In my previous post I pointed out a major problem that confronted the earliest Christians, as I discuss in the Preface to my book Forged (HarperOne, 2011). From the beginning the followers of Jesus insisted that they had the “truth” and that it was only by accepting the “truth” about God as revealed by Jesus that anyone could have salvation. But they disagreed on what the truth was. There were numerous widespread views already in the earliest years of Christianity about who Jesus was, what his death meant, how one was to have salvation, whether one had to keep, or begin to keep, the Jewish law, and about lots of other things.
How was one to get around these problems? The obvious answer presented itself early on in the Christian movement. One could know what the apostles taught because they left writings behind. These authoritative authors produced authoritative teachings. And so, the authoritative truth could be found in the apostolic writings.
Even though this might sound like a perfect solution to the problem, the solution raised problems of its own. One involves a reality that ancient Christians may not have taken into account, but that scholars today are keenly aware of. Most of the apostles were illiterate and could not in fact write.[1] They could not have left an authoritative writing if their soul depended on it. Another problem is that writings started to appear that claimed to be written by apostles, but that contained all sorts of bizarre and contradictory views. Gospels were in circulation that claimed to be written by Jesus’ disciples Peter and Philip and Mary, his brothers Thomas and James; epistles (that is, personal letters) appeared that were allegedly written by Paul (in addition to ones that he actually did write), Peter, and James; apocalyptic writings describing the end of the world or the fate of the souls in the afterlife appeared in the names of Jesus’ followers John, Peter, and Paul. Some writings emerged that claimed to be written by Jesus himself.
In many instances, the authors of these writings could not actually have been who they claimed to be, as even the ancient Christians realized. The views found in these writings were often deemed “heretical” (i.e., they conveyed false teachings), they were at odds with one another, and they contradicted the teachings that had become standard within the church. But why would authors claim to be someone they weren’t? Why would an author claim to be an apostle when he wasn’t? Why would an unknown figure write a book falsely calling himself Peter, Paul, James, Thomas, Philip, or even Jesus?
The answer should seem fairly obvious. If your name was Jehoshaphat, and no one (other than, say, your parents and siblings) had any idea who you were, and you wanted to write an authoritative Gospel about the life and teachings of Jesus, or an authoritative epistle describing what Christians should believe or how they should live, or an inspired apocalypse describing in detail the fate of souls after death, you could not very well sign your own name to the book. No one would take the Gospel of Jehoshaphat seriously. If you wanted someone to read it, you called yourself Peter. Or Thomas. Or James. In other words, you lied about who you really were.
It is often said – even by scholars who should know better – that this kind of “pseudonymous” (= falsely named) writing in the ancient world was not thought to be lying and was not meant to be deceitful. Part of what I’ll be showing in this book is that this view is flat out wrong.[2] Ancient authors who talked about this practice of writing a book in someone else’s name said that it was both lying and deceitful, and that it was not an acceptable practice.
A lot of early Christian writings are “pseudonymous,” going under a “false name.” The more common word for this kind of writing is “forgery.”[3] In the ancient world forgery was a bit different from today, in that it was not, technically speaking, against the law. But even though it was not an illegal activity, it was a deceitful one that involved conscious lying, as the ancients themselves said.
The million-dollar question is this: is it possible that any of the ancient Christian forgeries made it into the New Testament? That some of the books of the New Testament were not written by the apostles whose names are attached to them? That some of Paul’s letters were not actually written by Paul but by someone claiming to be Paul? That Peter’s letters were not written by Peter? That James and Jude did not write the books that bear their names? Or – a somewhat different case, as we will see – that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
Scholars for over a hundred years have realized that in fact this is the case. The authors of some of the books of the New Testament were not who they claimed to be or who they have been supposed to be. In some instances that is because an anonymous writing, in which an author did not indicate who he was, was later named after someone who did not in fact write it. Matthew probably did not write Matthew,, for example, or John John;[4] on the other hand, neither book actually claims to be written by persons named Matthew or John. In other instances it is because an author lied about who he was, claiming to be someone he was not. As I have already intimated, some scholars have long been reluctant, and even opposed, to calling this authorial activity lying, and to call the literary products that resulted as forgeries. As I will explain at length in the following chapters, most of the scholars who have actually read what ancient authors say about the phenomenon have no such hesitancy.
It is true that the ancient authors who lied about their identity may well have felt they had a clear conscience, that what they did was completely justified, that they were ultimately in the right. They may have thought and believed , at least in their own minds, that they had very good reasons for doing what they did. But as we will see in later chapters, by ancient standards these authors engaged in fraudulent activities, and the books they produced were forgeries.
Let me conclude this preface simply by saying that I have spent the past five or six years studying forgery in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, especially but not exclusively within Christianity. These past ten months I have devoted all my research to this field, day and night, reading the ancient sources that discuss the matter. My goal all along has been to write a detailed scholarly monograph that deals with the matter at length. The book you’re reading now is not that scholarly monograph. What I try to do in the present book is to discuss the issue at a layperson’s level, pointing out the really interesting aspects of the problem, showing what scholars have long said about the writings of the New Testament and about the pseudonymous Christian writings from outside the New Testament. I do not to presuppose an in-depth knowledge of the subject, but try to explain all my terms and all the issues at a level that the guy across the street can understand. Once I finish writing this book, I will then produce the scholarly monograph that will be much more thoroughly documented, closely argued, and, generally, heavy duty. The present book, in other words, is not intended for my fellow scholars (that’s the next book), who, if they read this one, will be doing so simply out of curiosity. It is instead intended for you, the general reader, who on some level or other, like me, is interested in the truth.
[1] I will discuss evidence for this claim – the illiteracy of the apostles –in chapter two of my book.
[2] I discuss this at length in chapter four of my book.
[3] I give more precise definitions of these terms in chapter one.
[4] See pp. xxx.
Interesting piece. The use of the phrase “in fact this is the case” with regards to the forgery question implies to me that these questions have been dealt with convincingly and rigorously by scholars. Would you say that at this point no intellectual defense can be made for the traditional authorship of the books of the new testament except for the Pauline works (perhaps excluding the pastorals), and such works as Jude or the Revelation (I’ve seen work suggesting these may be authentic to Jude and whoever John of Patmos actually was but am no scholar myself)?
A case can certainly been made, and often has and is. THe question is whether the case is convincing. For me there are better arguments for, say, Colossians than 1 Timothy, e.g. But apart from the seven undisputed Paulines and Revelation (we don’t know which John it is, but there’s no reason to think his name was something else), I don’t think the arguments are compelling. Jude almost certainly, in my views, could not have been written by Jesus’ brother. I discuss that at some length in my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
Thank you for the clarification. Have you ever written a blog post or a passage of a book on some of the criteria you use/look for in evaluating arguments on this subject? Or loosely what basic facets should be present to make an argument convincing? The art of how we should analyze persuasive literature and weigh the various aspects in our minds can be a difficult thing to grasp, and I think your experience and input on this subject would be quite valuable.
Yup — I discuss the matter in my book Forged, for a general audience; but for hard core applicatoin of argument/criteria, you’d need to look at my academic book Forgery and Counterforgery. You could also do a word search on the blog for forgery and get a number of posts.
Speaking of forgeries, have you tried out the new ChatGPT? ( https://chat.openai.com/chat ) The language model knows enough to vaguely sense which side you should be on, but pretty quickly drifts into the language seen for Biblical discussion elsewhere, even when attributing it to you. I asked it to “Write a dialogue between Biblical scholars Bart Ehrman and Richard Bauckham on the authorship of the Gospel of John.”, and forged-Ehrman did say it was written by a “later author who used the apostle’s name to lend credibility to their work.” But after I asked it to continue the script and discuss Cerinthus, forged-Ehrman was pretty quickly agreeing with forged-Bauckham that “the apostle John’s close relationship with Jesus may have shaped his understanding of God and his ability to counter false teachings.”
Never heard of it. Sounds… weird and intriguing!
What exactly is the difference between pseudonymy and pseudepigraphy?
https://ehrmanblog.org/my-lecture-in-quebec-did-ancient-authors-try-to-deceive-their-readers/
I think this 2019 post from Bart may help to answer your question. I suspect the key difference is that pseudepigraphy involves someone claiming their work is written by another who holds considerable sway and influence within the intended audience, which thereby lends more weight, authority and persuasive power to the writing. Like me claiming that what you are reading now is really by Bart Ehrman.
The word “forgery” carries a negative connotation, as does its cousins “plagiarism” and “cribbing.” Yet context matters.
I spent a lot of years investigating a religious movement whose founder plagiarized from dozens of authors. In book after book, whole paragraphs from other authors’ books were lifted without attribution and placed in the mouths of fictional characters who were said to be ascended masters from higher planes.
From my pov as a disillusioned follower of this religion, what the founder had done was conclusively an act of forgery. But an apologist for this religion said not so. He gave the example of newspaper wire services in which it was common that local journalists (in years gone by, and perhaps still) relayed national and world news stories under their own name rather than whoever wrote the copy at the wire service.
While I didn’t agree with the apologist’s lame attempt to excuse his guru’s deception, he did at least show that, re forgery, context and intent matter quite a bit.
Thanks for sharing your experience, Jayakron!
Bart,
1. Did you ever meet scholar J. Z. Smith / what are your impressions of him and his work? ?
I’ve been reading some of his stuff and watching a few youtube videos of him (there arent many vids up dont think he was too fond of modern tech (“cell phones are an abomination!)
2. I’m looking for some new books to buy myself for holiday gifts was wondering what some of your favs were you read this year could be in any genre at all – also what are a few older books you’ve read on early Christianity that you think have been overlooked and are not widely known or read by most (I know thats alot!!!)
Thanks!,
SC
Steve Clark
Yup, had dinner with him once. Now HE was an unbelievably erudite scholar. Quite off the charts.
Books. My most popular is Misquoting Jesus. I think How Jesus Became God is the most important for understanding the development of the Trinity and other key doctrines of Xty. Interrupting Jesus is the best for the critical problems of the NT. Heaven adn Hell deals with the question most on everyone’s mind. God’s Problem deals with the Problem of Suffering. Every one of them (and the others) is my favorite. So it just depends what you/they might want.
Thankyou Prof Ehrman for this post – with it’s truly insightful title. A title that says almost as much as all the text the follows! It’s not the first time, & forever continues not to be the last, where the truly cynical ploy of “the ends justify the means” is rolled out from within the church or any other human institution. And so nonsensical!
If the church – any or all of its exclusive branches from fundamentalist to liberal to orthodox – would just be honest & say their view of scriptural authority is a matter of decreed dogma & acceptance by faith but not of contrived evidence or apologetics then I would have more respect for them. The underlying psychology of it all is so very interesting. People WANT there to be divine authority in their hands and so make their idol!!