There are fourteen letters in the New Testament that have been traditionally attributed to Paul. Many critical scholars accept seven of these epistles as being authentic, and the others as “deutero-Pauline,” rejected, or disputed. Among the latter group are Titus, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy, collectively known as the "Pastorals."[1] This short post will grapple with the matter of literary forgery and pseudepigraphy in relation to the Pastorals, using the work of scholars Armin D. Baum, Bart D. Ehrman, Dennis Ronald MacDonald, and Tony Burke. I will argue that while the author of the Pastorals displays what we may see as deceptive intentions, yet he believed his[2] lies and forgeries to be religiously justified as a way to combat perceived heresy.[3]
Why do most scholars of historical (and literary) criticism hold the consensus that the Pastorals are forgeries? To be sure, the Pastorals sound like Paul in some ways, which makes sense for a forgery touting itself as authentic. Ehrman notes that “there are numerous instances of verisimilitude” in these letters, such as the many named figures connected to Paul (as in 2 Tim 4.9-21).[4] By plagiarizing words, ideas, events, and people from Paul’s life, the Pastorals effectively set up a “rhetoric of deceit” to fool the reader into believing they are from the historical Paul. Other passages also try to distract the reader by using various deflections.[5]
For example, Burke points to 2 Timothy 4.13, in which “Paul” asks “Timothy,” “to bring with him the cloak [Paul] left in Troas as well as his books…. [hinting] at Paul’s letter-writing activities… providing a sense of legitimacy to the pseudepigraphon.”[6] Ehrman adds to the case by noting “the distinctive vocabulary, its non-Pauline character and force, the post-Pauline historical situation, [and] the role of authorities in the church… if one of these books is forged, they all are forged.”[7] Some scholars, such as Baum, have argued that scribes could have written on behalf of someone like Paul, hence the differences in style and vocabulary, but Ehrman contends that readers would have understand such a practice to be deceptive.[8]
Textual warnings against lies are another factor in this discussion, typical of pseudepigraphic literature. Several passages in the Pastorals place heavy emphasis on truth, and also use accusations of deceit to cover up the lie that “Paul” is not really Paul. For example, one passage speaks of those who will pay “attention to deceitful spirits… through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim 4.1-2; cf. 2 Tim 4.3-4; Titus 1.1-2, etc.). Why does the forger provide these deceitful passages? To be ironic, as if to say, “look at me getting away with forgery?" I argue that the forger is hiding behind the guise of Paul because if he were to show his true “face,” his arguments would not be given much weight, so he invokes Pauline authority. For what purpose is he writing? Erhman observes that the “polemical attack on false teachers is a prominent feature of all three Pastoral Letters.”[9] MacDonald argues that the forger attempted to combat perceived heresies, such as those embodied in the 2nd century Acts of Paul and Thecla (AoPT), and thus writes under the name of Paul.[10]
The AoPT attests to a tradition of early Christian women who were teaching, preaching and baptizing.[11] MacDonald believes the text shares a common oral tradition with the Pastorals, but represents opposite views. He suggests that they are the “old wives tales” referenced in 1 Tim 4.7, and that the reason the Pastorals have such strong restrictions for women is because the forger is responding to the kind of legends represented in the AoPT.[12] In order to accomplish this feat, the Pastorals employs a rhetoric of deceit that includes verisimilitudes and deflective passages, just enough Paul to “sell” his pseudepigraphs. Thus, the author would have a religious justification for forgery and pseudepigraphy, and could have arguably believed he was defending the historical Paul and his legacy, while also combating perceived heresy of the forger’s day, embodied in texts such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla.
Endnotes
[1] Ehrman notes, “the consensus by and large holds today, with the overwhelming preponderance of critical scholars maintaining that all three letters are clearly post-Pauline” (192). Following Ehrman, I will also operate under the assumption that the Pastorals share a single author (199, 201).
[3] The tradition of Paul as a defender of heresy can also be seen in the pseudepigraphical 3 Corinthians (Burke, Fakes, Forgeries, and Fictions, 174-175).
[4] Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 206.
[5] One interesting passage says, “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know… the bulwark of truth” (1 Tim. 3.14-15). Perhaps the forger anticipated that members of his community would object that Paul was never physically there decades prior. This author could then point to a passage like this and say that it was why Paul wrote rather than giving oral instruction in person all those years ago, and the letter had been lost and forgotten until its “rediscovery.” It is not hard to imagine the forger concocting oral “find stories” for the Pastorals in order to sell the readers on their legitimacy.
[6] Burke, Fakes, Forgeries, and Fictions, 157-158.; Other events of Paul’s life, such as his persecution at Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra are referenced (2 Tim 3.10-11), as well as other significant individuals such as Timothy’s grandmother Lois and mother Eunice (2 Tim 1.5), who are not named in the other epistles but may have been household names, so to speak, among the forger’s community.
[7] Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 205.
[8] Baum argues against Ehrman’s claim, saying that some in antiquity accepted the practice, such as Jerome, Tertullian, and Origen (389-391). However, even if some did not consider the practice to be deceptive, this does not answer whether or not the author of such documents had deceptive intentions. In the case of the Pastorals, the author makes a false authorial claim, and in doing so, claims Paul’s authority to make his own polemical text. He was not the historic Paul orally dictating to a scribe, or a translator, but a later author claiming Paul’s name and authority to bolster his own.
[9] Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 213.
[10] MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle, 14.; In this sense, it could perhaps be considered what Ehrman calls a “Counterforgery.”
[11] The “Jezebel” of Revelation 2:13-29 (like later Montanist prophetesses) and the female Christian ministers of Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan could also be representative of this Pauline movement.
[12] This is not to claim that the Pastorals are responding directly to the AoPT, but rather to the kinds of Pauline traditions found therein. Both reference later Pauline legends, such as his encounter with the lion and his defense alone before the Gentiles, among other shared traditions (see 2 Tim 4.16-17). But in using these legends, MacDonald argues that “the Pastoral Epistles were written to contradict the image of Paul in popular legends - and… the legends were told by women to justify their celibate ministries” (77). In the Pastorals, “Paul” forbids women to teach, while in the legends, he commissions them. In the Pastorals, women are saved through childbearing, but in the legends, those who remain chaste in all things are saved. Interestingly, due to their similarities, Ambrosiaster (5th c.) later commented on 2 Timothy, noting that the characters of Alexander, Demas, and Hermogenes are mentioned in “other scriptures”, such as the AoPT (Ibid., 62.). In the 10th or 11th century, a scholar added the phrase “those things he suffered on Thecla’s behalf” to 2 Timothy, as well as the names of Onesiphorus’ family members, who are only explicitly named in the AoPT (Ibid.).
Bibliography
Armin D. Baum, “Content and Form: Authorship Attribution and Pseudonymity in Ancient Speeches, Letters, Lectures, and Translations—A Rejoinder to Bart Ehrman”, Journal of Biblical Literature 136, no. 2 (2017): 381-403.
Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Dennis Ronald MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon, Philadelphia, PA: Westminister Press, 1983.
Tony Burke, Fakes, Forgeries, and Fictions: Writing Ancient and Modern Christian Apocrypha: Proceedings from The 2015 York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium, Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment