A literary device whereby an author writes under a name other
than his or her own (a pseu-donym) or a book is deliberately assigned
to a fictitious author (pseudepigraphy). In the case of ancient
Jewish practice, the name borrowed was usually that of some famous
worthy of the past (e.g., Enoch, Ezra), with the aim of bolstering
the credentials of the book to which the name was attached. This is a
common phenomenon in the Apocrypha (e.g., 2 Esdras, Baruch,
Epistle of Jeremiah). It is even more common in the large collection
of Second Temple texts now known as the Pseudepigrapha (e.g.,
1 Enoch, Odes of Solomon, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs).
(See also Pseudepigrapha.)
Scholars
continue to debate the morality of pseudonymity and whether it is
proper for a pseudonymous book to be placed within the canon of
Scripture. Some excuse pseudonymity as a mere stylistic device or
explain it as a culturally accepted convention. Others put a positive
spin on the phenomenon, and so, for example, claim that in the
Pastoral Epistles literate disciples of Paul sought to apply his
ideas to newly developing situations in the years following his
death. Some argue that such deception for a good cause is legitimate
because it helped to gain a hearing for orthodox teaching. Others
totally reject pseudepigraphy, viewing it as little better than
deception and forgery and thus unworthy of literature viewed as
inspired by God. The last approach seems to be most consistent with a
high view of Scripture.
Over
the last two hundred years a number of biblical books have been
identified by some scholars as pseudonymous, notably Daniel in the
OT, and in the NT six letters in the Pauline corpus—Ephesians,
Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles (1–2
Timothy, Titus)—together with 2 Peter and Jude.
Old
Testament
Certainly
one mark of Jewish apocalyptic works is pseudonymity, and the book of
Daniel is often viewed by critical scholars as no exception to this
rule. It is difficult, however, to see how the name “Daniel”
would have served to give the OT book named after him the desired
authority, which is a major motivation for attaching a pseudonym.
Apart
from the book itself, we essentially know nothing about this Daniel,
whom it describes as living in Babylonia during the exile. In the
book of Ezekiel we have two references to a Daniel (Ezek. 14:14, 20).
In this passage the prophet says that when the land sins against God,
“even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were
in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness.”
There is, in addition, the further reference in Ezek. 14:16 to “these
three men,” obviously referring to the same three men. Ezekiel
speaks of these three men as embodiments of righteousness, but the
fact that this Daniel figure is placed between two ancients (Noah and
Job) suggests that he too is a figure of antiquity, not a
contemporary of Ezekiel.
Ezekiel
28:3 taunts the king of Tyre: “Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no
secret hidden from you?” Here “Daniel” (the Hebrew
text at Ezek. 28:3 actually reads “Danel”) obviously is a
proverbial figure of wisdom, and this implies that he may have been
well known in Tyre and therefore could well have been
Syro-Phoenician. There is in fact a “Danel” figure
mentioned in Ugaritic literature (before 1200 BC). On the other hand,
the Daniel of the book of Daniel is not a patriarch like Enoch, Noah,
and Job, nor is he a famous figure like Ezra or the assistant to a
prophet, as Baruch was to Jeremiah. Daniel is known only through the
book that bears his name. In other words, the usual motivation
explaining the use of a pseudonym does not apply to the canonical
book of Daniel.
Also,
the closing up and sealing of the book (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) is no mere
device necessitated by using as a pseudonym the name of a man
supposedly living in the time of Cyrus. Rather, the sealing signifies
that much of the content of the later chapters of the book will be
understood only when the predicted events begin to take place at a
future time, with the book placing Daniel (its presumed author) in
the sixth century BC.
New
Testament
The
Pastoral Epistles.
With regard to the Pastoral Epistles, all three letters claim to be
authored by the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus
1:1). In seeking to determine the time of composition within a
chronology of Paul’s ministry, they must be dated toward the
end of his life (in the case of 2 Timothy, perhaps only shortly
before his death) and after the close of the book of Acts, which
concludes with the apostle’s arrival in Rome (Acts 28). In his
letter to the Romans, Paul anticipates a future mission to Spain
(Rom. 15:23–29), but the Pastoral Epistles imply that he
returned to the east. Ephesus and Crete are the presumed locations of
his coworkers Timothy and Titus (see 1 Tim. 1:3; Titus 1:5). On
this supposition, these letters arise from a further mission there
and a second (and final) imprisonment. The fact that Acts says
nothing about this is no evidence against the supposition.
It
is not necessary to view the mundane ecclesiastical arrangements of
the Pastoral Epistles as inconsistent with a charismatic model of
leadership in other Pauline letters (note the address to “overseers
and deacons” in Phil. 1:1). We know from Acts 14:23; 20:17–38
that Paul appointed elders in the churches that he founded. The
theological differences between the Pastoral Epistles and earlier
Pauline compositions should not be overemphasized. The stress laid
upon “the faith” and “sound teaching” is
exactly what might be expected if Paul anticipated his imminent
removal from the scene.
The
other alternative is the theory that after Paul’s death,
members of a Pauline school (Timothy? Luke? Onesimus?) continued to
supply letters under his name, addressing contemporary church issues
in the guise of Paul, hoping to guarantee the legacy of the great
apostle. Some scholars go as far as to assert that an admirer of Paul
combined genuine Pauline fragments within a fictitious framework. The
earliest listing of Paul’s letters is that of Marcion (c. AD
140), and he fails to mention the Pastoral Epistles. That omission
may be explained in various ways. There is no evidence, however, that
anyone in the early church (orthodox or heterodox) who knew of the
letters doubted their authenticity.
Ephesians
and Colossians.
There is some textual uncertainty with regard to the words “in
Ephesus” in Eph. 1:1, making it possible that the letter was
originally a circular letter written by Paul to more than one church.
The letter mentions no one by name except Tychicus (Eph. 6:21), who
carried the letter (perhaps to different churches in turn). This is
enough to explain its more general orientation than some other
Pauline letters, and any supposed theological “development”
is not beyond the likely boundaries of Paul’s expansive mind
(e.g., his teaching on the church). The use of the “in Christ”
formula in Ephesians is not substantially different from how Paul
handles it elsewhere. The letter’s twofold structure of
doctrinal exposition followed by practical instruction fits a common
Pauline epistolary pattern. Indeed, F. F. Bruce refers to this
letter as “the quintessence of Paulinism.”
In
a number of ways Colossians and Ephesians share a common outlook. The
Jewish Christian proto-gnostic false teaching combated in Colossians
is not referred to in other Pauline letters, but it may have been a
local Colossian variant. The letter is explicitly attributed to Paul,
at both the beginning and the end (Col. 1:1; 4:18). Arguments about
authorship based on style and unusual vocabulary are notoriously
slippery and inconclusive. The high Christology of cosmic dimensions
in Col. 1:15–20; 2:9–10, 15 is also present in undisputed
Pauline letters (cf. Phil. 2:9–11). The obvious relationship of
Colossians to the little letter to Philemon (e.g., Col. 4:9, 17; cf.
Philem. 2, 12) is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the
Pauline authorship of the former. Any theory of pseudepigraphy turns
Col. 4:7–17, with its many names, into fanciful and free
invention with little real purpose. Also, we might wonder why a later
author chose to write under the name of Paul to a church that Paul
himself did not found.
Second
Thessalonians.
Some view the futuristic timetable provided in 2 Thess. 2:1–12
as moving beyond Paul, with the world’s end not yet in sight,
for the writer teaches that certain things have to happen before the
return of Christ, whereas in 1 Thess. 4:13–5:11 Paul has a
nearer end in view. In both letters, however, the apostle is seeking
to dampen the wrong kind of apocalyptic excitement. In
2 Thessalonians, it is clear that Paul knows a tradition of
Jesus’ teaching about the future, such as also found in Mark
13, so that there is nothing unreasonably “late” in the
views expressed.
The
substantial overlap in material between 1 Thessalonians and
2 Thessalonians is not evidence of the labors of a later
disciple and imitator of Paul. It is highly ironic that some scholars
suggest 2 Thessalonians is not a genuine letter of Paul: the
letter itself condemns a fake letter supposedly from him that claims
that the day of the Lord is already past (2 Thess. 2:2), and the
original letter included a final greeting written in Paul’s own
hand (2 Thess. 3:17).
Second
Peter and Jude.
As for 2 Peter, it was not as well known in the early church as
1 Peter, and some (according to Origen) were hesitant to accept
it. Its author claims to be a witness to the transfiguration (2 Pet.
1:16–18). Such personal allusions need not be attributed to a
later writer who was trying too hard to show that he was Simon Peter.
The obvious connection of 2 Pet. 1:14 to what is recorded in
John 21 does not prove that the writer was dependent on that chapter.
The
remarkable parallels between 2 Peter and Jude show that one is
dependent upon the other, though scholars are not unanimous about
which letter was prior. We cannot rule out that Peter would use and
adapt the writings of a less prominent leader such as Jude. Jude
makes use of apocryphal books, but neither in Jude nor in 2 Peter
do arguments against the particular brand of false teaching require a
second-century (postapostolic) dating.
