I’ve been talking about some of the early Christian forgeries, books that Christian authors published claiming to be apostles when they were … someone else. Could we have such things actually in the New Testament? That is the topic I discuss in my book Forged (HarperOne: 2011). I give extensive arguments and evidence throughout the book, but here is the opening gambit.
******************************
There are thirteen letters in the New Testament that claim to be written by Paul, including two to the Thessalonians. In the Second Letter to the Thessalonians we find a most intriguing verse, where the author tells his readers that they are not to be led astray by a letter “as if by us” which indicates that the “day of the Lord” is almost here (2 Thess 2:2). The author, in other words, knows of a letter in circulation claiming to be by Paul, which is not really by Paul. This other letter allegedly teaches an idea that Paul himself opposes. Who would create such a forged letter? Obviously someone who wanted to advance his own views about when the end would come, and decided to do so with the authority of Paul, even though he was not Paul but someone else.
But there is a terrifically interesting irony connected with this passage. Second Thessalonians, in which the passage appears, is itself widely thought among scholars not to be by Paul, even though it claims to be written by Paul (we’ll see the reasons for thinking this in chapter three). Is Second Thessalonians itself a forgery in Paul’s name? If so, why would it warn against a forgery in Paul’s name? There can be little doubt about the answer: one of the “tricks” used by ancient forgers to assure readers that their own writings were authentic was to warn against writings that were not authentic. Readers naturally assume that the author is not doing precisely what he condemns. [1]
We have other interesting instances of this phenomenon in the early Christian literature. Three hundred years later, at the end of the fourth century, there appeared a book that scholars have called The Apostolic Constitutions. This is a lengthy book, in eight volumes, that gives instructions concerning how the church is to be organized and run by its leaders. The book claims to be written by a man named Clement, who was allegedly the third bishop of Rome (i.e. an early “pope”), appointed by the apostle Peter himself to lead the great church. But in reality the book was written three centuries or so after Clement himself was in the grave. That is, it is a forgery. More than that, the book is called the “Apostolic” Constitutions because it passes along the advice and instructions of the apostles of Jesus themselves, often in the first person: “I Peter” say to you this; “I John” say to you this; “I James” say to you this; and so on. One of the most fascinating instructions of the real-life author of this book (we don’t know who actually wrote it) comes at the end, where he warns his readers not to read books that claim to be written by the apostles, but are not. In other words, he’s telling his readers not to read books such as the one they are reading, an apostolic forgery. Why insert this instruction? Once again, as with 2 Thessalonians, it is because by doing so he throws his readers off the scent of his own deceit.
With 2 Thessalonians we are presented with a particularly interesting situation. No matter how one understands the matter, the book shows that there were almost certainly forgeries in Paul’s name in circulation all the way back in the time of the New Testament writings. If scholars who think that 2 Thessalonians was not written by Paul are wrong – that is, if Paul really wrote it – then it shows that Paul himself knows of a forgery in his name that had come to the Thessalonian church. But if these scholars are right, that Paul did not compose 2 Thessalonians, then this book itself is a forgery in Paul’s name that was floating around in the church. Either way, there must be Pauline forgeries already in the first century.
Are there other forgeries from the earliest of Christian times? I will be dealing with this question at length later in the book, looking into evidence that a number of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people who are claimed to be their authors. For now I’m interested in noting that this is not simply a finding of modern scholarship. A number of the books of the New Testament were disputed already in ancient Christianity, among the Christian scholars of the second to fourth century who were arguing over which books should be included in Scripture.
The most famous instance is the book of Revelation. A third-century Christian scholar of Alexandria, Egypt named Dionysius argued that the book was not actually written by Jesus’ disciple John, the son of Zebedee. Dionysius’s argument was compelling, and continues to be compelling to scholars today: the writing style of the book is so different from the writing style of the Gospel of John, that they could not have been written by the same person (modern scholars differ from Dionysius only in thinking that the Gospel too was probably not written by John). For Dionysius there must have been two authors of the same name, who later came to be confused as the same person. But it is interesting that Dionysius, according to the church Father Eusebius, had a number of predecessors who had argued that Revelation was written not by a different man named John but by a heretic named Cerinthus who forged the account in order to promote his false teaching that there would be a literal future paradise of a thousand years here on earth. [2]
The small letter of Jude, allegedly written by Jesus’ own brother, was also debated in the early church. Some Christians argued that it was not authentic, in part, according to the famous Christian scholar of the fourth century, Jerome, because the book quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it were authoritative scripture.[3] The book of 2 Peter was rejected by a number of early church fathers, as discussed by both Jerome and Eusebius, but none more straightforwardly than the notable Christian teacher of Alexandria Egypt, Didymus the Blind, who argued that “the letter is false and so is not to be in the canon.”[4] Peter, in other words, did not actually write it, according to Didymus, even though the author claimed to be Peter.
Other Christian teachers disputed whether 1 and 2 Timothy were actually by Paul, some claiming that their contents showed that he did not write them.[5] The book of Hebrews was particularly debated: the book does not explicitly claim to be written by Paul, but there are hints at the end that the author wants the reader to think that he’s Paul (see 13:22-25). For centuries it was a matter of dispute: is this actually by Paul or not? The book was finally admitted into the canon only when nearly everyone came to think Paul must have written it.
In short, there were long, protracted, and often heated debates in the early church over forged documents. Early Christians realized that there were numerous forgeries in circulation, and they wanted to know which books were written by their alleged authors and which were not. As we will see more fully later, practically no one approved of the practice of forgery; on the contrary it was widely condemned, even in books that were themselves forged (such as 2 Thessalonians and The Apostolic Constitutions).
Most of this book will focus on examples of forgery in early Christianity. To make sense of the early Christian forgeries, however, we need to take a step back and consider the phenomenon of forgery in the ancient world more broadly. That will be the focus of the rest of this chapter. We begin with a very important discussion of the terms that I will be using.
******************************
This will be my last post on the topic. If you’re interested – the book should give you all you want to know. (Note: it should. Whether it does or not is a different question….)
[1] 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! See pp. xxx.
[2] Eusebius, Church History, 7.25.
[3] Jerome, The Lives of Famous Men, 4.
[4] In his work, Comments on the Catholic Epistles (never translated into English), found in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca 39, 1774.
[5] Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 2, 52, 6.
I wanted to know what the Old Testament and New Testament say about pre-marital sex, Is it a sin according to OT or NT?
They don’t talk about it in the terms we think of it todsay, since the entire social arrangement was massively different — no such thing as mingling of boys and girls / men and women socially, being attracted to each other, getting in a casual or serious relation, having intimate relations — none of that. The biblical view was that women should be married to men and not have sex with anyone other than their husband; and teh man was not to have sex with anyone else’s wife. It’s a very patriarchal system: the woman belonged to the man and counted as his property. The man could have sex with slaves and unmarried women.
Double standards!
I always hear you mention the Church Fathers, so I decided to learn something about them. I start from scratch.
I got your beautiful package of videos and guide book “After the New Testament: The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers” from The Teaching Company and the Great Courses. ( I also have the big book)
Gorgeous set!
Before Argentina vs Croatia tonight
( World FIFA Cup) I’ll sink my teeth into it.
I learn a lot better seeing the person speak.
I try to find who would be the equivalent to the Apostolic Fathers in Judaism. People like Maimonides, or Nachmanides? Rashi? They were much later than the Fathers though.
At a much more basic religious level, I got a Jewish divorce this morning.
15 men in one small room ( 5 Rabbis, 3 scribes, 2 witnesses, my ex and the lawyers). Strange ceremony.
Well, I hope you were rooting for Argentina…. I suppose the various rabbinic texts would be the closest analogy to teh Christian church fathers; these were Xn writers in the early centuries, before the medieval period.
I hate to be the one to bring this up… LOL
Is there going to be a Gold Q&A for November?
Don’t get me wrong. The PodCast is great but one can never get enough Bart!
Uh, there was. And a December one planned. Did the November one not get published? Ai yai yai. I’ll look into it (I don’t publish / post it myself; we have staff to do that. I just answer the questions! And now I’m going to be asking one!)
Thank you for an excellent – and compelling – summary of your arguments that certain canonical New Testament books might be classed as “forgeries”, Bart.
Though I am intrigued by one observation; of the letter to the Hebrews:
“there are hints at the end that the author wants the reader to think that he’s Paul (see 13:22-25).”
I presume this refers to verse 23: “our brother Timothy”. If we assume a forger, then they must have considered (and rejected) using the formulation “our son Timothy” – as did the author of 1 Timothy 18 – which would much more clearly point from Timothy back to Paul.
On the otehr hand, if we assume that the writer is not a forger, then all that might be ‘suspicious’ is that he has a close Christian ‘brother’ called Timothy’. It may well be that this Timothy is the one whom Paul also calls ‘son’ and ‘brother’ in the accepted genuine letters; but unless we have reason to beleive that this Timothy cannot have been in Rome at the time when the letter to the Hebrews was written, there is no reason why another writer than Paul could not have penned that sentence.
Yup, it’s a tricky issue. There is an entire book on the issue written by NT scholar Clare Rothschild, arguing for forgery: Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament). I’m not *completely* convinced, but I do lean that way a bit.
Indeed Bart; I have been looking at Clare’s arguments; and she makes a very detailed case for wide-ranging references to Paul’s ‘recognised’ letters throughout Hebrews, especially in citing the same portions of the Hebrew Bible. An aware reader is constantly promted to think back to Paul. But are these intended to deceive?
Yet, if so, the author of Hebrews is clearly intent on not including anything that unambiguously fingers Paul as the author – no name at the front; no passage at the end ‘written in my own hand’; no description of Timothy as ‘my son’. I think Clare sees this as a sophisticated ‘double-game’. The author of Hebrews certainly does have literary aspirations; but that seem a tad too sophisticated.
And there does seem a problem of dating. Hebrews is well used by the author of 1 Clement around 100. So, for Clare, Hebrews was written with the intention of becoming included in an existing ‘Corpus Paulinum’. But that implies a very early date for Paul’s letters to have circulated together. Clement himself shows no sign of knowing more than two – 1 Corinthians and Romans.
Yeah, it may be too sophisticated by half. I certainly don’t agree with a pre-existing Pauline corpus. If there were, though, I wouldn’t expect that Clement would necessarily know about it…
I think your second sentence could be the killer though Bart, as Clare is insistent that Hebrews can never have circulated other than within a Corpus Paulinum; hence she presents the citations from Hebrews in 1 Clement as demonstrating the early recognition of Hebrews as Pauline within the Western tradition. So, for Clare, the author of 1 Clement must have been working from an existing collection of Paul’s letters – which from her proposed identifications of Pauline cross-references within Hebrews – must have contained (at least) Romans, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Galatians.
Even if that’s her view, I don’t see why it’s necessary. If someone DID want readers to think he was Paul, and included hints (especially hte reference to Timothy), all that would be required is that he believed anyone would know that Paul was closely connected with Timonth, not that there are specific books accepted into a Pauline canon. If that’s her argument, she’s overreaching, unnecessarily.
Hello Bart. Speaking of forgeries, am wondering what your current thinking is concerning the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark? At one point, I believe you had suspicions that it’s discoverer, Morton Smith, may have forged it himself. However, I came upon a 2010 study by Hershel Shanks who had enlisted a Greek paleographer and a Greek questioned document examiner to study Mar Saba 65 and consider whether Morton Smith could have forged it. Cutting to the chase, they concluded that a) the writings did not bear the characteristics of what you might expect from a forgery and b) in any case, Smith lacked the Greek handwriting skill level to have pulled it off. Can you speak to what scholarship has to say these days about this fascinating topic? Thanks.
Yeah, I still think he probably did it. There are too many weird things about it to suggest it’s not original. I talk about them a bit in my chapter on it in Lost Christianities, and then further in an article on the topic: “Hedrick’s Consensus on the Secret Gospel of Mark,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 11 (2003) pp. 155-64.
Hello Bart,
I wasn’t sure if I should ask my question in the comment section or in the Forum, but here goes. I have begun reading your recent academic book, “Journeys to Heaven and Hell” and my question is: How important are your Notes in the back? I remember when I read the 5-volume biography of Jesus, “A Marginal Jew,” it felt like I spent half my time reading the massive Notes section. I guess my second question would be: If the Notes are important, why not just include them in the actual text of the book, so readers don’t have to go back and forth? Thank you.
Frank Bella
The notes are pretty important if you want to pursue the issues at greater depth — far more so than, say, in my popular books. But a lot of them are geared toward scholars. You could take a look and see if they’re helpful in relation to the words/sentences they are attached to.
Thanks, Bart. Can you explain why the notes are not then included in the body of the text? That way readers would not have to go back and forth. Thanks.
Because they detract from teh main point in order to provide additional documentation/argument or to develop secondary points. That’s why notes exist at all. Scholars, you may know, really do NOT like end notes with which you have to go back and forth, but almost always prefer *FOOT*notes so you can see them on the bottom of the page and not hve to go to the effort of turning back and forth. But most publishers don’t allow that because they think (argue) that they are distracting to readers.
OK, thanks. Here’s to going back and forth!
Didymus the Blind … argued … that “the letter [2 Peter] is false and *so* is not to be in the canon.”
One interesting bit here is the *so*.
Is it fair to say that church fathers would agree with Didymus that
IF a book lies or misleads about the identity of the author THEN it is not to be in the canon?
Absolutely!
Bart,
Looking forward to your new book in March. In your Expecting Armageddon talk with Todd you stated:
“What does Revelation reveal? It reveals a rather unpleasant side of Christianity that has often taken over that Christians are to dominate others and use violence to do so. I don’t think thats the teaching of Jesus.”
But:
In Matt 10:15 NT Jesus says villages that do not accept his disciples will be obliterated.
In Luke 19:27 – I asked you once if NT jesus was referring to himself here as the king who goes away and comes back in judgement (bring my enemies here and slay them before me) and your answer was “Yup, definitely.”
In Matt 10:34 Jesus says he came not to bring peace but a sword.
There other examples one could point to where NT Jesus *does* embrace the concept of deferred violence (The Bad Jesus – Avalos). So yes turn the other cheek now…because Yahweh is going to unleash revenge soon.
So it doesnt seem to me to be big leap to Revelation – it is the deferred violence come to fruition.
My question:
If early church leaders thought Revelation was greatly at odds with Jesus’s teachings – why would they include it?
TY,
SC
The early leaders who thought it was at odds definitely did not want to include it. But by the fourth century they were outnumbered. I’ll be discussing this in my book.
How do Christian apologists interpret Luke 19:27?
You’ll need to quote it so other members of the blog will know what yuo’re referring to and see how I would respond.
Okay. I will do that shortly.
“But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me”.
Thanks. Now you’ll need to both quote it and ask your question! (Sorry bout this: but I don’t see the entire conversation when I respond to comments: just the comment itself)
How do Christian apologists interpret Luke 19:27?
“But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me”.
I assume most of them think that this shows that God is just and rewards people according to how they respond to Jesus. Those who reject him will be slaughtered.
Wouldn’t it be great to discover the epistle or epistles that the author of 2 Thessalonians was railing against? And the ultimate irony would be achieved if what her was railing against was in fact a genuine Pauline letter which was rejected because 2 Thess. said it wasn’t?
Some have argued that the pseudonymous author of 2 Thessalonians (not Paul) was arguing against 1 Thessalonians (by Paul)!!
Bart,
BTW I am aware they thought it was *the* John w Jesus and that it was debated etc…
To put my above question more succinctly:
Do you think early church leaders would agree with you that Revelation does not represent the teachings of Jesus?
TY – (btw My wife and I sent you a happy holiday card to the UNC addy listed here on the blog!)
SC
Some did; in the end, most didn’t — hence its inclusion in the canon. Thanks for the card!
Christianity includes lots of theories of atonement. Is there a scholarly consensus about what atonement means in the gospels as written—and in what ways it might be different from what it means to Paul?
The word atonement, as far as I can tell, doesn’t appear in the gospels. I think the clearest references there are about Jesus coming to give his life as ransom for many and pour out his blood for forgiveness of sins.
I don’t know what ransom might have meant, maybe ransoming a prisoner? Who was the ransom being paid to, Satan? I suppose people are prisoners of Satan because of their sins. But how did Jesus’s death work as ransom? He didn’t trade places with sinners.
The theory, based on the gospels, that makes the most sense to me is that Jesus was a sacrifice for sin in much the same way as Jews had always sacrificed animals to atone for sin—except that Jesus was a perfect sacrifice and atoned for all humanity. That seems a lot simpler than other theories, fits the historical context, and doesn’t make God any more sadistic than is essential in order to account for his Messiah’s cruel death.
The individual passages are debated, as are the nuances of the idea. But the basic idea is that Jesus’ death provided a payment of a debt or was a sacrifice or was a necessary substitution for the (eternal) death of others. To whom was it paid? Why was it necessary? ANd so on? But the basic idea is that Jesus’ death itself can put a person into a right standing with God. (That’s a view that I do not think Luke holds to; but the other Gospels and Paul do)
So are you saying that there’s no major or essential difference between Paul and the Gospels (except Luke) in their ideas of atonement?
I got it into my head that atonement was a bit of an afterthought and fairly simple in the gospels but Paul made it central and highly elaborated it.
But if the gospels are essentially “accounts of the passion with long introductions” I don’t suppose atonement could be said to be an afterthought.
Why are Jesus’s suffering and death such a major part of each gospel? Is it mainly and simply because they brought salvation through (except for Luke) atonement?
Their entire *point* is that the life of Jesus led up to the death and resurrection, and that it is the latter that ultimately brought salvation. Scholars sometimes therefore call the Gospels “”Passion narratives with long introductions”
No, I’m not saying there is no difference. I”m saying they all have an understanding that Christ’s death brought an atonement. Paul, of course, was writing *before* the Gospels, and so he was not elaborating something he found in them.
Does the OT reflect a belief in free will or something like it? Were people responsible for their own sins? Or didn’t it matter if they had in fact sinned? They were punished anyway?
Well, it certainly understands taht people make decisions and that they were held accountable for them.
My understanding is that, from a critical historical standpoint, a major reason (maybe the biggest reason) that the first Christians came up with the doctrine of atonement was to make sense out of the cruel, shameful death of God’s Messiah.
But from the same standpoint, do you think the first Christian’s experienced a strong sense of their own sins being forgiven—at least after the crucifixion was followed by their experience of Jesus’s resurrection? And that they found the doctrine of atonement best expressed or accounted for their experience of being forgiven?
Or maybe it wasn’t so much the sense of their general sinfulness as their guilt specifically about abandoning Jesus when he was arrested?
All of a sudden this makes me think of Luke’s understanding of the purpose of the crucifixion, ie, to provoke repentance in people for contributing to the murder of an innocent man. This understanding may make better use of the first Christian’s’ sense of guilt and forgiveness without having to say that Jesus needed to suffer in order for God to forgive their sins.
I’d emphasize that they didn’t invent the idea of atonement; they took the idea and applied it to Jesus. And yes, I’d say they very strongly believed and experienced the redemptive value of Jesus ‘death.
Related but late to the party as always… I remember your blog post about Colossians from a while back which focussed mainly on Bujard’s analysis. Other critical scholars claim “when analysed in a more sophisticated way it appears that Colossians is perfectly at home among the accepted letters (Neumann 1990: 213).” Is the consensus for Colossians being a forgery somewhat outdated now do you think?
“The case against authenticity has been most comprehensively argued recently by Schenk (1987) and Furnish (1992), but the reasons they assemble—style, conception of Paul’s role, Christology, eschatology, and literary dependence—are not compelling.” – More quotes from John Barton.
It’s never been a consensus, but it’s still the widespread view, and not just because of Bujard. (And so, by definition, you will always find people stating the other side even if their view is not in the majority) But it’s a little hard to say that his analysis is not sophisticated! Not sure if you’ver read it, but… IN any event, if you want to see the fuller argument, see my analysis in Forgery and Counterforgery. And there are, of course, a lot more recent analyses than 1992!