How Might One Identify Pseudepigraphy in the Pauline Epistles

How Might One Identify Pseudepigraphy in the Pauline Epistles?

In any research involving the New Testament (NT) epistles, the researcher must address the question of whether or not there is pseudepigraphy in the NT. Regardless of whether or not the researcher finally concludes that the NT contains pseudepigraphal documents, if careful consideration is given to the question, then the researcher must at some point determine what criteria to use in judging whether a document is pseudepigraphal. This paper will identify and critique several criteria that scholars have used to determine the veracity of a document’s authorial claims. After discussing those criteria, I will briefly consider the arguments offered for and against Pauline authorship of the commonly disputed Pauline epistles.[1] In light of those arguments and the discussion of criteria, I will “assign a grade from ‘impossible it was by Paul’ through various levels of uncertainty to ‘definitely by Paul’ to each of the disputed letters” (quotation is this week’s assigned essay title). I begin with a consideration of the criteria.

Criteria Used to Determine Pseudepigraphy.

When we begin to consider individual disputed letters, it will become obvious that scholars frequently appeal to two criteria as they formulate decisions regarding authenticity. First, it is common practice to suggest that the language and/or literary style of an epistle differs to a greater or lesser degree from the language and style of the undisputed Pauline epistles. Observed differences vary in kind from differences in frequency of certain types of morphemes (e.g., subjunctive or imperative forms of the verb) to differences in sentence structure. Between these two extremes lies word choice and usage. Scholars often note when an epistle uses words that are not common (or present at all) in the vocabulary of the undisputed Paulines, or when an epistle infuses common Pauline words with meaning that is not found in the undisputed Paulines.

Every case in which scholars appeal to linguistic and/or stylistic differences assumes a standard by which to determine that there is a difference. The standard used is the language and style of the undisputed Pauline epistles—Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon (to which some, thought perhaps not many, would add Colossians). The obvious question to ask is, “How do we know that this group of epistles (or even the smaller grouping of the Hauptbriefe) genuinely represents Pauline language and style?” It is, of course, theoretically possible that even these letters are pseudepigraphal, and so offer no legitimate standard by which to judge the authenticity of any other letter. Admittedly, it is a subjective endeavour to appeal to differences in language and style. Such appeals assume deep familiarity not only with Paul’s use of Greek, but also with the wider world of first- (and second-) century Greek literature, so that the scholar may be adequately equipped to say that the language and/or style of any given epistle is more like the one than the other. Some level of objectivity, however, was introduced to the field with the advent of computers. Computers can provide accurate statistical analyses of various elements of language and style in a letter, as well as statistical comparisons with other letters.[2] Additionally, the use of computers has tended to confirm the actual presence of differences that scholars previously recognised intuitively.[3] Computers, however, can only perform these statistical analyses; they are not capable of determining which linguistic or stylistic factors are of greatest significance; nor are they fully able to take into consideration the variations in language and style that a single author is capable of producing.

This observation is true of all determinations based on differences in language and style. We may know what and how an author has written under certain circumstances, but we have no way of knowing what or how an author may write under other circumstances. All factors being equal, significant variations in language and style between an epistle under consideration and a control group of epistles known to be by Paul may indicate pseudepigraphy. The major problem with this criterion is that we really have no way of knowing whether all factors are in fact equal. This is complicated by the fact that, with the exception of Galatians, each of the undisputed Pauline letters claims authorship by Paul and certain companions (Sosthenes, Timothy, Silas), the extent of whose contribution to language and style it would be very difficult to determine. Thus, differences in language and style may be an indication of pseudepigraphy, but we must certainly extremely cautious when exercising this criterion.

The second major criterion commonly used to determine authenticity of authorship is comparison of theology in the letter under consideration with the theology found in the undisputed Paulines. Similar criticisms must be levelled against this criterion as were made of the criterion of language and style. It should be obvious that it is impossible to fit anyone’s theological thoughts into too small a box. It should also go without saying that a person’s theological thought may develop over time. Certainly no modern scholar would find it flattering if it were said that his or her scholarly work displayed no theological development at all over the course of that person’s career. Neither can we assume that Paul’s thought failed to develop in some meaningful way. The corollary to this is to observe that Paul’s theological thought may indeed have been self-contradictory. I say this not because I think it is so, but because those who dispute Pauline authorship of an epistle on the basis of apparent theological contradictions are really faced with three, not two, options: 1) the ‘contradictions’ are only apparent; 2) the contradictions are due to different authorship; 3) the contradictions are due to Paul’s own inconsistency. Thus, to rule out option number one is not necessarily to prove option number two; option number three must also be considered. Too often option number three is simply ignored and the assumption is made that because a certain contradiction cannot be removed, it must, therefore, indicate pseudonymity. Thus, extreme caution should be exercised when utilising this criterion as well, for as difficult as it is to determine how an author would have written, it is all the more difficult to determine what an author would have written.

Richard Bauckham has attempted to move beyond these two standard criteria, and his work is worth noting.[4] Bauckham uses clearly pseudepigraphal letters found in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha and the NT Apocrypha as sources from which to establish criteria for determining the pseudepigraphy or authenticity of a letter. He focuses on pseudepigraphal letters as a unique genre of pseudepigraphy with its own characteristics. He further subdivides the pseudepigraphal letter genre into types. Bauckham says that any pseudepigraphal letter must conform to one of these types. Finally, he uses conformity to one of these types of pseudepigraphal letters as the criterion for determining the pseudepigraphy or authenticity of NT letters. Note that he does not look for criteria of authenticity, but of pseudepigraphy; i.e., he seeks to determine what must be present for a letter to be considered pseudonymous. Thus equipped, Bauckham will be able positively to demonstrate pseudepigraphy, but we may question whether he is justified in using the same criterion negatively to demonstrate authenticity.

Bauckham’s divides the letter genre into authentic and pseudepigraphal letters, each of these two major classifications being further subdivided into the following categories:[5] 1) real letter (type A or AP); 2) real letter not in letter form (type Aa or AaP); 3) letter-essay (type B or BP); 4) literary letter (type C – this category does not exist under his pseudepigraphal column, but he notes that, in theory, it could); 5) work not in letter form, wrongly called letter (type D or DP); 6) misattributed work (type EP – this category does not exist under his authentic column). Types A and AP are further subdivided into: A or AP1 = imaginative; A or AP2 = historiographical; A or AP3 = unchanged situation; A or AP4 = typological situation; A or AP5 = testamentary; and A or AP6 = general.[6] Bauckham appears to be building on Deissmann’s earlier classification of letters into real and literary categories, so we should remember that this classification has been questioned by some.

A “parties formula” is essential in all letters. A “parties formula” necessarily includes the name(s) of the author(s) and the name(s) of the recipient(s); thus, any literary genre might be prefixed with a ‘parties formula’ and so become a letter.[7] It is the parties formula, specifically the named addressee, that distinguishes types A, AP, B, BP and C from one another—A is intended only for the specified audience; B is intended for the specified audience, but also explicitly for a wider audience; C is intended for a general audience, and only for the specified audience in a fictional way.[8] With reference to type C, Bauckham says,

It should be noted that the element of fiction which type C letters introduce into the use of the letter form creates a distinction between the supposed addressee(s) and the real readers. This is a distinction that (as we shall see) characterizes most pseudepigraphal letters.[9]

The significance of these categories for Bauckham’s argument lies in the fact that each of the types of pseudepigraphy requires a different treatment of the recipients within the letter:

Thus, the pseudepigraphal letter, by its very nature, requires a distinction between the supposed addressee(s) and the real readers. We shall discover a few cases of pseudepigraphal letters that contrive by special devices to include the real readers in the supposed addressees. But in no indubitably pseudepigraphal letter known to me are the supposed addressees and the real readers identical.[10]

The criteria Bauckham will use to identify pseudepigraphal letters is closely connected with this distinction between specified recipients and real, intended recipients: if the pseudepigraphal letter was to be applicable to its actual audience, then the ways in which it addresses its specified recipients while actually trying to communicate with its real recipients will be the means by which Bauckham determines whether or not the letter is authentic.[11] The writer of the pseudonymous letter could choose to communicate with his real audience in very general terms, which restricted him to using type AP6 or BP, or in specific terms, which restricted him to using type AP3, AP4 or AP5.[12] Type AP3 and AP4 must show the real readers that their situation is similar enough to that of the specified readers that they can see an applicable message in the letter. Because of its prophetic outlook, type AP5 is the only pseudonymous letter type that can directly address the real readers.[13]

What Bauckham concludes about the examples of pseudepigraphy he has studied is that pseudepigraphal letters had to find a way of addressing themselves both to the false recipients and to the real recipients.[14] Bauckham says the following things: Use of the testamentary genre (AP5) was the most effective way of doing this, because through prophecy it could directly address recipients living at a later time than the specified recipients. Generalised letters (AP6) too easily accomplished nothing, and we do not really see anything quite this generalised in the NT. It would have been difficult for the real author to show an unchanged (AP3) or typological (AP4) situation between the specified readers and the real readers without also going into a fair amount of detail about the nature of the situation the specified readers faced (so that the real readers could make the connection), and most NT letters do not go into that much detail. Reasoning like this, Bauckham concludes that 2 Peter is very likely pseudepigraphal (type AP5), and so are the Pastorals (type BP or AP5, or even AP3/4).[15] Ephesians and James could be pseudepigraphal (type AP6), as could 2 Thessalonians (AP3 or 4), but this is not a necessary conclusion. Colossians, 1 Peter and Jude are probably authentic. I shall now examine the various arguments for or against pseudonymous authorship of the contested Pauline epistles.

Ephesians:

Kümmel gives three arguments against Pauline authorship of Ephesians: 1) language and style; 2) arguments based on the relationship of Ephesians to Colossians; 3) theology. On language and style, the argument is familiar—Ephesians has words not usually (or ever) found in the undisputed Paulines; Ephesians also expresses certain concepts differently than Paul usually does.[16]

On relationship of Ephesians to Colossians—Ephesians has a lot of parallelism with Colossians, and exhibits more verbal parallels to other Pauline works than any other book in the Pauline corpus.[17] Kümmel thinks Ephesians exhibits literary dependence on Colossians (cf. Eph. 2.2f. with Col. 3.7 and Eph. 5.22f. with Col. 3.18f.).[18] But he also thinks that the ways in which the author of Ephesians uses mysterion and oikonomia are so different from the ways in which they are used in Colossians that it argues against Pauline authorship.[19]

If both of these complexes speak in the highest degree against a Pauline origin of Ephesians, then the theology of Ephesians makes the Pauline composition of the Epistle completely impossible, as also becomes evident first of all in comparison with Colossians.[20]

Kümmel mentions several theological statements made by Ephesians that he thinks are contradictory to what Paul says elsewhere (including uses of ekklesia and mysterion), especially in Colossians, and represent developments beyond Paul’s own thought.[21] Kümmel, however, does not really try to see how the contradictory statements he cites could all represent a highly developed Pauline theology—he stresses instead the beyondness and the contradictory nature of the theology in Ephesians in order to show that it is not Pauline.

Markus Barth represents a more balanced approach to the theological differences found in Ephesians. Barth considers the theology of Ephesians to be the issue of major concern. If Ephesians contains theology that goes beyond Paul and contradicts Pauline theology, then it cannot have been by Paul.[22] Barth points out several theological idiosyncrasies of Ephesians,[23] saying that the common point for them all is a focus on community rather than the individual.[24] Barth very eloquently disputes the idea that the theology of Ephesians is contradictory to authentic Pauline teaching by showing that authentic Pauline theology is less individualistic than is usually recognized.[25]

Inasmuch as they dispute the authenticity of Ephesians on doctrinal grounds, pointing to irreconcilable theological differences between Galatians, I and II Corinthians, Romans, Philippians on one side, and Ephesians (and Colossians) on the other, they may be exponents of a prejudiced opinion about the essence, the high points, and the breadth of Pauline theology. Ephesians may force extreme Paulinists of all times to revise their prejudices. Certainly the apostle’s teaching and preaching was much more politically, socially, ethically oriented than his individualizing and existentialist interpreters have been willing to acknowledge.[26]

Barth even says that the very theological differences and the different uses of typical Pauline words found in Ephesians points to Pauline authorship, for only an incompetent pseudepigrapher could have made such changes to ‘standard’ Pauline theology without noticing it.[27] “Paul himself is the man who could best afford to write in a non-Paulinistic way, even under his own name.”[28]

As was said above, differences in language and style should be treated with caution. Barth has thoughtfully dealt with the theological questions surrounding Ephesians. The only real remaining objection to Pauline authorship is the idea that Ephesians shows too much dependence on other Pauline epistles, especially Colossians. First of all, those who argue for the pseudepigraphy of various letters in the Pauline corpus often do so on the grounds that the letters do not sound enough like Paul; in this case the argument is that Ephesians sounds too much like Paul—the ever criterion used in other cases to dismiss Pauline authorship. If anything, the similarity of language and style to other Pauline epistles should speak in favour of Ephesians being by Paul himself. As for its close connection with Colossians, that too should be expected from letters written so closely together. The textual difficulties with the addressee in Eph. 1.1 may even indicate that this letter ‘to Ephesus’ was really the letter to Laodicea mentioned in Col. 4.16, in which case we might expect to see great similarity between the two epistles. I conclude that as far as Colossians may be regarded as authentic, so may Ephesians, though with a slightly greater change of pseudonymity.

1 and 2 Thess.:

Pauline authorship of 1 Thessalonians is not usually doubted today.[29] Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, however, is highly contested today.[30] Many have seen eschatological ‘tension’ between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians, and so argue for the pseudonymity of 2 Thessalonians.[31] Of particular concern is the seeming tension between the expected surprise return of the Lord in 1 Thess. 5.1-4 and the mention of things that must happen before the Lord’s return in 2 Thess. 2.3-12 (as though the Lord’s return could be predicted). But Wanamaker points out that early Christians did not seem to have a problem resolving this tension—see Mk. 13.14-37.[32] Furthermore, 1 Thess. 5.1-4 anticipates that the Lord’s return will surprise unbelievers, not believers; and 2 Thess. 2.3-12 was not meant to tell the readers exactly when to expect the Lord’s return anyway, but to show that he had not yet returned.[33] The eschatological tension, therefore, evaporates.

More influential in recent times are the arguments developed by Trilling against Pauline authorship. Trilling sought to show that the style of 2 Thessalonians was not Pauline. Wanamaker shows that Trilling’s arguments here are insufficient to demonstrate that Paul could not have written the letter.[34] Trilling also claimed that a form-critical analysis of 2 Thessalonians shows how much the forms used therein differ from standard Pauline forms, but Wanamaker stresses that the forms Trilling points to are no different than those of other, undisputed Paulines, and that the situational nature of Paul’s letters makes Trilling's arguments from form extremely tenuous.[35] Wanamaker also shows that there is nothing significantly different about the theology of 2 Thessalonians to make us consider it to be un-Pauline.[36] Marshall, who also rejects the composite strength of Trilling’s arguments,[37] essentially points out the same arguments against authenticity that Wanamaker did—it has mainly been an issue of how 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians are related to one another.[38]

Marshall offers several arguments that support an early date of composition for 2 Thessalonians: 2 Thess. 2 assumes the temple is still standing and does not hint of its destruction.[39] If the writer relied heavily on 1 Thessalonians, and writes at a late date, it seems improbable that he would not have also known other Pauline letters and so used them too or shown knowledge of them in some way.[40] 2 Thessalonians does not show any signs of ‘early catholicism’ that one would expect from a letter written after Paul’s death.[41] These things seem to indicate that 2 Thessalonians was written within Paul’s lifetime, making the mention of Paul’s handwriting in 3.17 a very dangerous and potentially revealing device for the pseudepigrapher. I conclude, therefore, that there are no significant reasons to think that someone other than Paul wrote that 2 Thessalonians. It is authentically Pauline.

1 and 2 Tim. and Titus:

The Pastoral Epistles, of course, are to many the epitome of pseudepigraphy. It is a very small minority that considers them authentic. Kümmel says that pseudonymity of the Pastorals is based on five main points: “1. language and style; 2. the presupposed historical situation; 3. the opposition to the false teachers; 4. the congregational situation; 5. the theology of the Pastorals.”[42]

According to Kümmel, studies of the language in the Pastorals, including several statistical studies, show wide divergence of the language of the Pastorals from the language of the other Paulines.[43] “Moreover, Harrison (ExpT 1955-56) could refer to a larger number of words and phrases in the Pastorals which are not attested before the second Christian century.”[44] Kümmel refers to Schott and Roller who think Paul had an amanuensis write these letters for him and that this use of an amanuensis accounts for the differences in language.[45] Use of an amanuensis as an explanation for the language discrepancy is supported by evidence in Paul’s other letters as well as Paul’s chained imprisonment mentioned in 2 Tim. 1.8, 16 and 2.9. But Kümmel believes Paul would have dictated the letters, so the variations in language should not be so great as they are.[46] “Thus, in the face of the linguistic data, the amanuensis hypothesis cannot secure even the indirect composition of the Pastorals by Paul.”[47]

Historical reconstruction from the Pastorals is also very difficult. The historical events mentioned in the Pastorals do not seem to fit very well (if at all) with what we know of Paul’s travels (and those of his companions) from Acts.[48] Kümmel suggests that these events cannot be placed after Paul had been released from imprisonment in Rome; Acts 20.25 and 38 seem to prohibit a subsequent journey to the east, and there is no other evidence that Paul might have travelled east between his first and second Roman imprisonments.[49] There may be a dearth of evidence, but what evidence we do have suggests that Paul was in fact released from imprisonment in Rome, so it is at least a possibility that he again travelled east. It even seems likely that he would have attempted further contact with the churches under his care in Greece. The lack of evidence cannot be taken to mean that Paul did not go east again upon release from Rome.

Some have thought that the antagonists present behind the argument of the Pastorals were second century Gnostics. Kümmel, however, thinks that there is nothing in the false teaching opposed in these letters that could not be found during the lifetime of Paul, but he does find it significant (and indicative of non-Pauline authorship) that the false teaching is combated by appeal to traditional teaching, not by preaching of the gospel.[50] Of course if these letters are in any sense Paul’s goodbye letters to Timothy and Titus, who are in positions of authority, it makes sense that he would emphasise the need to maintain the gospel as he preached it; i.e., the Pauline tradition.

Many have also claimed that the leadership situation assumed in the Pastorals indicates a system of leadership that is developed beyond Paul’s lifetime:

In view of these factors we see that the Pastorals are the document ‘of an already rather highly developed canon law’ (v. Campenhausen) in a church which is establishing itself in the world, a church such as Paul did not know.[51]

However, it may be cogently argued that the leadership situation in the Pastorals is not really all that different from what one finds already in Acts and the undisputed Paulines—especially Phil. 1.1 and Acts 14.23.

Kümmel also finds the theology of the Pastorals to be more Hellenistic than what one usually finds in Paul, even asserting that Paul would be a “syncretist” if he had come to employ the type of language we see in the Pastorals, “especially words from the terminology of the emperor cult.”[52] But Paul need not be a syncretist to use language such as we find in the Pastorals. In fact, using emperor cult terminology for Christ does not seem to be too radical for Paul at all, who clearly thinks of Christ as over and above any earthly authority.

Marshall describes some hypotheses that try to include the events of the Pastorals after Paul’s first Roman imprisonment. Marshall concludes that there is nothing inherently impossible about hypotheses such as these.[53] (He does not, however, believe Paul actually wrote the Pastorals). Marshall also surveys some attempts to place the writing of the Pastorals within Paul’s missionary career before his Roman imprisonment. But overall Marshall thinks it difficult to understand how these three letters could be composed during the time of composition of the other Paulines and yet be so different from them.[54] Those who opt for a post-Roman imprisonment theory may have less against them.[55] Marshall feels that the real problems for claiming Pauline authorship lie in the language and style with which the author of the Pastorals writes, and the ways in which the theology is presented:

The doctrinal and ecclesiastical setting of the letters is compatible with composition during or immediately after the life of Paul, but the way in which the thought is expressed, both linguistically and theologically, poses great problems.[56]

I have attempted to demonstrate that none of the issues mentioned above necessitates a conclusion of pseudonymous authorship of the Pastorals. However, it seems to me that the question of how the historical events recorded in the Pastorals can be reconciled with what we know of Paul’s ministry from other sources is an important one that cannot be ignored. The question of language and style also become more serious if we cannot find a plausible way of explaining these events. I conclude that the Pastorals may have been by Paul, but there are some very important factors weighing against Pauline authorship. If the events recorded in the Pastorals prove difficult to explain reasonably, then I may need to ascribe a higher level of doubt to the authorship of the Pastorals.

I shall make one closing comment about these letters: It may be wrong to analyse the Pastorals all together, as is often done. Differences will only be intensified that way. We should assess them each independently instead of lumping the evidence all together as though they were a single writing.

[1] I will be using ‘epistle’ and ‘letter’ interchangeably in this study. That is, I will not be using the terms to distinguish between literary and non-literary correspondence.

[2] See, for example, D. L. Mealand, “Positional Stylometry Reassessed: Testing a Seven Epistle Theory of Pauline Authorship,” in NTS, 35 (1989): 266-286, and Ibid., “The Extent of the Pauline Corpus: A Multivariate Approach,” in JSNT, 59 (1995): 61-92.

[4] See Richard Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 107/3 (1988): 469-494.

[5] See chart in Bauckham, 470; wording and classification scheme are Bauckham’s.

[16] See Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament. New Testament Library (London: SCM Press, 1966), 252-253.

[22] See Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1-3, Anchor Bible, 34 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 41.

[29] See Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1990), 17.

[37] See I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1983), 32-40.

[50] See Kümmel, 267-268—he appeals to 1 Tim. 4.1; 6.20; 2 Tim. 1.14; 2.2; Tit. 3.10f., but I do not think any of these has real significance for his argument.