QUESTION: Something I would love to see you talk about is how the letters we think were written by Paul differ from the letters we think were not written by him.
RESPONSE: Yes, this is an all-important question, and one I’ve been interested in for a very long time. As many readers of the blog know, I’ve recently published two books on the broad question of “forgeries” in early Christianity, one of them written for scholars at a fairly dense, academic level, and the other for a lay audience (“normal” people, as opposed to abnormal scholars). In these books I use the term “forgery” in a very specific, technical sense, to refer to books that make a false authorial claim – that is, a “forgery” is a book whose author claims to be someone other than who he is, almost always someone famous. For the early Christians, these would invariably be the “authorities” who knew Jesus during his lifetime or soon after (so, Peter, Mary, James, Paul, Thomas, Philip, etc – we even have a couple of works allegedly written by Jesus himself.)
Among the issues I deal with in my two books are why someone would forge a document in an apostle’s (or someone else’s) name, how they tried to conceal their real identity, what kinds of ploys they used, how these forgeries were meant to “function” (i.e. what they were trying to accomplish), and so on. And one of the very key issues is “How Do You Know?” That is, how have scholars in the modern period detected these forgeries? What is the evidence?
So…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE MISSING!!
With regard to forgeries, I am interested in the first five chapters of the Bible. Had the writing of books actually evolved by the time of Moses or were people still at the early stage of writing numbers and drawing pictures? I understand the Documentary Hypothesis, but it isn’t clear to me when people actually started writing such books.
I’m not sure about when books started being written *anywhere* in the world. I’m of the school that thinks that the earliest Hebrew writings were in the 8th century BCE (so about four centuries after Moses) (if Moses lived) (which I doubt).
I’m curious as to why you believe that portions of the Torah (I assume only Torah) were written in the 8thC BCE. Are you referring more to the Proto-Deuteronomy of Josiah or more than that? I continue to read statements placing quite early authorship (general term- not specific) as late as the 9th C BCE, if so, what?
The traditional dating of the J source (the Yahwist) is 10th century. I don’t recall off hand if Wellhausen started this or if he inherited it. I’d suggest simply going to a standard resource, such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, for fuller arguments and explanations.
Thank you. Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary historically based or theologically based? Hoping the former!
Historically!
So does it help the claim that Jesus was myth? Because those who make this claim say that Paul created Jesus myth.
Not really, since there are books that *were* written by Paul, and it is clear from them that Paul knew Jesus’ disciples and his brother James (for Jesus to disciples and a brother, of course, he must have existed).
I never cease to be amazed at early Christians’ having been so willing to engage in deception to get a readership for their views. Didn’t these people – unhealthily obsessed with religion, as I’d see it – have any concept of lying being a “sin”?
In antiquity there were lots and lots of people (as today) who thought that there were some situations in which lying was the *right* thing to do.
Great response. Offhand additional evidence might include Paul’s unusual closing to the Colossians at 4:18 as follows, no? “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand…” Assuming that letter is authentic, I vaguely recall the textual critic argument from seminary (Luther ’82) that Paul wanted them to recognize his, not his secretary’s handwriting. The trouble is that 2 Thess 3:17 closes similarly leaving us to wonder if the forger already knew to add this flourish. Galatians 6:11 also comes to mind, with a more “convincing” closing “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand…” suggesting to some that Paul needed not-yet-invented glasses or that his poor handwriting reflected an eye disorder. Good thing the CIA decoder is alert for spies sending fakes! peace,
Yes, it’s a much-debated passage. My own view (it’s a common one) is that Colossians *also* is a forgery! The end bit (4:18), then, would be put on to make someone think precisely that it’s not a forgery.
I was recently looking at some study Bibles (NIV, NLT, ESV) just to see what they had to say about the authorship of 2 Thessalonians and the other deutero-/post-Pauline letters. I had a real good chuckle when the line of reasoning for accepting these letters as indisputably written by Paul is that they claim to be written by Paul! (I seriously hope that actual scholars with doctorates aren’t making these kind of arguments.)
Yes, as if a forger would fail to mention the name of the person that he wanted his readers to think he was!
An interesting dimension of the forgery issue is how unveils the theological disputes in play at a very early stage of Christianity’s development. It is clear, or seemingly so to myself, that the very earliest disciples, even witnesses of the life and death of Jesus, did not agree on many details or the meaning of many of Jesus’ utterances. These differences led to different theologies and so the disunity of the modern Christian religion was in place at the very beginning.
This might make fundamentalists think a bit about inerrancy and the role of the divine vs the role of humans in the establishment of the religion. It won’t, of course.
Bart, it reads “as if by us” I take it to mean “the true apostles” I too am a scholar of the NT. but not the way you are, whom goes back into history, archaeology and whatever have you. I am lead by the Spirit of God and by His grace I have found that someone; an enemy of Christianity has add to the scriptures his own anomaly and stumbling blocks, to hinder the believer in his advancement of the true knowledge of God. Ephesians 4:7-8 and verses 11,12.
I believe that these four verses should be read together omitting verses 9,10 because these two verses are a diversion. You be the judge as you read them now: “But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, when He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men…………… And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers. For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” Just consider this: the apostles Peter, Paul, James, etc., all identified themselves in the epistles as bondservants of God, or prisoners of Christ Jesus, in other words “captives.” The two omitted verses tend to lead the believer to speculate what Jesus did while He was dead in His tomb.
Bart,
Are there many scholars who think that all of Paul’s letters are forgeries?
I am reading a book that proposes that the evidence indicates that Luke (writing around the time of 80-100) did not know anything of Paul’s letters and does not mention anything about Paul being a writer of apostolic letters. This book “The Fabricated Paul: Early Christianity in the Twilight” proposes that “Authentic Pauline” letters find there source with Marcion who was a huge promoter of Paul, even fabricating some of the myth about him. What say you about this theory?
What is the earliest external attestation of any of Paul’s letters?
Off hand I don’t know of any scholars who think this. But I personally *don’t* think that the author of Acts had access to Paul’s letters (for some reason). Marcion inherited the letters of Paul, he would not have created them. Our earliest attestation of Paul’s letters is Ignatius (who was living about a generation before Marcion; his death is usually placed around 110CE) who mentions them.
Is there a difference between 1 Clement and the Apostolic Constitutions? Are they different forgeries?
1 Clement is not a forgery; it is anonymous, and only later came to be attributed (wrongly) to Clement of Rome. It dates to around 95 CE. The Apostolic Constitutions are about 300 years later, and absolutely are a forgery, claiming to be written by Jesus’ apostles.
‘As we will see later, some scholars have maintained that the allegedly forged writing that the author of 2 Thessalonians is referring to is none other than 1 Thessalonians!’
Will you please write more on this point Dr. Ehrman. And are you personally inclined to think this is the case??
A bit off topic, always been fascinated by how the Gnosics could’ve interpreted Paul’s letters. Paul, an apocalyptic Jew/Christian, referred to the devil as ‘the God of this age.’ (2 Cor 4:4) But to the Gnostics that definitely meant the demiurge! It is interesting how believers rewrite the bible through reading it!
Yup, I’ll be dealing with this!
Is it plausible that the author of 2 Thessalonian genuinely thought 1 Thessalonian was a forgery?
Some have thought so!!
Interesting coincidence(?) that the undisputed Pauline books are 7 in number given the mystical/numerological importance of that number in the Bible. In Harry Gamble’s “Books and Readers of the New Testament” he writes that in early collections of Paul’s writings (forged or not) importance was placed on the NUMBER of Pauline epistles in the collection (such as the 10 that Marcion used). Do you know of any ancient collections in which only 7 are known? I’ve never read of the currently “recognized” 7 being the only epistles in a codex. Seems like one or two forgeries always slipped in!
Also, between the gospels and Paul’s writings which were first to be called “scripture”?
Yes, there are the seven letters of Revelation 2-3, and the seven letters of Ignatius. All very interesting.
Paul’s letters are called Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16; Jesus’ words are called scripture in 1 Tim. 5:18. I suppose 1 Timothy is earlier than 2 Peter….
Sorry .. once again catching up (no reliable internet in this remote pueblo) … am I correct to assume then that there must have been fierce theological competition if not supremacy among many groups including forgers? Why would even a forger go to such great lengths to be so cunning?
Yup! If you wanted to advance a particular point of view in the midst of widespread oppositoin, one way to do that was to write it up in the name of one of the disciples.
I would be interested to know which books of the new testament you consider to be authentic in the sense that they are not forgeries, but written by the person they claim to be written.
I give the long discussion in my book Forged. Short answer: I think the seven undisputed letters of Paul are genuine. Other books are forgeries (the six other letters of Paul, the letters of Peter, and so on). Others are anonymous (Hebrews; 3 John). Others are written in the names of other famous people with the same name (Revelation). And others are anonymous but attributed to famous people (the Gsopels).
Hi, Bart! Hope you are doing well! Suprisingly, I have a new question.
How does your conlucsions regarding forgeries in the NT (forgery as a form of lie) effect theological question of canonical status of those books? I know that you personaly don’t pay much attention to that since you are not a believer (and you are looking at this from a historical point of view) but I hope you had some kind of feedback from other respected scholars who are Church members also? What did they say? How do they cope with that question? Do they go with a “noble lie” theory or? Of course, presuming that they accept your conlucsions which seem to be in accordance with a primary sources (I’ve actually read most of the primary sources from your book Forgery and Counterforgery while writing an article).
Hope you can respond.
Kind regards.
Marko.
Different scholarly believers (or believing scholars) answer the issue differently. Some say it wasn’t really lying, for one reason or another (that’s the most common explanation). Others say that in some situations lies are permitted. I talk about all this in my books on forgery, if you want to pursue it.