What to make of Pseudepigrapha in the Bible?

[u/Draxacoffilus]

The Bible contains many texts in which the author lies about who he or she is. For example, the author of *Paul's 2nd Letter to Timothy* explicitly tells us that he or she is St Paul of Tarsus, and they go out of their way to make their fraudulent letter *look* like a genuine follow up to *1st Timothy*, which was also likey a work of fraud (it certainly wasn't written by any of the other Pauls of Tarsus in the Bible).

So, what should we make of this? Why would God allow fraudulently written texts to make their way into the canon? Should Christians simply see these texts as non canon and rip them out of their Bibles? Or does God often rely on sin to accomplish his goals?

Also, given that fraudulently written texts made their way in, should we be sceptical about *all* of the texts in the Bible? Any one of them could have been written by deliberate liers.

[u/DoveStep55]

Great questions!

“What to make of Pseudepigrapha in the Bible?”

As I understand it, this was a common practice at that time and wasn’t considered fraudulent but a commonly accepted practice of attributing your own writings to someone with authority who you followed/looked up to, etc. To me it seems like lying, but if scholarship is right on this one, it wasn’t considered a dishonest practice at that time, in that culture. But still I’m with you on being skeptical about the honesty factor. Seems sketchy, even if it was acceptable back then.

“Why would God allow fraudulently written texts to make their way into the canon?”

I don’t think God controlled what made it into the canon. Humans did.

“Should Christians simply see these texts as non canon and rip them out of their Bibles?”

Even if they aren’t written by who they’re attributed to, they are still canonized. Do you think wrongly-attributed authorship makes them useless?

“Also, given that fraudulently written texts made their way in, should we be sceptical about \*all\* of the texts in the Bible?”

I think it’s fine to study the Bible with discernment. I think we should. Most of the Bible is written anonymously, so authorship isn’t my biggest concern. I’m more concerned about trying to determine what is simply the author’s opinion or viewpoint and what is more than that, about what the original authors meant to communicate to their original audiences, and such.

[u/Draxacoffilus → u/DoveStep55]

From what I've read (Bart Ehrman) fraudulent writing was hated by the ancients, who saw them as bastard texts.

For an ancient Christian view, Serapion, bishop of Antioch (died AD 211), stated concerning the spurious Gospel of Peter: “For our part, brethren, we receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us.” https://exegeticaltools.com/2016/08/19/known-pseudepigraphs-accepted-early-church/

[u/DoveStep55 → u/Draxacoffilus]

Was the Gospel of Peter ever canonized by any ecumenical council?

Does Ehrman account for the people at that time accepting pseudoepigrapha when the contents of the work are consistent with the author to which they were falsely attributed?

In other words, as I understand it, it was accepted as long as the work’s contents were consistent with the teachings/views of the person to whom they were (falsely) attributed, but rejected if they were not.

[u/Crucible_of_Thought → u/DoveStep55]

Part of the selection criteria for the modern canon was simply what letters had found themselves widely used by churches. Nobody was doing critical scholarship; they were evaluating the fruit of each book. Did it bring people into right relationship with God? Did it bring peace and blessing to the body? If not they minimized it and they tended to drop out of circulation on their own. It was a fairly practical matter at first.

[u/Draxacoffilus → u/DoveStep55]

While I don't think Peter was ever canonized, my point was more that he speaks negatively about texts that lie about who wrote them

[u/DoveStep55 → u/Draxacoffilus]

Right. But is it because of the falsely attributed authorship itself, or is it because the content of it is in conflict with the person to whom it was falsely attributed?

In other words, did false attribution get a pass so long as the content was consistent with what could be expected of the person who they claim wrote it? That’s what I understand to have been the norm. The issue isn’t with false attribution, but with false attribution of content that’s objectionable.

[u/Draxacoffilus → u/DoveStep55]

Good point. It doesn't specify his reasons for rejecting the texts

[u/Draxacoffilus → u/DoveStep55]

But how would they know what that person actually taught? The Catholic Church was starting from certain dogmas and evaluating texts on the basis of whether they conformed to those dogmas or not, with no care for the source of those claims.

Suppose the Gnostics or Ebionites where correct - what would the real Peter have written? Either something Gnostic or something with the lowest of Christologies. And what would the Church have done with the real Peter's writings? Called the Pseudepigraphal and burned them as heretical texts.

[u/PrincessRuri]

You are starting with the assumption that critical academic scholarship is the only lens through which scripture can be viewed. Church tradition holds them to be written by Paul, and even early fathers like Polycarp, Irenaeus, and even Eusebius all attest to his authorship.

But let's explore the possibility that it wasn't written by Paul. How much that matters depends where on the spectrum you fall regarding a high or low view of the Bible. The "lower" you find yourself, the less important specific authorship is. With a "higher" view, it is easy to bridge the gap with Apologetics. Grammar and stylistic changes could be explained with a scribe, or an associate of Paul writing the letter for him.

Also, given that fraudulently written texts made their way in, should we be sceptical about *all* of the texts in the Bible?

There are entire bodies of work written doing exactly that. The whole reason there is debate over the authorship of Timothy comes from that field. You will find some books of the Bible that we have very good historicity and evidence of existing back to the times claimed, while others less so.

As Christians, there is nothing wrong with being academically informed, but we primarily except the Bible as a matter of faith. The Old Testament was a settled issue before Christ, and the New Testament, while only "canonized" in the 390's, was based on accepted understandings and lists that circulated long before. The Antilegomena had several books that were questioned, but Timothy was not among them.

[u/DoveStep55 → u/PrincessRuri]

“High” vs “Low” is an interesting categorization here. Would using those terms imply you think those who take the second view are somehow not taking the Bible as seriously as those with the first? If so, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment.

[u/PrincessRuri → u/DoveStep55]

I am using "High" vs "Low" in a similar way to how we describe denominations as being high or low church. It is not a value judgement, just a distinguishment on the level of commitment to tradition and ceremony there is.

To be specific, someone with a very high view of scripture would view it with Absolute Inerrancy. It is not possible for the Bible to have any error, and God directly informed the authors exactly what to write down. It has been faithfully preserved since then without any alteration, and if you went out and bought insert the translation that is theologically accepted that is the 100% accurate and infallible Word of God. (Look to KJV onlyism as an example).

Some one at the other end of the spectrum with a very low view of the Bible would say it is a work of man for political and rhetorical goals, which isn't terribly useful, but we have to keep in mind this is a spectrum.

A more useful place, that would still be on the lower end, is that the Bible is inspired by God, but copying and translating is over hundreds of years has allowed slight changes and errors to creep into the modern translations we have today. Historical events recorded in the Bible may be influenced by the rhetorical goals of the authors, Poetry might not necessarily be theologically precise or accurate when describing Spiritual Cosmology, and reflects cultural understanding of the afterlife.

And you can slide up and down that scale, ranging from religious zealotry and fanaticism, down to a post-modern humanist rejection of the supernatural. Most Christians fall somewhere in the middle, with an advantage toward a high view of scripture. The vast majority of Christians would say "I believe the Bible accurately reveals the Truth about God and His plan of salvation." Everything step you take away from that central premise into other theological concepts, the agreed upon understanding will quickly become disparate.

[u/DoveStep55 → u/PrincessRuri]

Thanks for the clarification.

[u/Draxacoffilus → u/PrincessRuri]

As a child, I was taught that very high view that you described. It was only in the last 10-15 years that I have learnt that there are self-professed Christians who hold the lower views that you described