This is a continuation of my previous post on secretaries in the ancient world, drawn from my forthcoming book Forgery and Counterforgery. In the earlier post I talked about the use of secretaries in taking dictation and doing light copy-editing, based on the findings of the full study of Randall Richards. The discussion is relevant to the writings of the New Testament: could 1 Peter, or Ephesians, or any of the other pseudepigraphical writings of the new testament have been produced by secretaries rather than their reputed authors?
******************************
It is Richards‘ third and fourth categories that are particularly germane to the questions of early Christian forgery. What is the evidence that secretaries were widely used, or used at all, as co-authors of letters or as Ersatz composers? If there is any evidence that secretaries sometimes joined an author in creating a letter, Richards has failed to find or produce it. The one example he considers involves the relationship of Cicero and Tiro, cited earlier by Gordon Bahr as evidence for co-authorship. In Bahr’s words „Tiro took part in the composition of the letter.“ But Richards points out that Bahr cites no evidence to support this claim, opting instead simply to assert the conclusion. Moreover, there is nothing stylistically in the Ciceronian correspondence to suggest a co-authorship. Richards concludes that at most Tiro sometimes engaged in „minor corrective editing.“ What is most odd in Richards‘ discussion, however, is the conclusion that he draws, once he discounts the evidence of Cicero, the one and only piece of evidence he considers: „Evidently then, … secretaries were used as co-authors.“ It is not at all clear what makes this view „evident,“ given the circumstance that he has not cited a solitary piece of evidence for it.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, LOG IN AS A MEMBER. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!
I am anxiously awaiting publication. I can’t wait to see what else is in it. One thought, however. I think you should avoid comments like this, “Scholars must constantly ask themselves whether evidence matters, that is, whether they prefer history or romance.” I can draw my own conclusions about people who ingore the evidence. Personally, I think comments like this are getting close to “Any intelligent person would see that….”. Obviously this isn’t what you are saying, but I do feel it is in the same league.
Is my perception correct that currently the main source of support for the “secretary hypothesis” comes out of the fundamentalist, scriptural inerrancy community? If so then we are to not only imagine that someone with as determined and confident message as Paul would decide to give a scribe free reign to modify his preaching but also that god would choose to entrust his message to such a process that practically cries out for distortion and confusion.
I think the view is actually pretty widespread, among a range of NT scholars. But you’re right, for Paul to do this stretches the imagination….
If not limited to “… the fundamentalist, scriptural inerrancy community” what would the appeal of such a view be to such scholars? Is it essentially “received wisdom,” the fact that previous generations of scholars have passed this excuse for the deceit down since the time when there was no difference between scholarship and faith? Why has no one questioned the assertion until “Deceived” (and “Forgery and Counterforgery?”) The excuse often given that students/disciples writing in the name of their masters is so ubiquitous that I had even heard it before taking up books on popular biblical history.
Lots of people — including lots of scholars — have a deep respect for Scripture without being fundamentalist literalists. These others too have reasons for not wanting Scripture to contain lies and deceit. I was by no means the first to point out that forgery is a deceptive practice. This is widely known among scholars of forgery. The problem is that biblical scholars tend to read biblical scholars, not scholars of forgery.
Unrelated to this post but, I’m sure you were against abortion when you were a christian and I’m wondering has your view changed because of your conversion to agnosticism?
No, even before I was an agnostic I did not think that a fetus was a human being, so that abortion was not (and is not, in my view) “murder.”
Excellent! Thank you for this Bart. I listened to your debate with D. Bock on this subject and I remember him saying that Richards put out a “2nd Edition” or something, and Bock says that in this “new book” Richards actually gives evidence for the categories mentioned above. Any truth to this? or was Bock mistaken.
Yes, Bock was confused. He was referring to a second book of Richards, not to a second edition of the first book. The second book is a simplified version for a popular audience, and in fact did not add much to the conversation.
“At one time Cicero asks Atticus „to write in my name to Basilius and to anyone else you like, even to Servilius, and say whatever you think fit.“ And in doing so he even urges Atticus to employ a deceit: „If they look for [my missing] signature or handwriting, say that I have avoided them because of the guards.“ ”
I’ve re-read this post after your recent series on Colossians. I’m really quite stuck by this instance (albeit a one-off seemingly) of someone asking a second party to write something substantial in his name. Do you have the context of what Cicero was suggesting Atticus write? Was there an agreed topic or means of agreeing boundaries? Or was it pretty carte blanche?
I think he’s referring to a very brief letter to fire off that would be banal and simply be a standard letter. This is the one exception that i know of to the rule that secretraies never composed for authors; and I don’t think it is at all analogous for what NT scholars have proposed for books like 1 Timothy or 1 Peter (which are not banal, standard, brief letters).
Dear Bart,
What about Att. 5.13 where Cicero writes: If there are any people to whom you think that letters ought to be delivered in my name, pray compose them and see them delivered.
Would you change your conclusion drawn in your book Forgery and Counterforgery or not?
Thanks.
I don’t have my books with me, but I dealt with this int he book at some length, I believe.