I have long argued that contrary to what you may hear a lot of people say (especially New Testament scholars!), the act of writing a book in someone else’s name (e.g., claiming to be Paul, or Peter, or John, knowing full well you weren’t [!]) was NOT regarded as an acceptable practice in the ancient world but was classified as a kind of lying.

Scholars who think otherwise argue that the authors were not doing anything duplicitous.

There are different ways scholars have made this argument, but the basic line is pretty much the same, that everyone knew that pseudepigraphy was a practice, and since they knew it was a practice, they could see through it and and either weren’t deceived or weren’t bothered if they found out they were deceived.

I continue to think this view is absolutely and precisely wrong.  In my books on forgery I point out that whenever ancient readers *talk* about the phenomenon, actually saying anything about it, they condemn it.

I’m not saying that the people who did it condemned it; they may have thought they were justified in doing it.  What I am saying is that, whatever the perpetrators said, the practice wasn’t socially respectable or accepted.  It’s kind of like cheating (on an exam, on a lover, on a tax return): it’s done a lot, but when it’s talked about, it’s condemned.

To my knowledge no one in the ancient world ever

Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!

Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!

Learn More!