of New Testament Reliability and 'Bias' in NT Development"--my
initial response.
My Comment 23-24:
[date: July 23, 1998]
James Still continues...
Miller asserts that the "picture that emerges [from modern scholarship]
is one of increasing authentication of the [NT] by a wide range of scholars."
Which picture emerges? Do we stop at a certain point along the evolutionary
path of these traditions and say that "here" is where they become authentic?
Should we prefer instead to say that the furthest point in time away from
the historical Jesus is the more desirable picture? Perhaps we desire after
all to obtain the portrayal of Jesus at the source rather than risk these
interpolations? If Miller's picture is to be considered at all, we must
first reconcile what we know about the dynamic evolution of the NT texts
and determine where we draw the line on authoritativeness in time. I suspect
that Miller would rather we ignore the evolutionary process of the texts
and accept the canonical texts as if they were protected in a vacuum from
the time of Christ.
The section in my Bias article that my quotes comes from is pointing
out the growing confidence that scholars have in the reliability of evangelists'
stories. In other words, the "authentication" of the NT documents is that
of scholarly confidence in increasing amounts of the canonical material.
[This is easily demonstrated from the majority scholarship in Germany and
England, and in the divided scholarship in the USA.]
Research results from archaeology and Classical studies (for example)
increasingly support high claims to the veracity and accuracy of the canonical
gospel accounts.
But what James tries to do here is drive a wedge between the canonical
gospels and all his phantom, earlier, lost-without-any-historical-or-literary-or-textual-trace
proto-gospels. In previous articles in this series I have pointed out that:
1. We have absolutely NO hard evidence for these alleged proto-gospels
2. The arguments that are used to support 'layers of tradition' do not
require any 'content discontinuity' between the various layers;
3. All of the canonical gospels have internal signs of being very early
4. All of the canonical gospels are witnessed to by the Church Fathers
as having been the initial ones
In other words, the problem of the 'gaps' only exists in James' formulation
of the process. His understanding (which I have refuted and/or
shown to be inconclusive) creates this 'where do you draw the line' problem.
The evangelical simply does not have this problem.
And as for his last sentence, although I don't believe in some 'evolutionary
process' of the texts, I certainly don't believe that the documents were
kept in a vacuum from the time of Christ. The textual variant record alone
shows that the later church DID try to manipulate the text on occasion,
but this has no bearing on the original authoring of the works at all.
So, the data gives us absolutely no warrant for assuming basic discontinuity
between the events/words of Jesus, and the accounts given in the canonical
gospels. [We have already seen in this series that the evangelists went
to great pains to preserve the pre-Easter words and stories of Jesus accurately.]
This 'skeptical gap' is pure assumption--there is no historical,
textual, or even theological reason to start the discussion with such
a skeptical assumption, and there are good grounds for assuming the
contrary--that the authors were honest and credible witnesses and recorders
of eyewitness testimony.
James Still continues...
It seems that Miller prefers this vacuum to an otherwise rational
exegesis. He argues that the "writings never seem to legendize the apostles"
even though "they, under a 'bias' model, stood the most to gain if they
hid the nasty truth about their own lives!" Miller may be the only exegete
left who still advocates the old obsolete proof-text method of biblical
interpretation because virtually no one still supports the disciple-authorship
hypothesis. That the disciples' names are attached to two of the four gospels
in no way indicates that they were the actual authors. The headings which
read "The Gospel according to . . ." were second-century additions called
pseudepigraphia --authorship by an anonymous person which is then
attributed to a famous biblical character for authority. Pseudepigraphical
works flourished in ancient Palestine from two centuries before Jesus to
around 300 CE after. The unknown Jewish and early Christian authors of
pseudepigraphical works felt that, while they themselves had something
important to say, their material might not be taken seriously unless it
seemed to come from the pen of a famous person such as a disciple or a
prophet. All four of the gospels are pseudepigraphical works and today
we use the names "Matthew" or "John" merely as convenient labels for the
work. It is particularly disturbing to see Miller advocating disciple-authorship
of John's and Matthew's gospels because this kind of propaganda clouds
the real truth and damages the reputation of Christian apologetics.
There is enough confusion in this paragraph to make we wonder how much
James knows about this issue at all...
He seems to argue that (1) the works were anonymous and someone later
[second-century] added the titles to them; and, at the same time
he argues that they were pseudepigraphical, in which the authorship by
a legendary person was claimed--within the document, and at the time of
writing. The clever reader will see the contradiction here. A work cannot
be anonymous (as the earliest manuscripts of the gospels are in the textual
record) and at the same time be pseudepigraphical (i.e., having a fictional
author named in the document). In other words, if they were anonymous to
begin with, to simply add an ascription of authorship to it later does
NOT make it pseudepigraphical, in the strictest sense of the word. But,
this aside, let's take a look at the claims that James makes here:
1. That the ancient world used pseudox (my personal shorthand, unofficial
abbreviation for 'Pseudepigrapha' and its family of words, including the
related--but not identical--concept of pseudonymity) and that we can therefore
assume it was acceptable for use in the early Christian church;
2. That the gospels manifest the defining trait of pseudox (e.g., ascription
to a well-known and well-respected figure);
3. That the gospel literary genre of the gospels (bioi) and
related historical genres are found in pseudox-forms;
4. That the early church found the use of pseudox and pseudonymity
perfectly acceptable;
5. That the early church somehow didn't know who actually wrote
the gospels.
Let's look at these in turn...
..............................................................................................
1. Did the ancient world use pseudox and CAN we assume, on that basis,
that it was acceptable for use in the early Christian church;
We know that the Greco-Roman world resorted to pseudox on occasion
[FCBC:287]:
"There are also numerous examples of pseudepigraphy in antiquity outside
of that produced within Judaism and early Christianity. Charlesworth has
noted that such writers as Galen, Apollonius, Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates,
and Xenophon all had writings attributed to them by their successors or
others who came after them."
But the most relevant literature for our question is that of the inter-testamental
literature of Judaism: the Pseudepigrapha. Between the Testaments, there
emerged a surprising variety of literature, all ascribed to long-dead and
famous people. Scholars are very, very divided on the motives and ethics
of this phenomenon. So, MacDonald describes this, pointing out the lack
of consensus about the motive/ethics of these works, but agreeing in the
main with Aune's analysis:
"A pseudonym is generally understood as a fictitious name or an assumed
name used by authors who, for whatever reasons, may want to conceal their
actual identity. The practice of writing under an assumed name was common
during the intertestamental period when the writers frequently made use
of well-known names from the OT (Solomon, Enoch, Moses, etc.). The
ethics of the practice of producing pseudonymous literature in the
ancient Jewish and Christian communities is debated today among
the scholars and as yet there is no agreement on why it emerged,
though there is a growing awareness that distinctions should be made
in the kinds of literature that fall into this category...
"Aune has noted that there are generally three explanations for the
practice of writings with pseudonyms: (1) that it arose at a time when
the biblical canon was already closed and well-known names were used to
secure acceptance, (2) that it was used to protect the identity of the
writer who might be in danger if his or her true identity were known, and
(3) that apocalyptic visionaries may have had visions from those figures
to whom they attributed their work. He believes that the first of these
options is the more likely, but not without qualifications. As a legitimating
device intended to accord the writing in question the esteem and prestige
given to the earlier well-known figure, "pseudonymity is functional only
if readers accept the false attribution." However, it is probably best
not to conclude that all of the writers of pseudepigraphy wrote
for purposes of deception. [FCBC:287]
And the vast amount of the later New Testament Apocrypha (e.g., Acts of
Peter, Gospel of Judas) shows that the practice at least existed after
the formation of the NT in the first century.
But note some of the points made by Macdonald (himself a supporter of
NT pseudox). He points out that there is no scholarly consensus on motive
(why people used pseudox) or on ethics (was it considered ethically okay
to use pseudox)--in opposition to James' curiously confident assertion
to the contrary. Macdonald also points out that genre distinctions
are beginning to be important in this area (e.g., letters versus apocalypses).
And finally, note that he essentially agrees with Aune on the major thrust
of 'deception' but comes short of applying that to all usages.
So, we have to ask the question of method and assumption. So, Blum on
Second Peter:
"Instead of making this choice, writers often accept 2 Peter as a
pseudepigraphic work that has value for the church today (cf. Kelly, p.
225) and should be retained in the canon. Sidebottom justifies the acceptance
of 2 Peter as pseudonymous by asserting that 'the custom of a disciple
writing under the name of a famous teacher or leader was well established
in the ancient world ... our conventions about copyright were not those
of the first century.' The last assertion is true, but what about the former
one? Did the first-century Christians adopt the practices of the pagan
world as to pseudonymity, or did their concern for truth cause them to
repudiate it? [Blum, EBC, "II Peter"]
So, what would the actual historical data lead us to believe? (We will
see the explicit statements by the early church below). Would acceptable
and widespread use of pseudox 'make sense' of the historical processes
of the early church? There are a number of indications which would lead
us to believe that it was NOT customary and 'acceptable' (and certainly
not 'standard' or 'normative') practice.
First is the question of why it soon dropped out of the practice
of the early church. The Church Fathers, from the earliest on, used their
own names. If pseudox was acceptable/standard practice, why did it disappear
so quickly? Guthrie's response to Meade makes this exact point [GNTI:1027]:
"He [Meade] is forced to admit that pseudonymity 'in the biblical
mode' (his own qualification) soon dropped out of practice. If pseudonymity
was such an acceptable theological procedure because it recognized, for
instance, that Paul in the pastorals and Ephesians, and Peter in 2 Peter,
had themselves become part of the tradition, it is strange indeed that
the device was not more widely used. The fact is that new Testament criticism
is faced with a dilemma, which is not likely to be lessened by this approach."
Second, there is the odd fact that the gospels are actually anonymous,
rather than pseudox. If pseudox was the standard practice, then why weren't
they pseudox from the beginning?
Third, there simply doesn't seem to be any real motive for the
very early mainstream church to even utilize pseudox [GNTI:1027-1028].
There was no need to deceive and certainly no lack of authority (we have
seen the strong control that the apostolic leadership exercised over the
tradition).
And quite simply, the overwhelming use of pseudox in the early centuries
of the church was by heretical groups. We have already noted Aune's statement
on this (to which we might add the seminal works of Speyer [GNTI:1026]),
and Guthrie points out that the early acceptance of the NT documents provided
the catalyst for rapid development of heretical knock-offs:
"There is no doubt that the prevalence of pseudonymous early Christian
writings owed more to Jewish than to Greek influences. 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. [Guthrie, NBD, s.v.
"Pseudonymity"]
Fourth, in fact, the difference between the NT and the OT Pseudox
environments would suggest quite the opposite. One of the main authorities
on OT pseudox argues that much of the attribution of later writers to earlier,
famous figures was due to the "the pervasive contention that prophecy had
ceased" (Charlesworth, ABD, s.v. "PSEUDONYMITY AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHY"). In
other words, since there could be no new revelation, all claims
to new revelation must be put into the mouths of 'old' revealers
(such as Enoch or Ezra). This is the opposite case for the Christian movement,
in which "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ" (John 1). There was no analogous environment like this until long,
long after the apostolic band died out.
Indeed, the anonymous character of the NT documents actually argues
that they arose before there was a need for pseudox. So Bruce
[cited by Carson in his IVP/Eerdmans commentary on John]:
"It is noteworthy that, while the four canonical Gospels could afford
to be published anonymously, the apocryphal Gospels which began to appear
from the mid-second century onwards claimed (falsely) to be written by
apostles or other persons associated with the Lord."
Fifth, as we shall see, the church, when it faced the issue of canonicity,
did not even consider the possibility that pseudox was 'okay'. The
staunch and stubborn insistence on true apostolic origination precluded
any acceptance of pseudox as legitimate. This position would have had,
then, to have been reversed within a century, had it been an acceptable
and/or normative practice in the mid-to-late first century!
"Pseudonymity must be seen in the light of the church's discussions
about canonicity. There were serious doubts in the early church about whether
some books should or should not be received into the list of the accepted
books, and those discussions tended to center on the question of authorship.
In the case of 2 Peter, for example, the question discussed was whether
the author was in fact the apostle Peter. If it was, then the book was
accepted; if it was not, then the book was rejected. There appears to
be no example of anyone in the early church accepting a book as truly canonical
while denying that it was written by the author whose name it bears.
A well-known example of the typical approach is Eusebius, who was prepared
to accept Revelation if it could be shown that the author was the apostle
John but who wholeheartedly rejected it if it was not apostolic. It
apparently did not occur to him as a possibility that a pseudonymous writing
could be accepted into the canon. [CMMM:371]
What these considerations lead us to, obviously, is the conclusion that
'orthodox' use of pseudonymity simply doesn't fit into the historical
picture we have of the first two centuries of church history. The issues
of why it disappeared had it been prevalent, why anonymity preceded it,
lack of motive for usage, and lack of cognizance of it during canon discussions
all militate against it being used at all (much less the 'standard' or
'normative' practice!). James would have to demonstrate how such a practice
slipped in unawares, left us four gospels immediately recognized as the
only authoritative ones, and then disappeared! (Remember, there is even
an anti-pseudox passage in a Pauline epistle--cf. 2 Thess 2.2).
But how pseudox-looking are the gospels anyway?...
2. DO the gospels manifest the defining trait of pseudox (e.g., ascription
to a well-known and well-respected figure);
Here we have a major problem for James' position, for,
with the possible exception of the Gospel of John, the gospels simply don't
fall into this pattern.
Remember, the defining trait of pseudox is to ascribe the work to some
hyper-famous person (generally long-dead, to give the appearance
of antiquity). But we certainly don't get this with the evangelists or
some other NT figures...
"Matthew, like all the Gospels
in the NT, is an anonymous document. The title 'according
to Matthew,' was affixed to the Gospel sometime in the second century.
From early in the second century, the unanimous tradition of the Church
supports Matthew as the author (e.g., Papias, who received the tradition
from the Elder (Apostle?) John, Pantaenus, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius,
Jerome)...
"The real question concerns the reliability
of the tradition about the authorship of the Gospel. It is possible, although
uncertain, that the whole tradition derives from, and is thus dependent
upon, the testimony of one man, Papias (as recorded in Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16).
In any event, the tradition appears to have been unchallenged. It is difficult
to believe that the Gospel would have been attributed to Matthew without
good reason, since, so far as we can tell from the available data, Matthew
was not otherwise a leading figure among the apostles or in the early Church
(his name being mentioned only once outside the Gospels in Acts 1: 13).
[Hagner, WBC, "Matthew", p. lxxvi]
Mark:
"Moreover, no dissenting voice
from the early church regarding the authorship of the second gospel is
found. This is surprising, since the tendency in the early church
was to associate apostles with the writing of the New Testament books."
[CMMM:93]
"It seems unlikely that
the church would have deliberately assigned the authorship of a Gospel
to a person of secondary importance like Mark, who was neither an
apostle nor otherwise prominent in the early church, unless there were
strong historical reasons for doing this." [Wessel, EBC, "Mark, Introduction
to"]
Even though John is famous, the
strange thing (for a pseudox theory) is that he is not named!:
"Although pseudonymous works
existed in antiquity, they stated their purported author rather than
implied him; unless we want to argue for John's implicit pseudonymity,
the internal evidence supporting an eyewitness author should be allowed
to stand. For this reason, I believe the Fourth Gospel's claim to authorship
by John is stronger than the claims for the other Gospels, which are ultimately
dependent only on Christian tradition external to the text itself. [REF:BBC:intro
to John]
This even applies somewhat to the
epistle of James!
"The second theory, which normally
assumes that the work was pseudonymously attributed to the Lord's brother
to give it authority, gains credence from the quality of Greek in the Epistle
and the argument that 2:14-26 was written to counteract an antinomian perversion
of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith. But it fails to account for
the primitive features of the Epistle (e.g. the mention of elders
and not bishops in 5:14) and the Palestinian colouring (e.g. 'the early
and the late rain' in 5:7). Furthermore, were the Epistle pseudepigraphic,
it is hard to explain why the author did not use a clearer and more exalted
title (e.g. 'James the apostle' or 'James the brother of the Lord'.
[Davids, NBD, s.v. "James, epistle of"]
Remember, this is even more odd because
of the very, very early attribution of these works to these authors and
the very early exclusivity of the Fourfold Gospel in the early church:
Bruce summarizes the external witnesses
to this odd and early situation:
"At an early date after the publication
of the Fourth Gospel the four canonical Gospels began to circulate as a
collection, and have continued to do so ever since. Who first gathered
them together to form a fourfold corpus we do not know, and it is quite
uncertain where the fourfold corpus first became known-claims have been
made for both Ephesus and Rome. Catholic and Gnostic writers alike show
not only acquaintance with the fourfold Gospel but recognition of its authority.
The Valentinian Gospel of Truth (c. AD 140-150), recently brought
to light among the Gnostic writings from Chenoboskion, was not intended
to supplement or supersede the canonical four, whose authority it presupposes;
it is rather a series of meditations on the 'true gospel' which is enshrined
in the four (and in other NT books). Marcion stands out as an exception
in his repudiation of Matthew, Mark and John, and his promulgation of Luke
(edited by himself as the only authentic evangelion). The documents
of the anti-Marcionite reaction (e.g. the anti-Marcionite prologues
to the Gospels and, later, the Muratorian Canon) do not introduce the fourfold
Gospel as something new, but reaffirm its authority in reply to Marcion's
criticisms.
"In the half-century following
AD 95 Theodor Zahn could find only four Gospel citations in surviving
Christian literature which demonstrably do not come from the canonical
four. That the 'memoirs of the apostles' which Justin says were read
in church along with the writings of the prophets were the four Gospels
is rendered the more probable by the fact that such traces of gospel material
in his works as may come from the pseudonymous Gospel of Peter or
Gospel of Thomas are slight indeed compared with traces of the
canonical four.
"The situation is clearer when we
come to Justin's disciple Tatian, whose Gospel harmony or Diatessaron
(compiled c. AD 170) remained for long the favourite (if
not the 'authorized') edition of the Gospels in the Assyr. church...
"Tatian began his compilation with
Jn. 1:1-5, and perhaps ended it with Jn. 21:25. It was the fourfold Gospel
that supplied him with the material for his harmony; such occasional intrusions
of extra-canonical material as can be detected (possibly from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews) do not affect this basic fact any more than
do the occasional modifications of the Gospel wording which reflect
Tatian's Encratite outlook. [Bruce, NBD, s.v. "Gospels"]
So, these ascriptions were early, and
yet the authors were somewhat 'undistinguished'. In fact, if one looks
at the entire range of NT Apocrypha [e.g., NTA], it is striking to note
that there are tons of documents ascribed to Peter and Paul, but not
a single early one ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or even John! The
first document ascribed to Matthew (an infancy gospel) is from the 8th
century(!), and the first one ascribed to John (Acts of John) is from the
3rd century [NTA, in.loc. the appropriate document]. There are even documents
ascribed to lesser figures such as Matthias or Judas [but only after a
long period of church history had made these figures 'famous'], but NONE
to these figures. [The latter phenomenon occurred late enough to fall into
the 'fill in the gaps' writing, filling out the 'lost memoirs' of the hitherto
unpublished NT figures.]
We should also note that the short
time gap between the production of these works and the alleged pseudox-ascription
is also out-of-pattern. Most pseudox that we have (apart from deliberate
and malicious forgeries) have very long time gaps between the famous 'author'
and the production of the pseudo-doc. This even applied to later pseudox
letters:
"Although Paul may borrow language
from some of the false teachers to make his case against them, most of
the language that is used in Colossians has parallels in his undisputed
writings (which also differ from one another). Given the brevity of the
letter, the possible use of a scribe, similarities with undisputed Pauline
letters, and the lapse of several years since his earlier letters, the
differences between Colossians and the undisputed Pauline letters need
not require different authors. Pseudonymous letters existed but were
normally written long after the death of the person in whose name they
were written. [REF:BBC: intro to Colossians]
So, overall, the fact that the ascriptions
are either not explicit or not to a particularly hyper-famous figure argues
rather strongly that the gospels don't even fit into the category of pseudox
to begin with.
So, they don't look like
pseudox...do we have any reason to assume from their literary genre that
they should be pseudox?...
3. Are the gospel literary genre
of the gospels (bioi) and related historical genres even found in
pseudox-forms?
As we noted in Macdonald's quote
above, the issue of genre differences is beginning to surface in this area.
I have argued elsewhere that pseudox letters were
not around (much less acceptable or normative) and Guthrie can raise
this issue about Meade's work [GNTI:1027]:
"Meade assumes that his deductions
from Jewish literature will automatically apply to the growth of Christian
literature. But is this valid, in view of the differences in literary
genre?"
So, what do we know about the gospel
genre and what might this imply relative to the probability
of that genre occurring in pseudox forms?
We have discussed the work of Classicist
Burridge earlier [WAG], in which he demonstrated that the four gospels
were instances of a Graeco-Roman genre called bioi. It was close
to biography, but focused more on the deeds, words, and effects of the
individual which made them a significant figure, worthy of a work of bioi.
Even a cursory glance at the gospels
and the OT pseudox side-by-side will show the radical difference in genre,
and the pseudonymous use of a prophet's name is entirely irrelevant to
genres of bioi and related historical writing. The gospels have
essentially none of the formal characteristics of OT prophets and apocalyptic
sections, which renders any argument from the latter to the former assumptive
and in need of strong warrant.
We might note the following observations
from genre:
1. All the cases of bioi discussed
by Burridge identify the author plainly, or are anonymous. There simply
is no consideration of a pseudox-bioi.
2. There are NO cases in pre-Christian
Jewish literature of bioi, much less of pseudox-bioi. The
elaborative works about OT figures fall squarely into other genres
(e.g. retelling the bible, visions).
3. In fact, the NT is much closer
to historical and biographical genres than to prophetic or wisdom
or legal genres, and Graeco-Roman historiography is very, very rarely
pseudox. It's authorship was generally explicit (e.g., Herodotus, Thucydides,
Hecataeus), but was sometimes anonymous to highlight the seriousness of
the subject matter (e.g, Xenophon, Diodorus) [HI:ATAH:272-273]. But it
was not pseudox...And, of the biographers mentioned by Grant in
GRH [80ff], there is no mention of pseudox usage...This was simply not
a major phenomenon in these genres.
4. Closer to home, in the intertestamental
Jewish histories, there is only one possibly pseudox history,
Pseudo-Hecataeus, but since this is only preserved in fragments we cannot
be sure whether it is true pseudox or various other forms of false ascription
(e.g., copyist error). Attridge indicates that this is an 'odd' piece,
since the vast majority of historical writings of the period have named
and known authors [HI:JWSTP:169]:
"In addition to the various historical
narratives written by Jews, and occasionally by Samaritans, under their
own names during the Hellenistic period, there was at least one pseudepigraphical
historical work written by Jew which circulated during this period. "
What this means for our study should
be obvious: the genre of the gospels, bioi, as well as the next
two closest categories (history and biography) do not show up in antiquity
in pseudepigraphical form, and in the case of an isolated exception or
two (I know of none), this could hardly make the case that such pseudox-practice
was standard and acceptable!!!
So, not only do the gospels not
look like pseudox, nor do the historical patterns of the early church include
pseudox, but also the very nature of the gospel genre (in historical
and cultural context) would argue strongly against suspecting pseudox usage.
So...if it doesn't look like a duck,
smell like a duck, or quack like a duck, did the early church accept them
as ducks anyway?!
4. Did the early church find the
use of pseudox and pseudonymity perfectly acceptable?
In other words, when some tried
to use pseudox within the early church, was church leadership supportive
or condemnatory?
We only have a few data points here,
but they are actually quite strong. Let's look at the cases and
comments made by the Fathers concerning this issue.
1. Of course, we have the apostolic
example in 2 Thess:
"Alternative suggestions to the
Pauline authorship of both letters raise greater difficulties than the
Pauline authorship does. If 2 Thes. is pseudonymous, it was an unbelievable
refinement of subtlety on the writer's part to warn the readers against
letters forged in Paul's name (2:2); the salutation in 2 Thes. 3:17
is intelligible only as Paul's safeguard against the danger of such
forged letters. [NBD, s.v. "Thessalonians, Epistles to"]
2. The case of Tertullian:
"In spite of the fact that pseudonymity
was a widespread practice, it must not be assumed that it would have been
regarded as a harmless literary device among the orthodox Christians. What
external evidence there is suggests rather that the church took a firm
stand against the practice (e.g. the Muratorian Canon, Serapion,
Tertullian). Tertullian in fact records the unfrocking of the Asian
presbyter who confessed to writing the Acts of Paul out of his love
for Paul, which does not suggest it was an acknowledged practice to produce
such literature. For this reason the assumption by some scholars that
certain NT books are really pseudonymous raises an acute psychological
and moral problem, which few of the supporters of these hypotheses are
willing to admit. There is a presumption against NT canonical pseudepigrapha
which can be nullified only by overwhelming and conclusive evidence to
the contrary, and even here each case must be judged entirely on its own
merits. [Guthrie, NBD, s.v. "Pseudonymity"]
"Elsewhere, however, it
was recognized that the writing [3 Corinthians] was pseudonymous, and it
was for that reason rejected; its edifying content was not enough to
secure its recognition. Tertullian speaks of writings "which wrongly
go under Paul's name" and tells us that "in Asia, the presbyter who
composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul's fame from his own
store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love
of Paul, was removed from his office" [On Baptism, 17] It did
not matter that the work was seen as orthodox and edifying. It did not
matter that it was done "from love of Paul." It claimed to have been
written by Paul and was not. Its author was therefore a guilty man, and
he was deposed from his honorable office. [CMMM:369]
3. Muratorian canon on the epistle to
the Laodiceans:
"The Muratorian Canon speaks of
the letter to the Laodiceans with which it links one to the Alexandrians,
"both forged in Paul's name." The document goes on to say that such
"cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting
that gall be mixed with honey". This accords with what we have seen
from other sources: pseudonymous letters were not received. [CMMM:369]
4. Muratorian canon on the Shepherd
of Hermas (not quite a pseudox, but demonstrates the apostolic authorship
criterion):
"When the Muratorian Fragment rejects
the Shepherd of Hermas for public reading, it does so on the ground that
it was too recent and therefore cannot find a place "among the prophets,
whose number is complete, or among the apostles". For the same reason,
wherever the Fathers suspect pseudonymity, they reject the work." [CMMM:495]
5. The case of Serapion:
"Mention should be made of Serapion,
bishop of Antioch toward the end of the second century. He discovered that
the Gospel of Peter was in use in the church at Rhossus, and although
he seems not to have known the book, he at first allowed the church to
continue to read it. When he later read the book and found that it was
promoting heresy, he forbade its use. Clearly his permission to use it
was predicated on the view that it was harmless, not that it was authoritative.
He wrote, 'For our part, brethren, we receive both 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." [cited by Eusebius, HE 6.12.3] There is, of course, a further
difference in that we are now dealing with a spurious gospel, not a spurious
epistle. But it is important to notice that Serapion made a sharp distinction
between the apostolic writings he received wholeheartedly ("as Christ")
and those that "falsely bear their names." The latter, if harmless,
might be used, but they were not canonical. They had no place among the
authoritative Scriptures. [CMMM:369]
Now, what should be obvious from these
cases that the mindset of the early church was very much anti-pseudox.
Indeed, in every case that they detected it--that we know of--it was explicitly
and forcefully rejected. By way of summary:
"Thus, as we have seen, the New
Testament itself betrays principled rejection of pseudonymous letters (esp.
2 Thess. 2:2; 3:17); now we observe that the Fathers universally reject
pseudonymity as an acceptable literary category for documents bearing
the authority of Scripture. This leaves very little space for the common
modern assertion that pseudonymity was a widely acceptable practice in
the ancient world. That pseudonymous apocalypses were widespread is
demonstrable; that pseudonymous letters were widespread is entirely unsupported
by evidence; that any pseudonymity was knowingly accepted into
the New Testament canon is denied by the evidence. [CMMM:495]
As has been noted several times above,
the general consensus is that pseudox was primarily a tool of the sectarian
and heretical movements, generally with deliberate deception as intent.
So, it is no wonder that the early followers of Jesus and His disciples
were very concerned and watchful of it.
But how good were the early Fathers
at detecting pseudox? Could the gospels have 'slipped by' them?
Now, it is one thing to say that
the Church Fathers had a definite and hard-line stance against pseudox;
it is an altogether different question as to (1) how well did they detect
it; and (2) how much latitude existed in tolerating it...
We know, for example, that quotes
from non-canonical (but not necessarily pseudox) gospel material do occasionally
show up, but this could simply be a very small error in execution. In fact,
if Zahn's counts are correct, this would represent something in the order
of a rounding error:
"In the half-century following
AD 95 Theodor Zahn could find only four Gospel citations in surviving
Christian literature which demonstrably do not come from the canonical
four. That the 'memoirs of the apostles' which Justin says were read
in church along with the writings of the prophets were the four Gospels
is rendered the more probable by the fact that such traces of gospel material
in his works as may come from the pseudonymous Gospel of Peter or
Gospel of Thomas are slight indeed compared with traces of the
canonical four. [Bruce, NBD, s.v. "Gospels"]
It must be remembered that word-for-word
citations of the gospel materials were not the norm, even well after
the full development of the NT material, which implies that one cannot
judge the question of publication date of those materials on the basis
of "looseness" of citation [RMML:219] That their usage of canonical information
was not exact or was even loose, would not imply that the material was
not before them, just as a modern preacher would paraphrase in various
ways a biblical text.
That they were very, very good
at detecting this is obvious from what material DID get excluded from
the canon:
"We should also remember that pseudonymous
works bearing Peter's name were circulated in the early church. The
following are known to us: The Apocalypse of Peter (c.135), The Gospel
of Peter (c. 150-75), The Acts of Peter (c. 180-200), The Teaching of Peter
(c.200), The Letter of Peter to James (c.200), and The Preaching of Peter
(c.80-140). That none of these was accepted into the canon is noteworthy.
Second Peter won its way by its intrinsic worth. [Blum, EBC, "II Peter"]
That they were not perfect (as
evidenced by the tiny number of non-canonical citations, and the very small
number of considered-but-disputed books) is not surprising, nor is it indicative
of a lack of ability or a less-than-thorough approach to this.
Part of the reason is was easy for
the later writers to distinguish authentic from inauthentic was from the
sheer content. So Metzger [NT:CTT:173]:
"By way of summary, when one compares
the preceding rather widely-used apocryphal gospels (along with the more
widely divergent specimens that were found at Nag Hammadi; see chap. IV-
I- 4 above), one can appreciate the difference between the character
of the canonical Gospels and the near banality of most of the gospels dating
from the second and third centuries. Although some of these claimed
apostolic authorship, whereas of the canonical four two were in fact not
apostolically titled, yet it was these four, and these alone, which ultimately
established themselves. The reason, apparently, is that these four came
to be recognized as authentic--authentic both in the sense that the story
they told was, in its essentials, adjudged sound by a remarkably unanimous
consent, and also in the sense that their interpretation of its meaning
was equally widely recognized as true to the apostles' faith and teaching.
Even the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, both
of which may preserve scraps of independent tradition, are obviously inferior
theologically and historically.
[There is a separate question about
how the Fathers dealt with the Old Testament pseudox, but they were
essentially in line with standard Jewish practice of the day. I intend
to write a piece on the Apostolic Fathers' use of scripture next.]
But what about their 'unofficial'
tolerance of pseudox?
We have seen that the main anti-pseudox
actions concern matters of canon (i.e., was it authored by an apostolic
resource), and matters of heresy (i.e., did it flagrantly contract apostolic
teaching). But what about cases in which it fell into the category of "devotional
literature" or 'less than heretical' teaching?
The only data point we have here
is the story about Serapion above. He apparently tolerated the Gospel
of Peter until he found out it contained heretical material. This would
suggest (although arguing from one data point would be almost as bad as
James' often arguing from zero data points, dig, dig, wink, wink, chuckle,
chuckle...) that the Fathers were not involved in some witch-hunt or
inquisitorial program, but rather only dealt with the non-canonical
works when the need arose. Since the fourfold gospel had arisen so early,
meeting their practical needs, they would not be likely to pay a lot of
attention of ancillary works-unless they were used in support of destructive
teachings. This alone would require the early availability and early recognition
of the authoritative gospels.
So, on the basis of praxis and theory,
the early church DID seem to have the ability and orientation to weed out
pseudox. And, as it would apply to the gospels-in their earlier timeframe
of origination-this tendency of carefulness would likely have been more
intense. So Guthrie:
"It may have been an accepted convention
in pagan circles, but it seems to have been far from accepted in the second-century
church, and must have been even less acceptable in the first century."
[GNTI:1020]
Finally, let me advance a rather 'odd'
piece of data-the Apostolic Constitutions. This is a document from
much later than the time we are discussing, probably in the later half
of the fourth century. This document is a clear case of pseudox-it claims
to be by the original twelve (plus Paul) [6.14] and mimics the style and
characteristics of the canonical gospels closely. It tries to copy how
the apostles and earliest disciples might have delivered
fourth century doctrines. Its goal was to emulate apostolic patterns of
thinking and speaking.
The reason this is so appropriate
(and yet odd) to our matter here, is that this pseudox document warns
against pseudox! In 6.16, it specifically says:
"We have sent all these things
to you, that ye may know our opinion, what it is; and that ye may not receive
those books which obtain in our name, but are written by the ungodly. For
you are not to attend to the names of the apostles, but to the nature of
the things, and their settled opinions. For we know that Simon and Cleobius,
and their followers, have compiled poisonous books under the name of Christ
and of His disciples, and do carry them about in order to deceive yon who
love Christ, and us His servants. And among the ancients also some have
written apocryphal books of Moses, and Enoch, and Adam, and Isaiah, and
David, and Elijah, and of the three patriarchs, pernicious and repugnant
to the truth. The same things even now have the wicked heretics done, reproaching
the creation, marriage, providence, the begetting of children, the law,
and the prophets; inscribing certain barbarous names, and, as they think,
of angels, but, to speak the truth, of demons, which suggest things to
them: whose doctrine eschew, that ye may not be partakers of the punishment
due to those that write such things for the seduction and perdition of
the faithful and unblameable disciples of the Lord Jesus."
In other words, the apostles' and early
Fathers' patterns of rejecting pseudox was so consistent, that the
pseudox writer of the Constitutions could use this as a deceptive tool
to convince the reader of its proposed apostolicity! This
anti-pseudox approach of the early church--of which we have seen several
examples--had apparently become so standard on the part of legitimate authority
that it could be used as a sign of apostolic/early authority.
Earlier attempts at pseudox did not
use this device because they could use the shortness of time (noted above)
and the patterns of Patristic writings were not so stereotyped that early.
This is further evidence of the widespread
anti-pseudox stance of the early church leadership.
So, the early church was decidedly
against (and vocal in that opposition to) pseudox, evidenced a substantial
(yet not perfect) application of the position to the writings of the day,
did so without resorting to a 'witch hunt' mentality, and were apparently
close to unanimous (to the point of it becoming a 'defining trait') in
this opposition.
So, where are we?
We have seen so far:
1. The "gospels as pseudox" theory
doesn't fit the historical patterns of the early church;
2. That the surrounding world used
pseudox does not imply that the early church would have done so.
3. That the surrounding world sometimes
thought pseudox to be acceptable, does not imply that the early church
did;
4. Pseudox was apparently NOT the
standard and acceptable way to do this, because the gospels anonymous when
first written;
5. Pseudox was never even considered
as an acceptable praxis, when the issue of canon came up, and there is
no reason to believe it only became an issue then;
6. The gospels do not manifest the
defining trait of pseudox-the hyper-famous author;
7. The shortness of time-gap, differentiating
deceptive pseudox from its more innocent cousin, argues for the deceptive
(and unacceptable) status of early pseudox gospels;
8. The bioi genre of the gospels
(and related genres of history and biography) do not occur in pseudox forms
(with only very minor possible exceptions) in either the Graeco-Roman or
Semitic worlds;
9. All the data we have about early
church practice supports a strong anti-pseudox standard;
10. All the data we have about early
church usage demonstrates that they practiced this as best they could,
and with exceptionally low 'failure rates';
11. This anti-pseudox position seems
to have become a defining trait of orthodox leadership.
But all of the above discussion assumes,
for the sake of argument, that the gospels were actually anonymous at first,
and that the ascriptions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added later.
But there is a strong, strong case that can be made that they never
were anonymous, but that the current ascriptions were there from the
beginning! This argument has been made quite forcefully by Martin Hengel,
who N. T. Wright describes as the "most learned New Testament scholar in
the world today":
"Until recently, most scholars
tacitly assumed that the four gospels first circulated anonymously
and that the present titles were first attached to them about A.D.
125. There is little evidence to support this date as the decisive
turning point; it is little more than an educated guess, based
only on the presupposition that the Gospels were originally entirely anonymous
and on the fact that by about 140, and perhaps earlier, the traditional
attributions were widely known, without significant variation. Now,
however, this consensus has been vigorously challenged by Martin Hengel.
Hengel examines the practice of book distribution in the ancient world,
where titles were necessary to identify a work to which any reference was
made. In this context he studies the manner in which second-century authors
refer to the Gospels, calling to mind, among other things, Tertullian's
criticism of Marcion for publishing his own gospel (a highly truncated
version of Luke) without the author's name. Tertullian contends that
"a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect ...
which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and
the just profession of its author." Hengel argues that as soon as two or
more gospels were publicly read in any one church--a phenomenon that certainly
occurred, he thinks, not later than A.D. 100--it would have been necessary
to distinguish between them by some such device as a title. The unanimity
of the attributions in the second century cannot be explained by anything
other than the assumption that the titles were part of the works from the
beginning. It is inconceivable, he argues, that the Gospels
could circulate anonymously for up to sixty years, and then in the second
century suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors.
If they had originally been anonymous, then surely
there would have been some variation in second-century attributions
(as was the case with some of the second-century apocryphal gospels). Hengel
concludes that the four canonical gospels were never even formally anonymous.
[CMMM:66]
This is a very persuasive argument,
essentially from Classical Studies. [For a survey of the arguments against
Hengel's thesis and rebuttals against these arguments, see CMMM:66-70]
What this would mean is simply that
the gospels never were anonymous, and consequently that no one added the
titles/authors onto them-the church always knew who wrote them. And consequently,
that the entire supposition of pseudox by James is radically unwarranted.
But in any event, I think the mass
of data above adequately demonstrates that James' position, on the pseudox
character of the gospels, is simply without adequate merit.
And without pseudox, James will
essentially be forced to accept the 'propaganda' of mine that 'damages
the reputation' of apologetics (smile).
In other words, the overwhelming
evidence of the early church (called 'external evidence') about the gospels
and their authors, is in support of the traditional 'apostle/disciple authorship'
theory. Skeptical NT scholars today dismiss this evidence with amazing
superficiality. Carson laments this, pointing out that classical scholars
do not practice such cavalier treatment of their sources, and comments
insightfully that these modern skeptical scholars would quickly rebuke
older historians for treating their materials thusly:
"The fact remains that, despite
support for Johannine authorship by a few front-rank scholars in this century
[he cites Zahn, Westcott, Morris, Bruce, Michaels, Robinson, Ellis], and
my many popular writers, a large majority of contemporary scholars reject
this view. As we shall see, much of their argumentation turns on their
reading of the internal evidence. It also requires their virtual dismissal
of the external evidence. This is particularly regrettable. Most scholars
of antiquity, were they assessing the authorship of some other document,
could not so easily set aside evidence as plentiful, consistent and
plainly tied to the source as is the external evidence that supports Johannine
authorship. The majority of contemporary biblical scholars do not rest
nearly as much weight on external evidence as do their colleagues in classical
scholarship." [The Gospel according to John, Eerdmans:1991, p.68f]
Let me make this point as forcefully
as I can:
If the most learned people of the
early church, closest in time and geography to the production of the NT,
and manifesting a strong and effective anti-pseudox posture, unanimously
testify both to the traditional authorship (and even the historical circumstances
surrounding the production of that literature!), then all the 'soft' arguments
about 'internal evidence' can only amount to a 'problem'-it can never amount
to a decisive argument against such strong external witness. Such rejection
of such powerful and cohesive external witness-without finding legitimate,
cohesive, and forceful OTHER external witness to discredit that witness-is
not scholarship; rather, it is presumption at best and 'convenient' obscurantism
at worst.
Accordingly, I have to conclude
that a closely, more detailed look at (1) the phenomena of the gospels,
at (2) pseudox in the ancient world, and at (3) the historical evidence
of the early church period supports the position of the traditional authorship
of the gospels. Arguing uncritically from alleged parallels in the ancient
world, without paying close attention to the details and patterns in that
data, will invariably lead to hasty and unwarranted positions, such as
the one that James maintains here. The 'hard data' once again supports
the argument in Bias.
July 21, 1998
glenn miller
.....................................................
[ --stil23.html-- ]
The Christian ThinkTank...[https://www.Christianthinktank.com]
(Reference Abbreviations)