The accusation that a significant portion of ancient Christian writings consist of forgeries has led to a longstanding debate among modern scholars. David Brakke insists that a minimum of ten of the New Testament books are forgeries because they are writings with falsely attributed authors.^[1] However, Bruce Metzger asserts that a literary forgery is not simply a book with false attribution, but instead a “work created or modified with the intention to deceive.”^[2] Accordingly, the important aspect of motive must enter into the discussion and will ultimately point the analysis in the right direction.

Backgrounds of Early Christianity – Third Edition

Lee Martin McDonald clarifies the distinction between a literary forgery and a pseudonymous writing by explaining that the latter is a published work using a false name without necessarily the intent to deceive. McDonald notes that early church fathers treated certain writings considered pseudonymous as Scripture.^[3] Furthermore, Jude 14-15 in the New Testament quotes 1 Enoch, a pseudonymous writing.^[4] An important question for New Testament scholars and believers is whether certain works, such as the Pastoral Epistles or 2 Peter, would be less authoritative if they were written by an unknown writer who wrote in the name of an apostle. To answer the question, the remainder of the post engages with both Bruce Metzger, who represents a more evangelical perspective, and David Brakke, who represents the more critical perspective of Bart Ehrman.

Barth Ehrman’s book Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics takes a typical Ehrmanian approach by suggesting that ancient Christians embraced literary deceit with enthusiasm. Ehrman also accuses conservative New Testament scholars of attempting to justify the deceit of these Christian writers while, in turn, deceiving unsuspecting students.^[5] Ehrman expends significant effort in disproving that writing in the name of a teacher or person of authority was commonplace in ancient writing.^[6] Furthermore, Ehrman denies the possibility that a secretary could coauthor a work even though the use of an amanuensis might explain the stylistic differences between works of the same author.^[7] Additionally, as the book’s title suggests, Ehrman asserts that “forgeries were sometimes used to counter the views of other forgeries.”^[8] Ehrman appears to assume that the counterforgers were themselves deceived into believing that the work they were opposing was not a forgery. Furthermore, Ehrman concludes that the book of Ephesians was written pseudonymously even though Paul refers to himself as the author four times in the letter (Eph 1:1; 3:1; 4:1; 6:19-22), and then he finds irony in such deceit in light of the exhortations against lying in the book (Eph 4:14, 25).^[9] The reason behind all the deceit, according to Ehrman, was polemical; the Christian writers had to lie to defend and advance their cause.^[10] Although nuanced, Ehrman admits that not all forgeries are pseudonymous, but is convinced he can determine the motive of deceit within the authors. Unfortunately, it appears that Ehrman is deceived into believing that he can determine whether ancient writers had an intent to deceive their readers thousands of years ago. A small amount of humility regarding the ability to definitively know the intentions of other human beings might go a long way in increasing Ehrman’s credibility.

Bruce Metzger takes a different tact without claiming certainty around uncertain issues. McDonald explains that a pen name is not the same as a pseudonym.^[11] However, the lines appear blurred between the two if an intent to deceive is absent from both. Accordingly, Metzger points out that Mary Ann Evans used the pseudonym George Eliot to write such works as The Mill and the Floss, but under the circumstances of the late nineteenth century, it would be difficult to accuse her of deceit.^[12] Metzger then proceeds to identify seven reasons why pseudonymous writings might occur: (1) financial gain, (2) malice, (3) respect, (4) modesty, (5) interests of dramatic composition, (6) accidents of copying,  and (7) attribution to influential individuals.^[13] The reactions to pseudonymous writings in ancient times compared to modern times differ. Metzger explains that people of antiquity could often detect forgeries and that some pseudonymous works were condemned on literary grounds while others were condemned on doctrinal grounds.^[14] However, a consistent pattern regarding the approval or rejection of works did not exist, which was likely due to the various motives behind the works. Alternatively, in modern times, scholars have often landed in the extremes. At one extreme, according to Metzger, are scholars who assert that pseudepigraphy was a completely legitimate enterprise.^[15] At the other extreme, are scholars that align with authors such as Ehrman. After reviewing several modern perspectives, Metzger appropriately concludes that analyzing ancient forgeries and pseudepigrapha is complex and has no “pat answers.”^[16] However, my perspective is that it is possible that pseudepigraphical works were included in the New Testament, but they should not be considered less authoritative if the book expresses the thoughts of the person represented and contains no deceitful intentions. Accordingly, there would appear to be no reason for such works to lack divine inspiration. As Metzger asserts, if the literary form of pseudepigraphy has no fraudulent intent, then “it cannot be argued that the character of inspiration excludes the possibility of pseudepigraphy among the canonical writings.”^[17]

__________________________________________________

[1] David Brakke, “Early Christian Lies and the Lying Liars Who Wrote Them: Bart Ehrman’s Forgery and Counterforgery,” The Journal of Religion 96, no. 3 (July 2016): 378.

[2] Bruce Manning Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91, no. 1 (March 1972): 4.

[3] Lee Martin McDonald, “Pseudonymous Writings and the New Testament,” in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 367–378.

[4] Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 453.

[5] See Brakke, “Early Christian Lies and the Lying Liars Who Wrote Them,” 378–379.

[6] Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (New York: Oxford University, n.d.), 105–119.

[7] Ibid., 218–222.

[8] Ibid., 27.

[9] Ibid., 189–190.

[10] Ibid., 529–548.

[11] McDonald, “Pseudonymous Writings and the New Testament,” 367.

[12] Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” 5.

[13] Ibid., 5–11.

[14] Ibid., 13–15.

[15] Ibid., 15.

[16] Ibid., 19.

[17] Ibid., 22.

Bibliography

• Brakke, David. “Early Christian Lies and the Lying Liars Who Wrote Them: Bart Ehrman’s Forgery and Counterforgery.” The Journal of Religion 96, no. 3 (July 2016): 378–390.
• Ehrman, Bart D. Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. New York: Oxford University, n.d.
• Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
• McDonald, Lee Martin. “Pseudonymous Writings and the New Testament.” In The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald, 367–378. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.
• Metzger, Bruce Manning. “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91, no. 1 (March 1972): 3–24.