(6 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...I have been doing a few posts on the difference between popular writing (for a trade book) and scholarly writing (for an academic book). In my last post I reproduced the introduction to my book Forged: Why The Biblical Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (popular book published by HarperOne); here, by way of contrast, is the introduction to Forgery and Counterfortery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (academic book by Oxford University Press). Both the title and the opening paragraphs are give-aways that this is not meant for most readers, even if those who are interested can certainly follow it and get a lot out of it. It ain’t quantum mechanics.
******************************
Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature is the degree to which it was forged.[1] Even though the early Christians were devoted to the truth– or so their writings consistently claimed – and even though “authoritative” literature played a virtually unparalleled role in their individual and communal lives, the orthonymous output of the early Christians was remarkably, even astonishingly, meager. From the period of the New Testament, from which some thirty writings survive intact or in part, only eight go under the name of their actual author, and seven of these derive from the pen of one man. [2] To express the matter differently, only two authors named themselves correctly in the surviving literature of the first Christian century. All other Christian writings are either anonymous, falsely ascribed (based on an original anonymity or homonymity), or forged.
Matters begin to change with the second Christian century, even though orthonymity continues to be the exception rather than the rule. It is worth considering, for example, what Pre-Enlightenment scholars accepted as the writings of apostolic and subapostolic times.[3] There were
If you were a member of the blog you would get five posts a week on important topics in the New Testament and early Christianity. Your entire membership fee goes to help those in need. So why not join? Click here for membership options
“But somewhat ironically, these examinations are often conducted precisely apart from a knowledge or appreciation of the wider phenomenon of early Christian forgery. Surely an individual instantiation of the practice cannot be studied in isolation, apart from its wider historical and cultural context.”
It almost sounds as if some type of dogma is at play here, either faith-based (unlikely in true scholarship) or academically-based. Are scholars perhaps separating the issue of forgery from the rest of early-Christian study by the way they were taught to conduct research? I trust it would not be from religious denial.
There may be some of that; NT scholars often restrict their views to the NT without seeing what was happening in teh wider world, or — more commonly in te past 50 years or so — by simply glancing at the rest of the world when it suits their purposes without understanding what was happening more broadly on its own terms.
The scholarly version of the introduction is very clear. Although it assumes more knowledge in its readers (use of technical terms without definition, mention of historical individuals without much discussion) one can readily understand the meaning without knowing the specifics (or even just a little of the specifics). I am sure you don’t want to use valuable real estate with scholars explaining who Basil was or what pseudepigrapha means but even if a reader isn’t fully versed in the details, the concepts shine through. Other than this more obvious point, are there any other stylistic or word choice decisions you make when addressing a scholarly audience that you change for your general public readers? The body of your books are going to be very different with different kind of citations to and engagement with prior studies. I am more interested in your style/word choice for the two audiences when making a point or attempting to persuade.
I think you’ve gotten the difference pretty accurately. The big problems do emerge later, where I have to go into considerable depth in places by looking at the Greek (and sometimes Latin) and delving into techbnical discussions of Greek grammar and style.
Do you have access to any statements by other patristic scholars who concur with your statement that there exists a scholarly consensus that none of the Early Church Fathers knew Paul or one of the Twelve?
I think I already answered that!
Which is why I have so many fact-checking links on my Google News feed. We need more than just Dass it is fabricated.
Sorry, of topic, but related to your Heaven and Hell book: IF Stone, I think, argued it was Socrates pushing for the overthrow of democracy by two brothers that led to his sentence. When I read your book I didn’t see it mentioned and am curious if Stone’s book is considered correct?
I’m sorry: I’m not sure I understand what your asking. Could you rephrase the question? (For what it’s worth: we have Socrates’s speech at his trial — at least as preserved by Plato — and it’s our best evidence for what happened.)
Sorry, I read Stone’s Trial of Socrates in around 1988. I just reviewed the Amazon description and comments and, sure enough, Stone argued that two violent coups by Socrates’ former students led to both the ultimate trial as well as motivated the refusal of Socrates to concede… Odd what one recalls. I think Stone was contextualizing around the evidence but would need to reread to be certain. Thanks!
If Speyer’s book is so good, have you considered calling him up and asking him to authorize an e-book edition and an English translation for us non-German readers? Could be a fun project for some graduate student on study abroad who knows both German & English…
Ive long wished someone wold translated it, and once tried to get a native German speaker who was a grad student to do so; but to no avail. I’ve never met him, and don’t know if he’s still alive. Someone should do it. But it ain’t gonna be me!
Wikipedia (both German & English) claims he’s still alive, at least.
There was a lot of competition in the religion business, all would attack and try to outdo the others to bring in the donations. Debate within and without, caused the story to grow in strange directions.
In one of your books or in a comment here (I can’t remember exactly where I read it ) you said that it is rather “suspicious” (maybe you didn’t use that exact word) that there are exactly seven “authentic” letters from Paul. Of course you include Philemon among the seven. Philemon is clearly related to Colossians and Ephesians , both considered forgeries. Since it is a personal short letter it would be hard to argue about its inauthenticity, not enough stuff to work in I suppose… Does any scholar consider Philemon also a forgery? I consider Philemon,Colossians and Ephesians the work of the Ephesian church after Paul was imprisoned (in isolation) or killed, they kept writing letters in his name, anything like that in scholarship?
That may be right. But there is little reason to suspect Philemon in itself, so it’s often thought that the author of Colossians had it at hand when making his own letter.
I consider the three letters together.
We have an imprisoned old Paul (Phlm 1.9 ) who didn’t know the new churches founded by his collaborators(Phlm 1.5, Col 1.4) .
There is a new generation of Paul’s collaborators,
Silas(1 Thess , 2 Cor ) ,Apollos (1 Cor ),Barnabas (1 Cor ,Gal) and Titus (2 Cor ,Gal), are not mentioned in Philemon/Colossians/Ephesians.
But now we have Archippus(Phlm,Col) , Onesimus(Phlm,Col), Mark(Phlm,Col), Aristarchus(Phlm,Col), Demas(Phlm,Col) , Luke (Phlm,Col) and Tychicus (Eph,Col)
The new churches where located in the Lycus Valley (Colossae,Laodicea) near Ephesus , the fact that the fugitive slave Onesimus ended up in the same prision with Paul makes me think Paul himself was imprisioned in Ephesus ,not in Rome. Since Colossae was decimated by an earthquake in the 60s AD the letters were probably written ca 60 AD.
Luke tells us Paul avoided Ephesus in his route to Jerusalem (Acts 20.16).
But what if he did arrive in Ephesus , was finally captured and ended his life in prison there?
What the later christians would tell about the real faith of such a great Apostle?
Philemon/Colossians/Ephesian is the work of the Ephesian church after Paul was imprisoned and they wrote those letters as if from Paul.
Paul’s final voyage to Rome in Acts is theologically driven. The Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome is one of the major themes in Acts.
The author of 1 Clement writing from Rome thought Paul reached Spain, obviously based in Rom 15.24; the one who forged the pastorals invented a roman prison for Paul, Luke says explicitly that “Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God ” so he is clearly routing out legends about him being ill treated in Rome ( it would be against other of his major themes in Acts, “Christianity fits very well in the Roman Empire”) .
Third/Four generation christians seem to have different views about Paul’s final days.
Maybe there were other legends now lost about Paul’s end.
In Acts 20.16 Luke tells us that “Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.”
Why the explanation?
Maybe there were also legends about Paul dying in a dark prison in Ephesus without the glory such an apostle deserves.
Maybe those legends were the ones most historically accurate .
dr bart i heard podcast from james white that before the photocopier in 1949 we have this diverse different in the new testament text and then its slightly corrected and have more little variant after that the photocopier in 1949 is that correct? and is it true that what scholars try to do to get closer and closer from diverse to the original reading?
No, I can’t imagine what he would have meant. Maybe you misunderstood him? The potocopier had no effect on Greek manuscripts.
dr bart we know there are interpolation verse in new testament then why they dont get rid of them entirely from our modern bible, like in kjv they still have those verse like mark ending and other stuff, why dont they revised it and make the entire modern bible completely just follow what original writers wrote? its like they add those fake verse but after telling the readers that its not in the original, why they did taht? isnt that adding god words ?
Most editions do get rid of them, or at least note that they do not belong in the text.
“We will also examine the attitudes toward the practice, toward specific instantiations of it, and toward those who engaged in it: Were they seen to be lying?”
So what is the short answer to that question?
As to why authors would hide their identity, is it possible they thought they were supernaturally connecting to the “spirit” of Peter, Paul, or whoever? After all, we have the precedent of John channeling Jesus in Revelation.
Answer: yes, they were considered lying in the ancient world. The question is whether htat was ethically problematic in all cases. I deal with both issues in my book.
How comparable is the interpretation of the Synoptics’ Great Commandment to the interpretation of Jesus’s “New Commandment” to “love one another as I have loved you” in John 13:34 and 15:12? They seem quite similar to me-at least as regards love of neighbor-even though John (as far as I know) does not quote the Hebrew Bible or specifically talk about love of God above all. My main uncertainty is that my first impression is that John is limiting the Commandment to the disciples loving their companion disciples rather than referring to love of all.
Yes, very similar.
Do you think that one of the reasons for the lack of orthonymous Christian literature at least in the first century could be that most Christians at that time including those who knew Jesus were illiterate? Therefore that left a void for the relatively educated few to fill. But those educated few did not have the recognized authority of the original disciples who actually spent time with Jesus so they wrote under other people’s names to gain authority for their points of view.
I think the last sentence is the reason most of the time, yup. (But even when they did have apostolic predecessors: e.g. Paul did write letters and others wrote in his name later)
Hi Dr. Ehrman. I had a question about your view of the synoptic gospels and their telling of the crucifixion of Jesus. From my understanding if we start with Mark we have Jesus not knowing why this was happening to him with the final line of despair of “why have you forsaken me?”. Then we get to Luke who has Jesus confident in what he is doing. How would you respond to those that state the in Mark Jesus predicts his death three times therefor he knew exactly what was happening to him? Is it that you are focusing just on this story and it’s depiction therefor the predictions are not relevant? Or that possibly he didn’t really predict his death?
Oh yes, he absolutely predicted his death three times. And alluded to it much more than that (Last supper!). The point is that he knew ahead of time he had to do it, but when it came to the moment, he didn’t understand why he had to go through with it. That’s a very important point for understanding Mark’s portrayal of the crucifixion. Even though Jesus doesn’t understand — the reader does, because of what happens next: the ripping of the curtin and teh confession of the centurion. It’s the climax.
How was the scholarly response to your book? Were you able to persuade some/many of them of your thesis, that some NT-books were forgeries and that the practice of forging was considered bad in ancient times?
Most scholars are highly reluctant to use the term forgery because they find it offensive; but the idea that six of Paul’s letters and Peter’s letters etc. were not actually written by them is old news to biblical scholars. What I do in my book is principally to show how these forgeries functioned in polemical contexts and that was my main contribution. THe problem with convincing scholars that forgery was understood as a kind of literary deceit, a “lie,” is that they’ve always assumed otherwise. Hard to teach old dogs new tricks!
Since you have had a number of interactions on this blog and elsewhere with conservative Christian writer Ben Witherington, have you ever responded to his long critical review of “Forged”?
Don’t think I saw it.
It’s very long, and, of course, biased by a conservative evangelical view of scripture.
He published it in several parts on Patheos. Here’s the last part (because it links back to the earlier chapter reviews):
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/04/10/forged-chapters-seven-and-eight-collateral-damage/