Bart Ehrman is an interesting character. He is a learned and distinguished scholar, well read in biblical and early Christian studies. Originally an evangelical, he became a liberal as his studies continued and eventually lost his faith apparently due to the problem of evil. To hear him speak in interviews, he seems reasonable and temperate, and even speaks of his own heartache at his loss of faith. Yet for a number of years he has put out a number of popularising books, with provocative titles and bold assertions. He cannot, I suppose, be blamed[1] for the way his books are marketed and certainly not for the way vocal atheists have twisted his conclusions. Nevertheless one wonders what Professor Ehrman hopes to achieve by airing these issues.
Forged deals with the issue of pseudepigraphy (i.e. writing under a false name) and its occurrence in early Christianity, with particular focus on the Bible. He also treats fabrication and misattribution (see chapter 8), but these are peripheral to his main topic. Specifically, he asserts that both canonical epistles of Peter, and six of the epistles of Paul (Eph, Col, 2 Thess, 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Tit), were not by who they claim to be. His arguments here are not original – indeed he takes them to be accepted by the scholarly consensus. What is additional is his challenge to the scholarly supposition of ‘friendly pseudepigraphy’, arguing that in ancient times, as in modern, writing under a false name was considered to be forgery (hence the title) and thus lies. The agenda of the book seems to be the claim that the Bible contains lies (forgery, fabrication and falsification) and that the early Christians were liars. He writes “the use of deception to promote the truth may well be considered one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition” (p. 250).
Now I, with Ehrman, share doubts about the concept of ‘friendly pseudepigraphy’, the idea that someone could write under the name of Paul but that was okay because he was just honouring his master or some such. This would seem particularly relevant for any text claiming apostolic authority on some point of doctrine or practice. However, I disagree with Ehrman’s assessment of the evidence. Regarding the Petrine epistles, he presents some interesting evidence of just how low literacy was in first century Palestine; in any case, Peter was uneducated (Acts 4:13). Ehrman concludes Peter would have been unable to write the refined Greek we find in his epistles (chapter 2). Ehrman, of course, does not even consider the possibility that Peter wrote through the Holy Spirit, but also dismisses the possibility that Peter learned Greek for the service of the gospel. As J. A. T. Robinson noted a while back, “it is inconceivable that he [Peter] can have exercised any kind of leading ministry in Antioch or even Jerusalem, let alone in Rome, without the use of Greek”.[2] Regarding the Pauline epistles, Ehrman cites differences in vocabulary and doctrine between the disputed and accepted epistles as evidence that the six he identifies were written by another author (chapter 3).
A common response to differences in style and vocabulary in letters ascribed to the same author is that these works were written with the use of a secretary. Here is, perhaps, Ehrman’s most interesting chapter as he attempts to engage with the use of secretaries in the ancient world (chapter 4). His conclusions are that (a) generally only the upper classes could afford secretaries, (b) there are very few examples of secretaries adding significantly to the contents of letters, and (c) these examples are reserved to short correspondences, not long essays as in the case of the NT epistles.
Interesting as this is, I am not sure how relevant analogies to rich Roman scholars are. Of course, Paul probably could not afford a secretary but who is to say that a brother/sister did not volunteer his/her services. Indeed, it is a matter of fact that Paul had a scribe for many of his epistles (1 Cor 16:21; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17), one of these, Tertius, is named (Rom 16:22). Perhaps more significantly, Paul had co-authors for many of his epistles, namely: Timothy (2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1, Col 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1), Silvanus (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1) and others (Gal 1:2?). We do not know to what extent these co-authors had input into the text. In any case, are really prepared to say that it is inconceivable over the decade during which Paul was writing he did not alter his style, phraseology or vocabulary? I am not sure we have the parameters on which to base those judgments.
What is noticeable about Forged is how little attention is given to external evidence. Whether or not there is attestation to the authorship of a particular text seems irrelevant to Ehrman. To me this seems problematic since authorship (whether there was a connection to the apostles or not) was the criteria on which texts were judged to be canonical. And even 2 Peter, which arguably has the weakest attestation of the NT texts, has better credentials than any undisputed pseudepigraphical work. Whilst no canon is extant earlier the Muratorian Fragment (c.190), we can get a good indication of which works were considered authoritative by the fact that early Christians quote from or allude to them. Here is a sample:
Theophilus of Antioch (c.180): Matt, Luke, John, Acts, Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, Col, 1 Thess, 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Tit, Philem, Heb, 1 Pet, Rev.
Justin Martyr (c.160): Matt, Mark, Luke, John, 1 Cor, Phil, James.
Ignatius (c.115): Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Rom, 1 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, Col, 2 Thess, 2 Tim, James, 1 Pet.
Polycarp (c.115): Matt, Luke, Acts, Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Phil, Eph, 1 Thess, 1 Tim, 2 Tim, 1 Pet, 1 John.
Clement (1st C): Matt, Mark, Luke, Acts, Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Eph, Tit, Heb, James, 1 Pet, Rev.
Remember this is not a list of all the works these writers knew as authoritative, just the ones relevant for their works. Whilst it is possible that these writers may have been deceived, the earlier a text is dated the less likely it is to be a forgery because the greater chance of there being a living companion of Paul or Peter to refute the claim. It is significant that most, if not all, known cases of pseudepigraphical writings date from the second century or later.
In sum, Ehrman has presented some interesting considerations about writing practices in the Greco-Roman period. Unfortunately his polemical objective overrides any attempt at objectivity so his analysis of the authorship of NT texts is unoriginal, cursory and one-sided.
[1] [Ed. AP]: He is Professor at the University of North Carolina, which is ten miles up the road from the Duke Divinity School at Duke University. There is friendly rivalry between the two universities and collegiate co-operation. All I can say is that he was being blamed at Duke in 2006 for his earlier populist books.
[2] J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976), 167.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)