Bart Ehrman’s recent book presents an important thesis
challenging the assertion that pseudonymity (falsely named works) in antiquity
was a common practice that was widely accepted. His argument, on polemical
pseudonymity, discusses the concept of pseudonymity and the reasons it was done
both in theory (in the first section) and in practice (by covering a wide range
of pseudonymous writings in the first several centuries of Christianity).
Ehrman’s argument convinces that pseudonymity was done to be in dialogue with
the other works by the same author in order to clarify (or perhaps argue a new
point) but struggles to convince when Ehrman tries to do much and overstates
his case about authorship and deceit.
First, it is necessary to clarify the nature of this book.
Most have become familiar with
Bart Ehrman for his overly popularized works that hit the New York Times
bestseller list which he regularly publicizes by getting into faux debates with
popular media personalities such as Stephen Colbert. These works, such as Misquoting Jesus, Forged, Jesus Interrupted,
Behind the Da Vinci Code, Why the Bible Doesn’t Solve the Problem of Evil, The
Lost Gospel of Judas, and Peter Paul
and Mary Magdalene, are rightly criticized as being fantastical and frankly
not very precise on scholarly grounds. His popular success has brought with it
scholarly skepticism and dismissal.[1]
This book is not one that fits into that category. This volume is a scholarly
piece made for scholars (but readable enough for the larger audience) and is
over 500 pages of an academic argument. This volume is far closer in tone to
his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture early
in his career. Therefore, while most of his works are not written to stand up
to scholarly scrutiny, this one is and therefore ought to be analyzed in that
context.
Brief Summary of the
Argument
Ehrman directly acknowledges that this work is in continuity
with Wolfgang Speyer’s now famous comprehensive work on the topic.[2] However, Ehrman’s goals are far
narrower than Speyer’s. Ehrman only discusses pseudonymity that has polemical
aims.[3]
He does this, most probably, because this includes all of the works called
pseudonymous in the New Testament (though Ehrman includes many texts that are
not part of the New Testament in his analysis).
Ehrman argues that pseudonymity should best be considered
forgery. He argues throughout the volume that our modern concept of forgery is
not unlike the ancient one and therefore the term should be employed. He argues
that the idea of pseudonymity (or perhaps pseudepigraphy) is neutral and that
it is better considered with the connotation that forgery holds. While I am not
sure I completely agree with Ehrman on this point, I will use his term
“forgery” throughout the summary of his work for ease of explanation.
Ehrman acknowledges that it is a common view that our
concept of forgery is a modern one that did not exist in antiquity. He addresses
the issue and argues that there is very little evidence to suggest that this
was not seen as a “problem” in antiquity. He argues that it is quite true that
forgery was common among Christian and non-Christian works.[4]
Ehrman argues that the weight evidence of the practice (when it is discussed at
all) lies upon the side of its inappropriate nature rather than its value. For
instance, he quotes Martial objecting to someone writing in his name:
My page has not wounded even those
it justly hates, and fame won with another’s blush is not dear to me! What does
this avail me when certain folk would pass off as mine darts wet with the blood
of Lycambes, and under my name a man vomits his viperous venom who owns he
cannot bear the light of day?[5]
And then further:
If some malignant fellow claim as
mine poems that are steeped in black venom, do you lend me a patron’s voice,
and with all your strength and without stopping shout, ‘My Martial did not
write that?”[6]
Martial here clearly is not fond of some of the work that is
presented in his name challenging the idea that it was “standard practice.”
Erhman points out that in addition to the practice being
objected to, there is some evidence that there was even some serious punishment
that could be meted out upon a forger. For instance, he cites Josephus who
tells a story where forgery led to capital punishment: “Diophantes, a secretary
of the king, an audacious fellow, who had the clever knack of imitating any
handwriting; and who, after numerous forgeries, was eventually put to death for
a crime of that nature.”[7]
The only problem with Ehrman’s source here is that the nature of what this certain
Diophanes was said to have been forging was, after all, treason (the
assassination of Herod). Therefore, it is unclear which act caused the capital
punishment. However, it is fair to
say that there were consequences in some cases (though admittedly rare).
Ehrman further argues that all pseudepigraphy is deceit (and
therefore forgery). Ehrman argues that a forgery has as its goal convincing the
readers that someone wrote the piece that did not. This therefore should be
considered forgery. Here is Ehrman’s real presentation of how all forgery
should be seen together.[8]
Ehrman challenges the common assertion that these forgeries were done with goodA
intentions to honor the original author. He suggests that this idea comes from
Tertullian’s famous quip that the author of the Acts of Paul wrote the treatise “for the love and honor of Paul.”[9]
Ehrman argues that this was different in that it was not a forgery – just a
false story (it is an anonymous document). However, the fine point of Erhman’s
argument is that even if the author was doing it for the best intentions, it is
still deceitful (the author was arguing that he/she wrote something he/she did not).[10]
Given this framework for deceit, the only way anything would
not be deceptive, according to Ehrman, is if the “lie” was transparent. He
dialogues with some scholars who hold this theory and argues that it does not
convince. His main evidence for that is how quickly it was read as if it were written
by the authors. He uses the example of the Pastoral Epistles. While it is true
that the vast majority of scholars now understand these as forgeries does not
mean that the same was true in antiquity.[11]
Due to Ehrman’s very narrow definition of what makes something honorable –
essentially only if it was not truly a pseudonym at all (i.e. if everyone knew
who the real author was), he essentially creates his own data. If all
motivation is “the same” as either being deceptive or not, then all forgeries
can easily be gathered together.
Following this theoretical interest in the concept of
forgery, Ehrman follows with 400 pages which deal with particular texts that he
considers forged. In that, he shows that not only was there many forgeries, but
that they were polemical. This is his completion of his previous argument –
forgery was not primarily done to honor the author, the forgeries were done to
prove a polemical point. It is from this platform that he develops the idea of
both forgery and counterforgery. He
argues that the main use of forgery was polemics with other texts and therefore demanded that they have equal texts
written by the author himself. He considers evidence such as 2 Thessalonians
2:2 which argues against letters “as though by us” – seeming to suggest that
there is a previous letter claiming to be written by Paul that now needs to be
challenged (which is done by another forgery to challenge that previous one).
To support his theory, Ehrman focuses on dialogue between
New Testament texts. It is long known that many texts in the New Testament seem
to refer to other texts which need to be clarified. This is probably most
famously done between James 2 and Galatians/Romans. For communities that did
not know what Torah was (and therefore what Paul could mean when he discusses
the “works of the Torah”), it was necessary to clarify that position with the
common definitions of the terms for a completely Gentile audience. The best way
to make sure one compared one text with another was to simply use the same name
as the author. This had the double benefit of causing one to compare the works
as well as give it the needed authority to take the alternate opinion
seriously.
Erhman’s work is wide ranging in that he covers a variety of
different topics that are developed to clarify issues via counterforgery (from
eschatology to the use of the body). It is further wide ranging in its contents
– it covers all of the texts in the New Testament that are usually considered forgeries
in addition to several dozen other early Christian works that are considered
forgeries and are polemical. The specific topics he discusses for each of these
texts will not be presented in this review because the conversations are not
surprising. Ehrman has a very good compendium of thoughts on these issues but
for the most part, his work does not present anything that is not well known –
he simply puts them all in one place.
Response to Ehrman
The relatively lengthy summary above indicated Ehrman’s main
thesis – that Christians used literary deceit to prove a polemical point.
Ehrman’s best argument is that texts were made to be in dialogue with other
texts. This is precisely the point of having any conversation about authorship.
Once one moves beyond the relatively elementary discussions of scriptural
authority - after all, we do not know of a single author of the Old Testament
(with the possible exception of Ezekiel) but do not consider them as less
authoritative than other texts for that reason - then it is possible to see the
practical value of the authorship question. The practical value is if we expect
one text to be able to be interpreted by another from the same author (and
therefore, one needs to know whether those two authors are truly the same).
Ehrman’s argument shows that the actual authors of
pseudonymous works knew that these would be compared with other works by the
same author and welcomed it. They wanted their texts to clarify how some were
reading others. For instance, Ehrman argues that Colossians and Ephesians were
written to counter an eschatological reading of Paul which he sees found in 2
Thessalonians (which in itself in 2:2 suggests is trying to counter a
pseudonymous letter of Paul).[12]
Ehrman’s struggle here is that he tries to do too much. If he had left the conversation at the level of texts and communities, his above argument would have been more convincing. However, he instead pushes the conversation into the philosophical question of authorship. Authorship is a very difficult concept that includes many different aspects. An “author” is something that often is presented as the originator of the idea – but does that always mean the same person who wrote the treatise? Further, when is a work complete? What edition of the work is the “true work?” Can someone use a second editor and still maintain the work as his or her own? If a text is edited over time (as ancient manuscripts were), can it still be claimed as belonging to the original writer of the work? If Ehrman had simply argued on the level of a community, he would not have had this problem.
Ehrman was probably loath to work on the level of community
because it challenges one of his major points. He wanted to argue that any
author claiming to be Paul (but who was not) was therefore practicing deceit.
However, if a Pauline community put together a communal document, the challenge
that one person was claiming to be someone he was not is not as strong.
Instead, the community could be putting the name of the entire community upon
its founder – a far less scandalous claim. According to Ehrman’s very narrow
definition of what is “deceit” and not, this still would qualify, but in a far
more understandable light.
The second consequence of focus on authorship and dialogue
is that he does not frame this in the far more standard position of all texts
in the New Testament (forged or not) dialoguing with one another. One work
which he does not consider forged (and neither do I) is the Apocalypse of John. Because it is not
forged, it is not part of his discussion. However, he does discuss 1 Peter and Pauline letters. It is hard
to imagine the Apocalypse without 1 Peter and a serious claim can be made
that one of them knows the other. Further, Elaine Pagels (building upon the
work of Paul Duff) has argued that the Apocalypse
was partly directed toward Pauline Christianity which allowed the eating of
food sacrificed to idols.[13]
Whether one accepts this interpretation or not, it clearly shows that there is
some type of dialogue between the texts. It simply is not part of Ehrman’s
discussion because there is no particular issue of authorship with Paul’s
letters and the Apocalypse. The
problem this causes is not so much that he needs to discuss all aspect of
dialogue, but that he does not even attempt to suggest that this type of
dialogue between texts using authorship is part of a much wider phenomenon
within the New Testament itself. Indeed much of the reason the canon of the New
Testament includes 27 books rather than one is that it dialogues with itself.
Another serious challenge to his discussion of forgery is
his inclusion of several texts that are not necessarily forged. He argues that
the Book of James, Hebrews, and the Acts of the Apostles are forged. His
argument of James seems unnecessary.
If one were to stubbornly insist that the leader of the Jerusalem church,
Jesus’ brother was the purported author, a reasonable challenge could be
leveled that the work was forged. Ehrman takes this assertion as necessarily the
case because there is no modifier for the author (it does not say James of any
town or lineage) which would apparently mean he was “that James” (Jesus’
brother) who was so famous he did not need to identify himself any longer.[14]
The problem with this thesis is that it is an argument from silence. Further,
if this was Jesus’ brother, it is very surprising that he would not use that
anywhere in the text. Further, this argument would present Jesus’ brother who
writes a text that does not mention Jesus except for two times in passing. This
is all dependent upon the idea that an unidentified James must be Jesus’
brother.
Even more question can be raised about his discussion of Acts and Hebrews. Neither of these texts states an author (and he himself
calls them “non-pseudepigraphic forgery”) suggesting that they each imply an
author without stating one. He points to the last chapter of Hebrews which
indicates connection with Pauline authority and the four “we” sections in Acts
(Acts 16,20,21,27) which have an “embedded forgery” within it as we are to
conclude that the traveling companion with Paul is the author.[15]
The argument of the book of Hebrews smacks of a similar tone to that of his
argument concerning James. We
apparently are to demand he must be “that Sylvanus.” Further, when the author
is anonymous, it is hard to rule out many people. His argument about Acts would be stronger if he was able to
show how the Gospel of Luke shows
this same interest. As it is, he does not even mention the Gospel of Luke much less explain how that fits in the larger
narrative.
It seems likely that his dependence upon authorship to discuss
polemics has blurred his vision once again. If the three texts are not
“forged,” then they would not be discussed in his book. He wants to discuss
them so that he can show their polemical nature (something that can be
reasonably asserted). This would have been solved had he simply argued his case
on the concept of dialogue more than forgery. While it is not completely fair
to criticize someone for not including “everything,” it is far better to avoid
drawing things into the full of an argument when the evidence is so stretched.
It seems far better had he simply put these as footnotes that support his main
thesis if the argument of
pseudonymity would hold. It does not seem to have enough weight to hold its own
and unfortunately can cause a reader to dismiss larger portions of his work
that are on far firmer ground.
A further clarification that would have been helpful is if
he had followed Speyer’s original project. To focus solely on literary
forgeries that have polemical purposes, but yet include so many in such a
compendious way can mislead. There are many different causes of forgery which
he would still call “deceit” even though the purposes were completely
different. For instance, Pelagius’s commentary on 2 Corinthians was preserved
under the name of Jerome – not so that readers would compare it and use it to
interpret Jerome’s work, but only so that Pelagius’s commentary would survive
rather than being destroyed as the work of a “heretic” (not considering that
the content of his commentary on 2 Corinthians is really not all that divergent
from standard views).[16]
This type of pseudepigrapha does not directly address the issue he considers
(polemics), but it does call into question one of his fundamental assertions –
that authorship caused one to interpret one text by another. It certainly still
holds true, but perhaps it is more complicated than the simple putting of one’s
name down and the eventual consequence that others would compare and interpret
that work with the other works by the same author.
In all, Ehrman’s volume is worth the read and deserves
serious consideration. The final quibble I have is not so much with the work as
with him. In his mass market popular book surge, I simply thought him a bit of
a sloppy scholar. This book shows that he is not – he simply can choose to work
harder or not on a text and to be precise or not. That to me is the worst
offense at all – he has much he can offer to scholarship and the academy but
usually spends his time working in hyperbole. I do think there is a very good
place for scholarly work to a popular audience, but not at the cost of that
scholarly work. Given this type of sophistication in his thought, Ehrman ought
to look to the examples of Elaine Pagels and Robert Louis Wilken for a model to
work forward to keeping scholarly integrity while appealing to a much larger
audience.
[1] I should
point out that I do not think
there is a necessary correlation between popular success and poor scholarship.
Elaine Pagels, for instance, has had tremendous popular success while at the
same time maintaining academic integrity and rigor in her work.
[2] Wolfgang
Speyer, Die Literarische Falschung im
heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung (Munchen:
Beck, 1971) and “Religiose Pseudepigraphie und literarische Falschung im
Altertum” JAC 8/9 (1965-6: 88-125.
[3] Erhman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 5-6.
[4] Ibid.,
11--92.
[5] Epigrams
7.12
[6] Epigrams
7.72 both quoted in Ehrman, Forgery and
Counterforgery, 81.
[7] Josephus, Jewish War 1.26.3 quoted in Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 85.
[8] Erhman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 93-132.
[9] Tertullian, De Baptismo, 17.
[10] Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 132-137.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 156-190.
[13] See Paul B.
Duff, Who Rides the Beast?: Prophetic
Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse (Oxord:
OUP, 2001) and Elaine Pagels, Revelations:
Visions, Prophecy, & Politics in the Book of Revelation (New York :
Viking Penguin, 2012).
[14] Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 282-2Pe90.
[15] Ibid.,
264-265.
[16] I am
thankful for Wilbert Stelzer for this insight which was developed from his unpublished
dissertation, The Biblical Text of Pelagius
in His Commentary on 2 Corinthians: A New Reconstruction out of Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis.
