Select Page

A more refined definition [of pseudonymity] is that of K. Koch: “A text is pseudonymous if the author is intentionally identified with a name other than his own.” This would eliminate the term “pseudonym” from most NTs and OT and much of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha of OT. Although many of the books contained therein are in fact misattributed, this is often due to the misattribution of initially anonymous works and not a calculated attempt at deception. [PsC:1, Meade] Believe it or not, today the majority of NT scholars argue that many of the letters in the NT are pseudonymous. The books most commonly called pseudonyms are 2 Peter, the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus) and Ephesians. In fact, it has been argued by various critics at one time or another that all NT letters are pseudonymous. This is the standard position for liberal science. One would expect the same from those who do not hold a high opinion of Scripture and do not claim the name of Christ. But in recent decades, even some evangelical scholars have tended to occupy similar positions. Conrad Gempf explains: “Previously, a person`s views on pseudonymity in the canon could be determined solely by whether the person was `evangelical` or not. In fact, for many, this was exactly the test: if anyone believed that the NT contained pseudonymous works, he was by definition not an evangelical.

2 Notable evangelicals (broadly defined) advocating pseudonymous books within the NT include Ralph Martin, I. Howard Marshall, and Richard Bauckham. Serious students of the Bible know that many popular commentaries are written by scholars who deny the traditional authorship of many NT letters. In addition, many Christian colleges and universities, and virtually all secular universities, are filled with professors who accept the pseudonym of NT letters as a standard requirement. It is therefore not difficult to understand that this doctrine also affects many pastors and churches. In fact, advocates of pseudonymity are ubiquitous. Unfortunately, this thesis contains nothing beyond that of Aland or the proponents of innocent and pure and simple falsification, except an appeal to “this particular Hebrew psychology.” Against this kind of explanation, Morton Smith pointed out that the normal Hebrew model for inspired literature was anonymity. In fact, he suggests that it was only through contact with Greco-Roman literature that Jews began to use pseudonymity. If so, then no “particular Hebrew psychology” has been decisive. Furthermore, Smith suggests that the idea of inspiration only obscures the subject, since the apocalyptics are inspired only by angels and never by the patriarchs themselves. A revelation from Michael or Raphael or any other angel does not explain how the name Moses or Enoch or any other patriarch was placed as the author.

Smith`s conjecture that Jewish literature learned the pseudonymous device of Greco-Roman literature is supported by the narrow formal features that the Christian pseudepigraphic letter shares with Greco-Roman literature and the relatively weak affinities with Jewish materials [note 37: “Some authors have located the origins of Christian pseudepigraphy in Jewish apocalyptic. The combined analyses of Brox, Smith, and Speyer suggest that the influence of Jewish apocalyptics on Christian pseudepicography occurred only because Jewish literature first fell under the spell of Greek literature. So, to understand the essence of pseudepigrapha, we must first look at Greco-Roman literature, as they all do, and then Jewish literature as a kind of it. My own examination of the letter pseudégraphique confirms this, for I could not find a Jewish letter that seems to belong to the same genre as the pastorals]. As a genre, the Christian letter pseudepigraphic should be classified as a kind of Greco-Roman pseudepigrapha and not as a Jewish apocalyptic. Of course, it is likely that the influence of Greco-Roman literature was sometimes mediated by Jewish literature, but the primary milieu of Christian pseudepigraphy, and in particular pseudepigraphic letters, remains Greco-Roman and not Jewish. We will note below that R. H. Charles` observations on the motivation of the Jewish apocalyptic are applicable to Christian pseudepigrapha, but these observations are limited to questions of motivation and difficult theological situation and do not apply to forms of reasoning and literary techniques. [HI:PEAPE:13-15] The main problem we encounter when we claim that some biblical books are pseudonymous is that the author of the work would be lying to his audience. Although this was practiced to some extent in ancient times, we are not talking about ordinary writings. What is considered is Scripture, the Word of God to mankind.

How can it be claimed that God could approve a book that misrepresented who the human author was? It is incompatible with the God who revealed Himself in the Bible. In what sense can these documents be divinely inspired if the author was not really the person he claims to be? After our first year of college, my best friend from high school and I got together and compared our experiences. I attended FBBC while he was attending another well-known Christian college. We had both learned a lot and were very satisfied with our training so far. But while we were talking, he told me about something that worried him a lot. In his NT investigation course, his teacher believed and taught that many of the NT letters were not written by the claimed authors, but were pseudonymous. We were both shocked and couldn`t understand why anyone would deny the traditional authorship of a book of the Bible. Unfortunately, this type of experience is all too common. To question James` pseudonymity, one must examine all the elements of the book and how authorship affects them. The end of the blog mentions some ways the book might be pseudonymous, including the fact that the book was written at a much later date, after James had lived by someone else, either as a record of what James taught, or to give credence to their thoughts. However, Jobes offers a variant of pseudonymity. One suggestion is that the book was written before the time of Christ and later “Christianized” by adding the name of Jesus (157).

However, there are pseudonym issues before and after James` life. One problem with earlier authorship is the high Christology involved in James` letter. Although James mentions Jesus only twice, there are so many other elements of his letter that carry a high Christology, including how he groups Jesus together as part of the monotheistic God of Israel.